From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 00:28:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:28:29 +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 AAA16710 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:28:23 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic66.cais.com [207.226.56.66]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA13749 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:28:28 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980331092811.006a8c50@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:28:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980319150215.006eece4@pop.mindspring.com> 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 03:02 PM 3/19/98 -0500, Michael 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. I understand that BLML is a laws forum, not a bidding forum, but just FTR... I play in a number of partnerships (I don't think them all that "rare") that do not use Jacoby transfers over 1NT openings; so does my Aunt Tillie, whose weekly ladies' kitchen-table game has been using the same methods for the last 40 years. For either of us, the "non-existent" 2S bid above would be assumed to show a maximal heart raise (the only assumption consistent with opener's rebidding over responder's shutout bid) and to be otherwise natural. As a TD or AC member, I would use that assumption as the basis for evaluating responder's LAs. The notion of assuming short spades is, for both me and Aunt Tillie, from outer space. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 00:33:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:33:36 +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 AAA16739 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:33:30 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id JAA00514; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:35:57 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma000382; Tue, 31 Mar 98 09:35:32 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21235; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:31:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199803311431.JAA21235@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 31 Mar 98 14:22:25 GMT Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk mlfrench@writeme.com @ Internet wrote: >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. Perhaps I am out of order commenting on something which has arisen out of another SO's regulations, but I was surprised to read this. To me this is unacceptable. To say "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")." is self-contradictory. If a partnership has the agreement that the auction is an attempt to deceive the opponents, then, IMO, it is a deception which is "protected by a concealed partnership understanding or experience", and hence prohibited by L73E. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 00:48:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:48:37 +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 AAA16798 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:48:30 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic66.cais.com [207.226.56.66]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA14130 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:48:36 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980331094819.006ce39c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:48:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980319211532.006f0c54@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 09:15 PM 3/19/98 -0500, Michael wrote: >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? L16: "Players are authorized to base their calls... on information from legal calls... To base a call... on other extraneous information may be an infraction..." The information conveyed by a proper review of the auction is "information from legal calls", whereas the information conveyed by an alert or lack of an alert is "other extraneous information", hence the distinction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 01:45:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 01:45:43 +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 BAA17130 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 01:45:37 +1000 Received: from default (client85f8.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.248]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA00317; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:45:26 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:22:33 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5cb8$d3ff3e60$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: 30 March 1998 16:22 Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. >Grattan Endicott wrote:> >David Stevenson wrote: > 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."> >-- Add to my previous notes:- Looking up the exchanges with EK during the drafting of the 1997 laws, I am able to add something more to the general knowledge about the change in Law 20F1. There was no intention to change the effect of the Law as it was written in 1987. The addition of the parenthesis was for the purpose of establishing the effect of the word 'full' by making it clear that a 'full explanation' includes explanation about calls available but not made. That is, to ensure that SOs by instruction to TDs did not interpret that law as requiring explanation only of calls made. There was no purpose to alter the position as it was under the 1987 laws but only to clarify the intention of the law. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 02:54:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 02:54:00 +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 CAA17516 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 02:53:54 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic66.cais.com [207.226.56.66]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA16555 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:53:58 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980331115342.006d0a0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:53:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychic Controls In-Reply-To: <199803310217.SAA15548@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:17 PM 3/30/98 -0800, Jeff 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? [Hand snipped] > 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? [Further discussion snipped] I agree with the director that this is an MI situation (if not, perhaps, with the awarding of A+/A- rather than a possibly adjusted result). The fact that you have an agreement that 3D on this sequence is "not correctible" means that you have, in effect, an agreement that the original 2H bid can be made on a hand that wants to play 3D or 3DX (or, I would bet, 3C or 3CX, which would be revealed by a follow-up 3C bid) in preference to any (other) doubled contract. Knowing that partner might have such a hand, to describe 2H just as "both majors" is an incomplete and inadequate explanation; adding the word "ostensibly" does not get you off the hook. In other words, it sounds to me like 2H was a conventional call covering multiple hand types, and the subsequent 3D bid was a follow-up that revealed which of the covered hand types was held. West's 2H bid was consistent with your actual (if implicit) partnership agreement, which came to light (in a less than clear fashion) only when the explanation of the subsequent 3D bid was given. Your "real" agreements were not violated; the issue of psychs and psychic controls is a red herring which seems to have merely confused the issue. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 04:49:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 04:49:14 +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 EAA17828 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 04:49:04 +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 KAA10952 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:48:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA16103; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:51:34 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:51:34 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199803311851.KAA16103@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: |I wrote: |> 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? | |[Further discussion snipped] | |I agree with the director that this is an MI situation (if not, perhaps, |with the awarding of A+/A- rather than a possibly adjusted result). The |fact that you have an agreement that 3D on this sequence is "not |correctible" means that you have, in effect, an agreement that the original |2H bid can be made on a hand that wants to play 3D or 3DX (or, I would bet, |3C or 3CX, which would be revealed by a follow-up 3C bid) in preference to |any (other) doubled contract. Knowing that partner might have such a hand, |to describe 2H just as "both majors" is an incomplete and inadequate |explanation; adding the word "ostensibly" does not get you off the hook. | |In other words, it sounds to me like 2H was a conventional call covering |multiple hand types, and the subsequent 3D bid was a follow-up that |revealed which of the covered hand types was held. West's 2H bid was |consistent with your actual (if implicit) partnership agreement, which came |to light (in a less than clear fashion) only when the explanation of the |subsequent 3D bid was given. Your "real" agreements were not violated; the |issue of psychs and psychic controls is a red herring which seems to have |merely confused the issue. By that reasoning, no action is a psych. "1S" opens partner. "Alert" cry I. "Please explain." "He either has a normal 1S opener, which will happen 99% of the time, or maybe he'll have some type of weak hand, probably with exactly 2 or 3 spades and a long minor, in which case, he'll pass my response, even if it is forcing." In the original case, partner could have bid 3D preemptive initially. (In my opinion, he should have.) He chose to mislead the opponents instead. There is some sense behind that; many play that the next double is takeout of hearts. If these opponents do, then the auction might go all pass. In a somewhat similar case, 4 years ago, the opponents did have that agreement and we were -350 in 2H undoubled. (That was the last time this partner made this particular psych.) If indeed, this was misinformation, was the non-offending side damaged by it? Does anyone believe that South (with HAKQ10xx) was fooled? (...which is exactly why West should have preempted in the first place.) --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 05:28:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 05:28:18 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17956 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 05:28:09 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA26684; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:27:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from 83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.83) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026561; Tue Mar 31 13:26:38 1998 Received: by 83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5CB0.ABD67500@83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net>; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:24:10 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5CB0.ABD67500@83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Patrick'" Subject: RE: Passive TD-ship Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:24:03 -0500 Encoding: 132 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I very much agree, Patrick. Could one add arrogant, preposterous, grossly unfair to the NOS, and generally incompetent? Why is it that some folks refuse to attempt to achieve a result through play of the board whenever legitimately possible? The Laws and conditions of contest are intended to facilitate playing bridge competitively, not ruling the game invasively. There will be many situations when a valid result cannot be obtained through play due to one irregularity or another, but a TD should seek to minimize assigned and/or ajusted scores in favour of what results from playing bridge whenever possible. Taking boards away to speed up the game is often counterproductive to harmony at the club level. People who paid to play want their money's worth even more than getting out early. Slow play can better be discouraged by proceduaral penalty against the offending pair(s) following plenty of warning. That doesn't warp the result for the rest of the field. Taking boards away at Swiss can even reward deliberate slow play. A decent team playing an excellent team, seeing the wheels fall off for opponents on Board one of the 7 board set might be better able to nurse the 10 to 13 IMP advantage over a six board set. They certainly should not rush their bidding or play thereafter...they need to play their best. But they should not be encouraged to drag their feet in the hopes that a TD will shorten the round for them. (Again a penalty might be assessed if the dilatory tactics were extreme enough to warrant one.) If the conditions of contest do not prohibit starting a board while time has not yet expired in a round, it would be best to allow that board to be played. If boards are NOT to be begun after a certain time, players should be so advised at that time, but should be allowed to finish a board once begun. ("Do NOT start another board. Finish promptly and turn in your results") To allow a board once begun to be cancelled encourages slowness by a player who realizes he has probably over- or misbid into a bad swing or knows that he has bungled the play of defence of the hand. We do not want to create such an ethically negative opportunity for him. Vitold's general approach seems to be a good one, though of course if must be followed within the confines of the Laws and SO regulations. Craig Senior ---------- From: Patrick[SMTP:tripack@ihug.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 12:10 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Passive TD-ship 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 Wed Apr 1 06:10:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:10:09 +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 GAA18082 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:10:03 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id VAA05873 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:09:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 31 Mar 98 21:08 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Revoke, claim, and confusion To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following problem was posted on a backwater bridge conference (cix) but I thought it might present an interesting challenge here. Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy, and the remaining cards are: North (declarer, my partner) S 6 H 8 D 9 C 7 West (Perpetrator) East (hapless bystander) S none S none H none H 96 D A D 72 C QJ6 C none South (me, dummy)) S none H none D K C K109 essentially, things aren't going as well as they might, and the contract of 6 spades is pretty much doomed, so partner is just playing it out without much real thought. He calls for the King of Clubs, west plays the Ace of Diamonds, Declarer the 7 of clubs and East chucks a diamond. Declarer, observing that there seem to be no clubs left, looks confused, and then claims the rest (the diamond and heart in his hand going on the 'master' clubs, at which point the full horror of the situation becomes apparent. What is your ruling?!!!!! Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 06:19:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:19:43 +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 GAA18107 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:19:37 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic26.cais.com [207.226.56.26]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA19644 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:19:42 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980331151927.00691844@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:19:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychic Controls In-Reply-To: <199803311851.KAA16103@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:51 AM 3/31/98 -0800, Jeff wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >|I wrote: >|> 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? >| >|[Further discussion snipped] >| >|I agree with the director that this is an MI situation (if not, perhaps, >|with the awarding of A+/A- rather than a possibly adjusted result). The >|fact that you have an agreement that 3D on this sequence is "not >|correctible" means that you have, in effect, an agreement that the original >|2H bid can be made on a hand that wants to play 3D or 3DX (or, I would bet, >|3C or 3CX, which would be revealed by a follow-up 3C bid) in preference to >|any (other) doubled contract. Knowing that partner might have such a hand, >|to describe 2H just as "both majors" is an incomplete and inadequate >|explanation; adding the word "ostensibly" does not get you off the hook. >| >|In other words, it sounds to me like 2H was a conventional call covering >|multiple hand types, and the subsequent 3D bid was a follow-up that >|revealed which of the covered hand types was held. West's 2H bid was >|consistent with your actual (if implicit) partnership agreement, which came >|to light (in a less than clear fashion) only when the explanation of the >|subsequent 3D bid was given. Your "real" agreements were not violated; the >|issue of psychs and psychic controls is a red herring which seems to have >|merely confused the issue. > >By that reasoning, no action is a psych. "1S" opens partner. >"Alert" cry I. "Please explain." "He either has a normal 1S opener, >which will happen 99% of the time, or maybe he'll have some type >of weak hand, probably with exactly 2 or 3 spades and a long minor, >in which case, he'll pass my response, even if it is forcing." I don't think this analogy holds. Jeff covered this case (the "real" psyche) in the remarks I omitted from his original message (after the remarks relevant to the point I was making) when he pointed out that passing a forcing bid to reveal a psyche was a whole different kettle of fish from invoking a control agreement, with which I agree entirely. I think a more appropriate analogy would be something like 1S-P-2S-X-3D/alert. Opp: "Please explain the auction." "1S was a normal opening and 2S was a normal raise, but we have an agreement that 3D on this auction is not correctible." Now I would rule MI, as, indeed, 1S should have been alerted and the opponents told that it showed either a normal 1S opening or a weak hand with a long minor (or whatever). >In the original case, partner could have bid 3D preemptive >initially. (In my opinion, he should have.) He chose to >mislead the opponents instead. There is some sense behind that; >many play that the next double is takeout of hearts. If these >opponents do, then the auction might go all pass. In a somewhat >similar case, 4 years ago, the opponents did have that agreement >and we were -350 in 2H undoubled. (That was the last time this >partner made this particular psych.) > >If indeed, this was misinformation, was the non-offending side >damaged by it? Does anyone believe that South (with HAKQ10xx) >was fooled? (...which is exactly why West should have preempted >in the first place.) I tried to be careful to make it clear that I agree with the director only insofar as he ruled that there was MI, i.e. that the explanation of 2H was incomplete. Whether the opponents were damaged is another issue entirely. For me to find damage, I would have to be convinced (among other things) that had 2H been explained in such a way as to cover the possibility of West's actual holding, either North would not have passed 2H or South would not have doubled it; this is far from clear. I would not accept a claim of damage based on anything N-S did only after 3D was bid and explained. If there's a troubling note in this case, it is this: The presumptive inadequacy of the explanation of 2H was revealed solely by the proper and correct alert and explanation of the subsequent 3D. Had E-W been a less ethical pair than Jeff and his partner, East would not have alerted 3D, if asked he would have replied with "no agreement", East would have explained to the committee that he simply chose to psyche 2H, West would have explained that 3D was a systemically impossible bid and that he inferred that when partner ran from 2HX he couldn't really have hearts, thus his pass, and they probably would have gotten away with it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 06:27:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:27:00 +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 GAA18132 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:26:53 +1000 Received: from default (cph5.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.5]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA18649 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:26:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199803312026.WAA18649@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:27:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > 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. Do we play on the same planet, Marv? On my planet, Law 40B is in force: A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. In my book, you are in comtempt of Law 40B. You are trying to win by getting your opponents to misinterpret your partnership understanding. You do it on purpose. As long as you think it is legal, it would be unreasonable to say that you are cheating. I could even be convinced that you fail to be persuaded that your practice is illegal just because some director rules against you. But I really think you ought to dodge bullets like these by appealing, not by arguing the fine point with the director. You might want to review the "Scope" section of the laws. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 06:27:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:27:00 +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 GAA18131 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:26:51 +1000 Received: from default (cph5.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.5]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA18641 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:26:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199803312026.WAA18641@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:27:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:51:34 -0800 > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Psychic Controls > Eric Landau wrote: (Further snippage) > | > |[Further discussion snipped] > | > |I agree with the director that this is an MI situation (if not, perhaps, > |with the awarding of A+/A- rather than a possibly adjusted result). The > |fact that you have an agreement that 3D on this sequence is "not > |correctible" means that you have, in effect, an agreement that the original > |2H bid can be made on a hand that wants to play 3D or 3DX (or, I would bet, > |3C or 3CX, which would be revealed by a follow-up 3C bid) in preference to > |any (other) doubled contract. Knowing that partner might have such a hand, > |to describe 2H just as "both majors" is an incomplete and inadequate > |explanation; adding the word "ostensibly" does not get you off the hook. Me too. Well almost. I guess it depends heavily on how well we expect "ostensibly" to be understood. It happens to be my favorite word this month, so I would not have felt misinformed, and thus there would have been no irregularity. > By that reasoning, no action is a psych. "1S" opens partner. > "Alert" cry I. "Please explain." "He either has a normal 1S opener, > which will happen 99% of the time, or maybe he'll have some type > of weak hand, probably with exactly 2 or 3 spades and a long minor, > in which case, he'll pass my response, even if it is forcing." I don't buy that. The point here is, and "ostensibly" demonstrates this, that your actual agreement is what Eric says. > In the original case, partner could have bid 3D preemptive > initially. (In my opinion, he should have.) He chose to > mislead the opponents instead. There is some sense behind that; > many play that the next double is takeout of hearts. If these > opponents do, then the auction might go all pass. Your competent opponents are likely to understand that the double is for penalties when 2H is explained in a way where it is clear that it does not promise any suit for sure. > In a somewhat > similar case, 4 years ago, the opponents did have that agreement > and we were -350 in 2H undoubled. (That was the last time this > partner made this particular psych.) > > If indeed, this was misinformation, was the non-offending side > damaged by it? Passing 2H would have got them a better score. Not as good as bidding and winning a game contract, but still better. Passing 2H is a distinct possibility on the South hand. Who do we give the benefit of the doubt? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 06:37:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:37:12 +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 GAA18178 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:37:06 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic26.cais.com [207.226.56.26]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA20156 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:37:12 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980331153657.0069371c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:36:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Revoke, claim, and confusion In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:08 PM 3/31/98 BST-1, twm wrote: >Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy, and the remaining cards are: > > > North (declarer, my partner) > S 6 > H 8 > D 9 > C 7 > >West (Perpetrator) East (hapless bystander) >S none S none >H none H 96 >D A D 72 >C QJ6 C none > > South (me, dummy)) > S none > H none > D K > C K109 > >essentially, things aren't going as well as they might, and the contract >of 6 spades is pretty much doomed, so partner is just playing it out >without much real thought. He calls for the King of Clubs, west plays the >Ace of Diamonds, Declarer the 7 of clubs and East chucks a diamond. >Declarer, observing that there seem to be no clubs left, looks confused, >and then claims the rest (the diamond and heart in his hand going on the >'master' clubs, at which point the full horror of the situation becomes >apparent. What is your ruling?!!!!! N-S get all the tricks. N, as indicated in his statement of claim, plays the C10 from dummy at trick 11. When this gets covered, discarding a red card from hand is no longer a rational play (as he now knows that he does not, in fact, hold the master clubs), so he is allowed to ruff, score the DK at trick 12, and concede to the high club, which trick comes back due to the revoke penalty. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 07:04:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:04:09 +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 HAA18285 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:04:03 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA01623 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:03:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from 83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.83) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001528; Tue Mar 31 15:03:08 1998 Received: by 83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5CBE.26CC3260@83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net>; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:00:40 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5CBE.26CC3260@83.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Revoke, claim, and confusion Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:00:33 -0500 Encoding: 61 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The revoke does not appear to be established (63A) as OFFENDER has not led, played, indicated, claimed or conceded. It looks as though it must be corrected (62A), with a (presumably small) club substituted for the DA which becomes a major penalty card(62B1). The claim will doubtless now be contested, and defence appears certain to win two tricks, all but the remaining trump, regardless of the line of play...but that's what they were going to get anyhow. The penalty card does not seem to affect the result that would have been obtained absent the revoke. In so ruling, the director would appear to satisfy the L70A mandate to adjudicate equitably to both sides. But WHY did defender play the diamond ace in the first place? You call him perpetrator...was he really trying to "operate" in some bizarre fashion? Or just asleep, as looks to be the case. :-) Craig Senior ---------- From: Tim West-meads[SMTP:twm@cix.compulink.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 4:08 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: Revoke, claim, and confusion The following problem was posted on a backwater bridge conference (cix) but I thought it might present an interesting challenge here. Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy, and the remaining cards are: North (declarer, my partner) S 6 H 8 D 9 C 7 West (Perpetrator) East (hapless bystander) S none S none H none H 96 D A D 72 C QJ6 C none South (me, dummy)) S none H none D K C K109 essentially, things aren't going as well as they might, and the contract of 6 spades is pretty much doomed, so partner is just playing it out without much real thought. He calls for the King of Clubs, west plays the Ace of Diamonds, Declarer the 7 of clubs and East chucks a diamond. Declarer, observing that there seem to be no clubs left, looks confused, and then claims the rest (the diamond and heart in his hand going on the 'master' clubs, at which point the full horror of the situation becomes apparent. What is your ruling?!!!!! Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 07:24:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:24:56 +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 HAA18343 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:24:41 +1000 Received: from default (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA21017 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:24:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199803312124.XAA21017@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:24:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Revoke, claim, and confusion Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads asked > The following problem was posted on a backwater bridge conference (cix) > but I thought it might present an interesting challenge here. > > Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy, and the remaining cards are: > > > North (declarer, my partner) > S 6 > H 8 > D 9 > C 7 > > West (Perpetrator) East (hapless bystander) > S none S none > H none H 96 > D A D 72 > C QJ6 C none > > South (me, dummy)) > S none > H none > D K > C K109 > > essentially, things aren't going as well as they might, and the contract > of 6 spades is pretty much doomed, so partner is just playing it out > without much real thought. He calls for the King of Clubs, west plays the > Ace of Diamonds, Declarer the 7 of clubs and East chucks a diamond. > Declarer, observing that there seem to be no clubs left, looks confused, > and then claims the rest (the diamond and heart in his hand going on the > 'master' clubs, at which point the full horror of the situation becomes > apparent. What is your ruling? Did EW acquiesce? Probably not. In that case, the revoke was not established (L63A3). Play has ceased, and the director must evaluate the situation with the constraint that the DA would be a major penalty card. It looks as if EW will still make two tricks. In the unlikely case that EW acquiesced and then (apparently immediately) discovered the problem, the revoke is established, play has ceased, and the director evaluates: West is going to win two club tricks and pay a two-trick penalty, or West will win only one club trick and pay a one-trick penalty. No tricks to EW. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 07:56:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:56:22 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18441 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:56:16 +1000 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA19842 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:56:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980331153657.0069371c@pop.cais.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:59:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Revoke, claim, and confusion Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: >>Spades are trumps, the lead is in dummy, and the remaining cards are: >> >> >> North (declarer, my partner) >> S 6 >> H 8 >> D 9 >> C 7 >> >>West (Perpetrator) East (hapless bystander) >>S none S none >>H none H 96 >>D A D 72 >>C QJ6 C none >> >> South (me, dummy)) >> S none >> H none >> D K >> C K109 >> >>essentially, things aren't going as well as they might, and the contract >>of 6 spades is pretty much doomed, so partner is just playing it out >>without much real thought. He calls for the King of Clubs, west plays the >>Ace of Diamonds, Declarer the 7 of clubs and East chucks a diamond. >>Declarer, observing that there seem to be no clubs left, looks confused, >>and then claims the rest (the diamond and heart in his hand going on the >>'master' clubs, at which point the full horror of the situation becomes >>apparent. What is your ruling?!!!!! Eric Landau responded: >N-S get all the tricks. N, as indicated in his statement of claim, plays >the C10 from dummy at trick 11. When this gets covered, discarding a red >card from hand is no longer a rational play (as he now knows that he does >not, in fact, hold the master clubs), so he is allowed to ruff, score the >DK at trick 12, and concede to the high club, which trick comes back due to >the revoke penalty. But the revoke was never established (an opponent's claim establishes your revoke only if you acquiesce in the claim, which presumably didn't happen here). So West must correct the revoke, leaving the diamond A as a penalty card. Play ceases, since there has been a claim, and the director determines the result, trying to achieve equity. That's easy here, North makes the two tricks that were always there (the only way North could make another trick would be to ruff the next club and have East discard a heart - now North can concede a heart, and West will have to discard the diamond A, leaving East to lead to South's high diamond; but there is no justification in the Laws for forcing East to pitch a heart, and doubtful points are supposed to be resolved against the claimer). [ObBio: I've been lurking for several months. I'm a club director from Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and I'm allergic to cats.] _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 07:57:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:57:19 +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 HAA18456 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 07:57:10 +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 NAA02891 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:56:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA16410; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:59:28 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:59:28 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199803312159.NAA16410@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoth Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark : |> Eric Landau wrote: | |(Further snippage) | |> | |> |[Further discussion snipped] |> | |> |I agree with the director that this is an MI situation (if not, perhaps, |> |with the awarding of A+/A- rather than a possibly adjusted result). The |> |fact that you have an agreement that 3D on this sequence is "not |> |correctible" means that you have, in effect, an agreement that the original |> |2H bid can be made on a hand that wants to play 3D or 3DX (or, I would bet, |> |3C or 3CX, which would be revealed by a follow-up 3C bid) in preference to |> |any (other) doubled contract. Knowing that partner might have such a hand, |> |to describe 2H just as "both majors" is an incomplete and inadequate |> |explanation; adding the word "ostensibly" does not get you off the hook. | |Me too. Well almost. I guess it depends heavily on how well we |expect "ostensibly" to be understood. It happens to be my favorite |word this month, so I would not have felt misinformed, and thus there |would have been no irregularity. "Ostensibly," to me, means, "this is what the bid means, but he might be psyching." That's the real agreement: he's supposed to have the majors, but psyching is a possible, but unlikely, occurrance here, so I think the opponents should be alerted to that fact. I guess in the future, I'll explain, "both majors, but a psych is not wildly unlikely in this situation." Opener, by the way, is expected to compete with a suitable hand, although in this particular case, that'll only usually be the possesion of a five-card major, since responder can easily have four small (or three to an honor in a pinch---what else do you do with QJ10x Q109 xxx xxx? I'd bid 2H and hope that my suit texture stops them from being able to double.) As far as agreement goes, what frequency of psychs implies an agreement? Once every four years in a regular partnership? That frequency seems to me to be a fairly rare psych, and thus a real psych, not a part of the convention. I'd guess that the auction 2H (weak)-(p)-2S is psyched much more frequently than that, particulary if 2S is not forcing. I'm certain that I've psyched 3C-(p)-3NT at least twice since then. (It's my favorite psych. In fact, I'm sure I've made 3NT after psyching it in that auction at least twice in the last four years.) Does that make 3NT a conventional raise or 2S a convention? |> By that reasoning, no action is a psych. "1S" opens partner. |> "Alert" cry I. "Please explain." "He either has a normal 1S opener, |> which will happen 99% of the time, or maybe he'll have some type |> of weak hand, probably with exactly 2 or 3 spades and a long minor, |> in which case, he'll pass my response, even if it is forcing." | |I don't buy that. The point here is, and "ostensibly" demonstrates |this, that your actual agreement is what Eric says. The actual agreement, which can be demonstrated in print (and on my web site, see "Twisted Swine" http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/system/tswine.html which even includes discussion of followups to psychs) is that 2H shows the majors. Common sense, however, suggests that once partner is limited to a moderately weak hand and RHO shows a strong hand, a weak hand might well want to blow some smoke. Knowing also that experts frequently use takeout doubles in this situation, a creative player might choose to psych, nailing them due to their system. Moreover, the same argument applies to all psychs. When a psych is revealed (perhaps by passing a forcing bid), something is now known about the psycher's hand. For example, if the bidding goes 1S-2H; pass, we know that the opener didn't psych with a 19-count and 1-5 in the majors. Does that mean that we have an agreement that 1S shows either a normal 1S opening or the set of hands on which it might be sensible (at least to some) to psych? No, of course not. In the case above, the only hands on which it makes any sense at all to psych 2H are those with shortness in hearts. Most hands with shortness can work; with a 3-suiter, the psycher can redouble for takeout; with a one-suiter, bid it; and with a minor two-suiter, bid 2NT. This is not a case of agreement, but of bridge logic. Few would choose to psych 2H here with spades and a minor, simply because they won't have a chance to get out into their best suit. Does this have to be explained, or is it sufficient to let an opponent figure it out? I know these things, because I've thought about them; I suspect my partners know about them because I've written about them. I try to tell opponents about these ideas clearly and succinctly, but to add a couple of sentences to cover possible but very unlikely occurrances seems wrong and misleading. I think it'd be grossly misleading to tell the opposition, "2H shows a weak hand and either both majors, a single minor, both minors, or a three-suiter short in hearts," because almost all the time, the bidder will hold both majors. Once in awhile, he won't, but isn't that what psychs are all about? Indeed, I think it'd be very advantageous to be able to explain as above; no opponent would know what a double meant, or what other continuations meant. But they have a reasonable chance if they hear that 2H is the majors. Compare with a 1S opening alerted and explained as, "either a normal 1S opening or ...". Ignoring for the moment legality of such a convention, wouldn't that cause all sorts of confusion unless someone thought to ask, "what's the real likelihood of the various hands?" "Oh, it's almost always a normal 1S opening." Full disclosure suggests that one say, "nearly always shows this, but rarely could have that," but even that seems more misleading than helpful. |> In the original case, partner could have bid 3D preemptive |> initially. (In my opinion, he should have.) He chose to |> mislead the opponents instead. There is some sense behind that; |> many play that the next double is takeout of hearts. If these |> opponents do, then the auction might go all pass. | |Your competent opponents are likely to understand that the double is |for penalties when 2H is explained in a way where it is clear that |it does not promise any suit for sure. I mean that many good pairs, knowing what is going on, still choose to play takeout doubles here. They figure that they win on frequency. With several partners, by the way, *I* play takeout doubles there. How much awareness of bridge logic is assumed? I tell the opponents about any situation in which I remember having heard partner psych. I try also to add some note (usually "ostensibly") when I think partner thinks this might be a good spot to psych. I've concluded that doubling 2H here should show length or shortness in hearts. Responder will run if there's been a psych, and advancer can know doubler's handtype. If psycher decides to doublecross and stick out a double in his short suit, he's going to go for a very large number once in awhile. I don't know anyone who has the guts to do that! |> In a somewhat |> similar case, 4 years ago, the opponents did have that agreement |> and we were -350 in 2H undoubled. (That was the last time this |> partner made this particular psych.) |> |> If indeed, this was misinformation, was the non-offending side |> damaged by it? | |Passing 2H would have got them a better score. Not as good as |bidding and winning a game contract, but still better. Passing 2H |is a distinct possibility on the South hand. Who do we give the |benefit of the doubt? South was the player with possible misinformation. He can pretty much tell that LHO has psyched. There are two cases: (1) he psyched. If so, and if he thinks 2H is the best spot given that, he should pass. (2) 2H was real. Then partner has severe heart shortage, probably a void. Partner didn't act. Partner is broke. Here, passing is almost sure to be best. In any case, South's passing shouldn't be an issue. Most play that advancer's pass is forcing (just about everyone I know plays it forcing through at least 2H) so doubler shouldn't be able to pass systemically. Doubling for whatever reason isn't damaging. So N/S reach the psych's revelation without damage. They've been told that a psych has occurred. Misinformation cannot damage them now. I think :) --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 08:22:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:22:28 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18490 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:22:21 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA28614 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA00555; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:22:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:22:20 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803312222.RAA00555@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychic Controls X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > "both majors, but a psych is not wildly unlikely in this situation." Isn't "both majors, but partner has psyched it twice in the last four years" an adequate explanation? Whether or not a psych is likely seems to me a matter of general bridge knowledge, but the fact of a specific partner's having psyched a specific call is partnership experience. Better yet, precede the above by "non-forcing," and say something about the suit lengths promised. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 08:43:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:43:33 +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 IAA18583 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:43:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015251; 31 Mar 98 22:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:52:10 +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: <01bd5c9b$254f9260$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >> 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! >{{ I have much sympathy with these thoughts. That is why I did try >to persuade Edgar. But unsuccessfully. Obviously I have no problem >with the thought of another look at it. I do not know what Ton, or the >Committee without Edgar, will think. In the meantime I cannot drift >away at this stage in what I say from the 'law according to Edgar' - >although I would hope TDs are tolerant and relaxed about what the >players do unless there is advantage taken and damage caused, as >Edgar suggested there could be. (I am not altogether clear where >you got your opinion on the law from? - has some authority made a >statement?) }} Well, I believe it to be an opinion shared by various other people. Despite your arguments above, I believe that the Law is clear, and that it allows you to ask about individual calls subject to law 16 as stated, and other laws such as 72A1 and 72B1. When "advantage is taken" there is no problem, surely, about ruling under one of these other 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 Wed Apr 1 08:57:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:57:36 +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 IAA18636 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:57:27 +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 OAA09867 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:57:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA16536; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:59:58 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:59:58 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199803312259.OAA16536@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Wilner wrote: |> From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) |> "both majors, but a psych is not wildly unlikely in this situation." | |Isn't "both majors, but partner has psyched it twice in the last |four years" an adequate explanation? Sure. In the same situation, 2D means diamonds and hearts. Should I say, "both reds. Partner has never psyched this call?" I know that there's a small chance he will anyway. |Whether or not a psych is likely seems to me a matter of general bridge |knowledge, but the fact of a specific partner's having psyched a |specific call is partnership experience. It seems to be that summarizing what one knows about partner is better. Just because he's not psyched 2D, but has psyched 2H doesn't mean that a psych of 2D is out of the question. And not all players are extremely familiar with this sort of situation; I think everyone should be told that there's some chance of a psych. Preferably, all this should be done succinctly. I have chosen to do that by saying, "ostensibly" before any explanation of a call that has a reasonable chance of a psych. If someone really doesn't understand what that means, cannot they ask, "why do you say 'ostensibly?'" I'll continue, "that's what he's supposed to have, but this is a situation in which a psych might occur. It's not likely, but it's possible. In fact, he performed this psych once before, long ago." My WBF convention card simplifies this by including an area for psychs. These are listed, by the way. |Better yet, precede the above by "non-forcing," and say something |about the suit lengths promised. Good point. It never occurred to me that anyone would think that in such a situation that 2H would show a good hand; indeed, with some partners I play that 2S there shows a decent hand, one that can tolerate a raise in competition. That I state expressly. It seems pretty obvious that after we are doubled in 1NT, most bids are going to be nonforcing. (For what it's worth, *I* once psyched 2S there *because* it showed a good hand, trying to avoid getting doubled with QJ109 xxx xxx xxx. If partner raises and I get doubled, there's probably no matchpoint difference between -1100 and -1400. Better still, it worked.) Suit lengths promised...again, how do you quickly say, "usually at least 4-4, but once in a blue moon, a good 3 card suit might be one of them, and once in a very long time, he might have shortness in either or both of the two suits." Full disclosure isn't supposed to take up most of the round, is it? :) Again, here common sense should apply. When suits are promised, without further clarifcation, four or more is assumed. We all know that sometimes suits need to be stretched a little. If it's important, the opposition should ask for further information; asking about the alternatives available will give them a better idea of how likely there is to be a stretch than I can likely tell them, since these are not real common auctions, and only a very few partnerships know enough about each other in weird situations in order to be able to answer this sort of question accurately. All in all, I believe in full disclosure, but there's a limit to how long I'm willing to take to mention obscure possibilities. Someone please explain why this "misexplanation" should cause an adjustment to Ave+/Ave- or if not, how to explain to ACBL directors that they are confused about their reading of the convention charts. I'd also like to have a better paragraph to replace what's there, so that the C&C committee can be given it with the appropriate suggestion. As has been pointed out already, if I had simply stated "both majors" the first time and failed to alert or say anything the second, then acted mystified later, surprised by the psych, there'd be no thought of an adjustment. No one is going to know that my partner once psyched a similar call in a non-ACBL event four years ago. It'd not be hard for me to stop trying to remember partners' psychs. Being ethical is all well and good, but if it will cause endless grief and misguided disadvantageous score adjustments, am I not strongly encouraged just to be lazy and not say anything in ACBL events? Of course I am, and I don't want to be, so I'm asking for help on how to talk the powers that be into getting this right. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 19:22:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:22:22 +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 TAA20271 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:22:17 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2606.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.6]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA15869 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 10:22:10 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Active_Directorship Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 00:58:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5d00$d9eccd40$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 If I get my hiking boots on it'll be an orgy. Some sort of a blind date:-)) -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 10:34 AM Subject: RE: Active_Directorship >###### 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 Wed Apr 1 19:33:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:33:36 +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 TAA20319 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:33:28 +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 BAA13154 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 01:32:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804010932.BAA13154@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 01:30:51 -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: Jens & Bodil > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 12:27 PM > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > 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. > > Do we play on the same planet, Marv? On my planet, Law 40B is in > force: > > A player may not make a call or play based on a special > partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably > be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side > discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation. > > In my book, you are in comtempt of Law 40B. You are trying to win by > getting your opponents to misinterpret your partnership > understanding. You do it on purpose. As long as you think it is > legal, it would be unreasonable to say that you are cheating. I > could even be convinced that you fail to be persuaded that your > practice is illegal just because some director rules against you. > Perhaps I should have made more clear that we disclose everything. The explanation following the Alerted asking bid is this: "That is an asking bid. It says nothing about his (her) hand. It only asks what I have in the suit and the strength of my hand. Please make no assumptions about his (her) hand." If the opponents want to make an assumption after we tell them not to, it's at their own risk. We have disclosed "the use of such call in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." The method described above was recommended by Stayman himself, as I remember. The currently popular methods of using the convention reveal far too much about both players' hands. When the bidding goes 1NT=2C=2D=2S=2NT=3NT and responder always has four hearts and five spades, the opening leader knows too much. Against me the leader might find that the dummy has a 2=2=3=6 hand. I also use asking bids in responding to weak two bids and preemptive three bids, as an unpassed hand. Partner bids notrump with Qx, xxx, or better, otherwise bids whatever looks right, and I place the contract. The asking bid serves three purposes: (1) If I have a suit there, to find out about support; (2) to explore the safety of a 3NT contract when I hold something like Jxx in the suit, and (3) to deter an opponent from leading (or bidding) that suit when I hold something like xx. Is it cheating to bid so as to disguise one's hand, using what the ACBL calls tactical bids? Only on Mars. > But I really think you ought to dodge bullets like these by > appealing, not by arguing the fine point with the director. You > might want to review the "Scope" section of the laws. > -- ACs cannot overrule a TD on a point of law or ACBL regulation. Couldn't find anything in "Scope" on this subject. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 19:44:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:44:54 +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 TAA20373 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:44:48 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id EAA06317; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 04:44:53 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma006173; Wed, 1 Apr 98 04:44:05 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA17995; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 04:39:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199804010939.EAA17995@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 1 Apr 98 08:28:50 GMT Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> 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! This seems to have become a bit of private debate, so sorry to butt in. Whatever the theoretical reason for the restriction to asking about the whole auction, in practice it is very common to respond to a request for information about one call, rather than, as on theoretically should, giving a full explanation of the whole auction. Of course I do not know what happens outside my experience, but I have not heard of any dissenting experience. I have seen very few instances where answering "sinlge-call" questions has caused any UI that would not have been caused by a full review. Whilst I accept the position is not clear, I had heard that the 1997 Laws did permit questions about single calls. If, however, the WBFLC do not think they have already changed it, and if experience is that the "full auction" rule is nearly-universally ignored, and that little damage thereby results, then perhaps they ought to respect the wishes of the vast majority of players and make clear that their interpretation is that questions about single calls are permitted. >>{{ I have much sympathy with these thoughts. That is why I did try >>to persuade Edgar. But unsuccessfully. Obviously I have no problem >>with the thought of another look at it. I do not know what Ton, or the >>Committee without Edgar, will think. In the meantime I cannot drift >>away at this stage in what I say from the 'law according to Edgar' - >>although I would hope TDs are tolerant and relaxed about what the >>players do unless there is advantage taken and damage caused, as >>Edgar suggested there could be. (I am not altogether clear where >>you got your opinion on the law from? - has some authority made a >>statement?) }} > > Well, I believe it to be an opinion shared by various other people. >Despite your arguments above, I believe that the Law is clear, and that >it allows you to ask about individual calls subject to law 16 as stated, >and other laws such as 72A1 and 72B1. > > When "advantage is taken" there is no problem, surely, about ruling >under one of these other Laws? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 1 20:26:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 20:26:07 +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 UAA20493 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 20:26:01 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021081; 1 Apr 98 10:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 11:19:03 +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: <01bd5cb8$d3ff3e60$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >> 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."> >>-- >Add to my previous notes:- >Looking up the exchanges with EK during the drafting >of the 1997 laws, I am able to add something more to the >general knowledge about the change in Law 20F1. There >was no intention to change the effect of the Law as it was >written in 1987. The addition of the parenthesis was for >the purpose of establishing the effect of the word 'full' by >making it clear that a 'full explanation' includes explanation >about calls available but not made. That is, to ensure that >SOs by instruction to TDs did not interpret that law as >requiring explanation only of calls made. > There was no purpose to alter the position as it was >under the 1987 laws but only to clarify the intention of >the law. #### Grattan #### I am shocked. It is an unworkable Law, included in 1987 presumably because the ramifications were not realised. I remember the relief when we "realised" that it had been dropped in the 1997 Laws. At least, we felt, the law-makers had listened to us in this case! I believe that the Law clearly allows asking about individual calls. If that is not what the lawmakers meant, then I am pleased that the lawmakers made compensating errors. -- 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 Apr 1 22:22:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 22:22:37 +1000 Received: from netgates.co.uk (genesis.netgates.co.uk [193.9.120.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA20873 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 22:22:29 +1000 Received: from mitl001a.netgates.co.uk (mitl001a.netgates.co.uk [194.105.65.226]) by netgates.co.uk (8.7.5/8.x.x) with SMTP id NAA13305 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:22:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:22:49 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199804011222.NAA13305@netgates.co.uk> X-Sender: mitl001b@mail.netgates.co.uk (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: Larry Bennett Subject: revoke/confusion Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk the lack of establishment took the sting out of the problem given, however this happened to me very recently. k void qxx jxx w has already shown out and declarer (s) has a complete count on this suit at nt. e fails to follow on the lead of the k, and declarer "tired and fed up" later unguards the j, as "there were none of this suit left". when in e cashes 3 tricks in the suit. Declarer is given two tricks but wants some more as she had to discard other winners on easts long cards in the suit shown. does she get them? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 04:47:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 04:47:19 +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 EAA25303 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 04:47:12 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h46.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id WAA13648; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 22:46:46 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35233562.77B5@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 22:51:14 -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_Passive Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="ACT-PASS.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ACT-PASS.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Well, well - every joke has a bit of joke:) You may walk, may not - but reaction proved (one more time) that you prefer to analyse and discuss cases:)) The more complex - the more discuss:)) Great but what about problems of players that meet real TD?:))) David wrote: "Competent Directors do not stop partly played boards" And then corrected: "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" - It is theory, because it happened at European Championship in Bordeaux and repeated - in same contest in Monaco. What is it? Does SO (EBL?) demands such TD's doing? Or do we have incompetence TD at European Championships?:)) Or may be this problem does be worth of paying attention of Law Committee members? Or leading TD?:))) Oh, let them go walking - they are sick and tired for such simplisity:)) I think that there is place in the Laws - Preface, where might be included such simple and understandable slogans "Board should be played", etc. - and it will be obligatory for TD as part of the Laws:)) Surprising that there were no (David's) comments about board removed in match. It happened in Tel-Aviv festival. Never mind regulation - the board WAS played at the one table and there happened result, far from average:)) AC should adjust it - ."that is subject to commonsense being applied"(David's words on other problem). But for my opinion - Active Chief TD should insist on change such Regulation by SO - or refuse to be TD:))) It seems to me that among trees of cases one might not see forest:)) Nevertheless - I will follow to John's advice and try to improve my English via publish posters in BLML:)) Vitold P.S. Especially thanks to Patrick and Craig for their comments P.P.S. I am not angry with David - sorry if it looks like:) Usually he makes remarks almost on any posters - and I used to use his comments:) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 07:08:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:08:58 +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 HAA25675 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:08:52 +1000 Received: from default (cph29.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.29]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA09769 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:08:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804012108.XAA09769@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:09:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > Perhaps I should have made more clear that we disclose everything. > The explanation following the Alerted asking bid is this: "That is an > asking bid. It says nothing about his (her) hand. It only asks what I > have in the suit and the strength of my hand. Please make no > assumptions about his (her) hand." If the opponents want to make an > assumption after we tell them not to, it's at their own risk. We have > disclosed "the use of such call in accordance with the regulations of > the sponsoring organization." Sorry. This was not so clear to me originally. > Is it cheating to bid so as to disguise one's hand, using what the > ACBL calls tactical bids? Only on Mars. Of course not. You just have to disclose that the bid "could be tactical", which I now understand that you do. I apologize for acting on the impression that you were not telling your opponents this. I use tactical bids myself. For instance, when my partner opens a multi 2D and I bid 2NT, he will explain (when asked): "Forcing, asking bid. Could be tactical to pre-empt at the 3-level, could be strong." I wouldn't think that the ban on psychic controls in the ACBL is intended to forbid this use of 2NT, so I would happily play this method until told otherwise by a director. > > But I really think you ought to dodge bullets like these by > > appealing, not by arguing the fine point with the director. You > > might want to review the "Scope" section of the laws. > > -- > ACs cannot overrule a TD on a point of law or ACBL regulation. No, but neither can players. If you disagree with the TD's ruling, your only recourse is to appeal. There might be a CTD, and even if there is not, the AC may think that the TD is wrong and tell him so, and overruling would only be an issue if they continue to disagree. After that, but only after that, if you still don't like it, you can take the matter to Memphis. Which reminds me: Has anyone on BLML ever heard of a TD that refused an AC's suggestion that he change his ruling on a point of law? When I direct and players insist on arguing with my ruling after we have passed the "I think you have overlooked something in your ruling" state, I offer them these alternatives. 1. Be quiet now. You may appeal my ruling if you don't like it. 2. Leave the room for the rest of the session. If a player then says "why should I appeal when the AC cannot overrule you on a point of law", I would take it as an indication that the player has chosen alternative (2). But then nobody ever has chosen alternative (2). > Couldn't find anything in "Scope" on this subject. I was referring to the sentence that contains the word "graciously". I will emphasize that I interpret the word "offending" as applying when the TD so rules, even if the contestants in question do not agree that they are offenders. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 07:58:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:58:15 +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 HAA25760 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:56:53 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA25941; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:56:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from 92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net(12.68.179.92) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025913; Wed Apr 1 15:56:02 1998 Received: by 92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5D8E.B3400B60@92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net>; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:53:31 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5D8E.B3400B60@92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Larry Bennett'" Subject: RE: revoke/confusion Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:53:29 -0500 Encoding: 51 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Probably, under 64C. It's a judgement call for the Director, but if he thinks the penalty fails to redress the damage he "SHALL assign an adjusted score." He must try to determine what the result most likely would have been absent the revoke, and endeavour to restore equity if the prescribed penalty is too light to do this. (The NOS need not gain...but should not lose as the result of the established revoke.) The argument could be made that declarer brought part of the problem on his own head by counting the hand so poorly he failed to recognize that three cards including an honour of the suit has not been accounted for. But the damage caused from his carelessness, ineptitude, or in this case fatigue could not have occured if there were no revoke. Unless there should be some strong evidence that his inferior play came from an attempt to gain a double shot, I would adjust under 64C. If there were such evidence I would still tend to adjust under 64C but might consider a 90A (or 90B7) procedural penalty if the abusive conduct were flagrant and by a player who should know better. I would suspect this to be the case only a vanishingly small percentage of the time. Craig Senior ---------- From: Larry Bennett[SMTP:larry.b@genesis.netgates.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 8:22 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: revoke/confusion the lack of establishment took the sting out of the problem given, however this happened to me very recently. k void qxx jxx w has already shown out and declarer (s) has a complete count on this suit at nt. e fails to follow on the lead of the k, and declarer "tired and fed up" later unguards the j, as "there were none of this suit left". when in e cashes 3 tricks in the suit. Declarer is given two tricks but wants some more as she had to discard other winners on easts long cards in the suit shown. does she get them? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 08:13:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:13:06 +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 IAA25802 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:11:42 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA05838 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:11:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from 92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net(12.68.179.92) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005766; Wed Apr 1 16:10:32 1998 Received: by 92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5D90.BB7DCEA0@92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net>; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:08:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5D90.BB7DCEA0@92.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:08:02 -0500 Encoding: 68 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After the 1987 laws came out, one of my regular partners, in an attempt to comply, began giving complete reviews of the auction whenever asked about a call. This lasted for about a fortnight. Most opponents were irritated and offended. Two actually called the director. The first time we were advised that such detailed response was unnecessary. The second time we were threatened with a procedural penalty for delaying the game! This was a bad law, especially in a club game where most players did not want it. If we can find (as David and others have) a way to interpret the Laws to eliminate it, we should do so. If Grattan and his estimable colleagues meant something else, they should change their minds...and if they have doubts they have already changed the law, they should take steps to make it crystal clear that you MAY inquire about a single call, subject to the potential for the consequences of UI. Sometimes even the greats like Mr. Kaplan can be in error, or out of touch with the needs and desires of the more pedestrian players. In spite of my great admiration for E.K. I cannot agree with him on this one...and I believe he would want dissenters to speak out. I only wish he were able to respond and explain the (to me) dubious merits of his position; I am certain he had good reason for it. ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:19 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Grattan Endicott wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >> 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."> >>-- >Add to my previous notes:- >Looking up the exchanges with EK during the drafting >of the 1997 laws, I am able to add something more to the >general knowledge about the change in Law 20F1. There >was no intention to change the effect of the Law as it was >written in 1987. The addition of the parenthesis was for >the purpose of establishing the effect of the word 'full' by >making it clear that a 'full explanation' includes explanation >about calls available but not made. That is, to ensure that >SOs by instruction to TDs did not interpret that law as >requiring explanation only of calls made. > There was no purpose to alter the position as it was >under the 1987 laws but only to clarify the intention of >the law. #### Grattan #### I am shocked. It is an unworkable Law, included in 1987 presumably because the ramifications were not realised. I remember the relief when we "realised" that it had been dropped in the 1997 Laws. At least, we felt, the law-makers had listened to us in this case! I believe that the Law clearly allows asking about individual calls. If that is not what the lawmakers meant, then I am pleased that the lawmakers made compensating errors. -- 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 Apr 2 09:04:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:04:01 +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 JAA26028 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:03:54 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id AAA19569 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 00:03:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 2 Apr 98 00:02 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Revoke, claim, and confusion 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: > (the only way North could make another trick would be to ruff the next > club and have East discard a heart - now North can concede a heart, and > West will have to discard the diamond A, leaving East to lead to South's > high diamond; but there is no justification in the Laws for forcing East ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > to pitch a heart, and doubtful points are supposed to be resolved > against the claimer). This is the bit I was unsure about since I thought there was something in the '97 laws about penalty cards and UI (probably just me going mad). Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 09:21:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:21:28 +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 JAA26081 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:21:21 +1000 Received: from mike (ip132.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.132]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14808 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:21:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980401182043.006f5a00@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 18:20:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980331094819.006ce39c@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980319211532.006f0c54@pop.mindspring.com> <$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 09:48 AM 3/31/98 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:15 PM 3/19/98 -0500, Michael wrote: > >>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? > >L16: "Players are authorized to base their calls... on information from >legal calls... To base a call... on other extraneous information may be an >infraction..." > >The information conveyed by a proper review of the auction is "information >from legal calls", whereas the information conveyed by an alert or lack of >an alert is "other extraneous information", hence the distinction. > Your distinction would be valid if we were to read the preamble to L16 as providing an exhaustive list of legitimate considerations in making a bid or play. But clearly it does not purport to do so. Good, ethical, lawful players will base their decisions on a host of factors not listed in L16, including the form of scoring, the state of the match, assessment of the opponent's skill, among others. Certainly it is legal to base one's calls on knowledge of partnership agreements-- otherwise it would be quite ridiculous to have such agreements at all. The simple fact is that information about partnership agreements is neither extraneous nor unauthorized. The only thing about such information in the present context which could be considered tainted is that it comes from an "extraneous" source, namely partner's action. But precisely the same case can be made about the revised understanding of the auction from partner's review. Of course you can base your bids on the calls themselves (L16 says so), but you are not specifically authorized to base your decisions on the _review_ of the calls. Like the alert/non-alert/explanation, the review is an "extraneous" process carried out for the benefit of the opponents. I think this would be a mis-application of L16. But IMO it is the same reasoning which has led so many (including much more respected persons than myself, to be sure) to treat the information from partner's correct actions as UI. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 09:45:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:45:51 +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 JAA26122 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:45:45 +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 PAA09466 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:45:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804012345.PAA09466@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 15:43:55 -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: Eric Landau > (snip) > > L16: "Players are authorized to base their calls... on information from > legal calls... To base a call... on other extraneous information may be an > infraction..." Note the error in syntax, involving missing commas before and after "extraneous," which makes the sentence say that legal calls and plays are extraneous information. The writer might well have omitted the word "extraneous," which looks redundant. > > The information conveyed by a proper review of the auction is "information > from legal calls", whereas the information conveyed by an alert or lack of > an alert is "other extraneous information", hence the distinction. I would also like to see correct answers to unnecessary questions be regarded as AI. When a person has made a mistaken call, such as an opening 1NT bid with the wrong HCP for the particular seat or vulnerability, and LHO asks "What range?", with the range clearly shown on the convention card, the question itself, not the answer, may wake up the bidder as to his/her mistake. However, the general opinion seems to be that the answer is UI and opener must not base future action on the information provided. Sometimes the answer given does not agree exactly with what is on the card, which can also cause difficulties. To avoid such problems, Alice and I have a policy of not answering questions for which the answers are clearly provided on our (tabled!) convention cards. We merely point to the answer. Often the opponent will then read the pertinent information aloud (which can only be for his/her partner's benefit), and certainly that should not be UI for the bidder. If the opponent insists on an oral answer, and the answer agrees with the card, then that also should be AI. A related policy is one of not asking a question if the answer is on the opposing card. When an opponent opens, say, 1NT or a two-level bid, we glance at his/her card every time, or (more often, because two cards are not on the table as per ACBL regulation) ask, "May I see your card?" Often the bidder's partner will orally give the answer, trying to be helpful perhaps. This is equivalent to an Announcement, and should be outlawed. It is especially questionable when the bid involved is a Roman or Flannery 2D opening by an inexperienced player, when the answer gives reassurance to the bidder's partner ("See, pard, I haven't forgotten!"). I believe these two policies should be required by ACBL regulations. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 10:40:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:40:23 +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 KAA26268 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:40:16 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2609.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.9]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA17130 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:40:06 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Active_Passive Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 01:38:56 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5dcf$b843b3a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 This is getting out of hand.:-(( When I was very( more than I am now) inexperienced I would call "no more boards" frequently in a teams event. I did have problems with slow play. I do not have as many problems now. However, I have NEVER removed a board after the cards have been removed from the board. I find it hard to believe that ,in prestigious events, especially, the TD will act in this way. It is not permitted by Law. The European Champs?Please somebody,tell me that this is not true! There are penalties that one can impose for slow play and usually they are mandatory. When they do exist a "Slow play warning" is usually sufficient. This Active versus Passive TD'ing is all very well. I have a Duplicate practice Class for beginners to the game. They know that I am a TD. They know that in a proper competition I have great power(because I have told them). They are the only ones who are allowed to "get away with breaching the Laws". Any game that has any validity as a competition must be played according to the Laws, and the TD is the person to see that this is done. When I go for my walk I will take a pack of cards,and a Duplimate machine which is my newly aquired companion. Gratton will have his draft of the business to be discussed at Lille , David S will have his soft backed copy of the FLB, and David M will no doubt have his Laptop with Modem to keep you all informed of the "happenings" of the day. Anne (signiature still undecided) -----Original Message----- From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 8:29 PM Subject: Active_Passive >Hi all:) > >Well, well - every joke has a bit of joke:) >You may walk, may not - but reaction proved (one more >time) that you prefer to analyse and discuss cases:)) >The more complex - the more discuss:)) Great but what >about problems of players that meet real TD?:))) > >David wrote: >"Competent Directors do not stop partly played boards" >And then corrected: >"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" - It is >theory, because it happened at European Championship in >Bordeaux and repeated - in same contest in Monaco. What is >it? Does SO (EBL?) demands such TD's doing? Or do we have >incompetence TD at European Championships?:)) Or may be >this problem does be worth of paying attention of Law Committee >members? Or leading TD?:))) Oh, let them go walking - they are >sick and tired for such simplisity:)) >I think that there is place in the Laws - Preface, where might be >included such simple and understandable slogans "Board should >be played", etc. - and it will be obligatory for TD as part of the >Laws:)) >Surprising that there were no (David's) comments about board >removed in match. It happened in Tel-Aviv festival. Never mind >regulation - the board WAS played at the one table and there >happened result, far from average:)) AC should adjust it - ."that >is subject to commonsense being applied"(David's words on other >problem). But for my opinion - Active Chief TD should insist on >change such Regulation by SO - or refuse to be TD:))) >It seems to me that among trees of cases one might not see forest:)) >Nevertheless - I will follow to John's advice and try to improve my >English via publish posters in BLML:)) > >Vitold > >P.S. Especially thanks to Patrick and Craig for their comments >P.P.S. I am not angry with David - sorry if it looks like:) Usually >he makes remarks almost on any posters - and I used to use his >comments:) > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 11:20:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:20:12 +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 LAA26443 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:20:03 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1005530; 2 Apr 98 1:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 02:12:02 +0100 To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, wbartle1@san.rr.com, john.strauch@juno.com From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychic Controls In-Reply-To: <199803310512.VAA08905@proxyb1.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803310512.VAA08905@proxyb1.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >---------- >> 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.)" >> >>> >The answer is simple: It's illegal. ....................................cut................................ >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. >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Well, Marv, I'm not so sure you have got it altogether right. I agree you can hardly create a partnership pattern with a single instance. But after you have done it three or four times you have created knowledge in the partnership of a habitual procedure. When your partner must admit an awareness of your tendency to make the so-called 'psyche' it is no longer a psyche, it is part of your partnership methods. It is systemic. At this point the laws require you to disclose it. Then it is subject to the regulations of the SO on system and its disclosure. I think the TD may have used the wrong words but if he knows of other occasions when your partnership has done it there is a sound basis for ruling it as undisclosed system. -- Labeo In later life memory is a thing of the past From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 12:03:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:03:15 +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 MAA26577 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:03:08 +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 SAA20743; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:02:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804020202.SAA20743@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 18:01:33 -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 Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) ---------- > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. > Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 12:28 AM > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >>> David Stevenson wrote: > > >>> 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! > > This seems to have become a bit of private debate, so sorry to butt in. > Whatever the theoretical reason for the restriction to asking about the whole > auction, in practice it is very common to respond to a request for information > about one call, rather than, as on theoretically should, giving a full > explanation of the whole auction. Of course I do not know what happens outside > my experience, but I have not heard of any dissenting experience. I have seen > very few instances where answering "sinlge-call" questions has caused any UI > that would not have been caused by a full review. It is almost impossible not to cause UI by questioning a particular call, excepting perhaps the question David Stevenson cites about how many key cards or aces a reply to 4NT shows. > > Whilst I accept the position is not clear, I had heard that the 1997 Laws did > permit questions about single calls. This came no doubt from David Stevenson's comments on the new Laws last year, which emphasized this interpretation. I, for one, immediately disagreed with his comments as being unjustified by the text. > If, however, the WBFLC do not think they > have already changed it, and if experience is that the "full auction" rule is > nearly-universally ignored, and that little damage thereby results, then > perhaps they ought to respect the wishes of the vast majority of players and > make clear that their interpretation is that questions about single calls are > permitted. My "experience" is typified by the following: Alice opens 2 > > >>{{ I have much sympathy with these thoughts. That is why I did try > >>to persuade Edgar. But unsuccessfully. Obviously I have no problem > >>with the thought of another look at it. I do not know what Ton, or the > >>Committee without Edgar, will think. In the meantime I cannot drift > >>away at this stage in what I say from the 'law according to Edgar' - > >>although I would hope TDs are tolerant and relaxed about what the > >>players do unless there is advantage taken and damage caused, as > >>Edgar suggested there could be. (I am not altogether clear where > >>you got your opinion on the law from? - has some authority made a > >>statement?) }} > > > > Well, I believe it to be an opinion shared by various other people. > >Despite your arguments above, I believe that the Law is clear, and that > >it allows you to ask about individual calls subject to law 16 as stated, > >and other laws such as 72A1 and 72B1. > > > > When "advantage is taken" there is no problem, surely, about ruling > >under one of these other Laws? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 14:44:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:44:36 +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 OAA26960 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:44:29 +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 UAA05097 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 20:43:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804020443.UAA05097@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: L20F1 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 20:43:04 -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 Damn these hot keys! I accidentally sent a message before I had completed it! Sorry, and I'm going to start over again with no quoting. Messages are getting too long. 1. When the 1997 Laws came out, David Stevenson summarized their effects, including a statement that L20F makes clear that questioning individual calls in an auction is okay. I immediately took issue with this interpretation, which I felt was not supported by the text. 2. Grattan Endicott tells us that David's interpretation is not in accordance with the intent of those responsible for the drafting of L20F. 3. It must be obvious that questioning a particular call, not allowed when reviewing auction, is not appropriate when asking for an explanation of the auction. Yes, people have always done it, and are doing it now, but that doesn't make it right. 4. L20 F states: "a player...may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction." Subsequent language says that during that explanation, it is okay to ask for clarification of individual calls when necessary. This is only common sense. Asking about invididual calls usually carries the danger of UI, but when there is no danger of that, of course its okay, as in "How many key cards did the response to 4NT show?" Such questions carry no UI, and hence are acceptable. During the explanation, it's also okay to ask for more details about a call (subject to L16) when the questioner has a need to know (but not for partner's sake). 5. In sum, don't ask about individual calls unless it is clear that the question won't provide UI, or it is absolutely necessary during an auction explanation to obtain clarification of some call. But what is "a full explanation of the opponents' auction"? It is not a review of the auction, with explanations provided for each call as necessary. If it were, a player could get a review of the auction after he has played to a trick by merely asking for an explanation of the auction. No, an explanation of the auction involves only those calls about which a partnership has some special agreement, not those whose meaning comes from general knowledge and experience. And, of course, only a declarer explains his/her own calls. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 16:44:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 16:44:56 +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 QAA27194 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 16:44:34 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020741; 2 Apr 98 6:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:38:18 +0100 To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychic Controls In-Reply-To: <199804010932.BAA13154@proxyb1.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199804010932.BAA13154@proxyb1.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >--------- >> From: Jens & Bodil >> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 12:27 PM >> >> "Marvin L. French" wrote: >> >> > Example: I play forcing Stayman, which allows me to make a fake .............................cut.................................... >. Everything is disclosed to the opponents, of course, "Everything" would include, of course, the fact that the partnership frequently fakes the bid ...... >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. Have they, really? See above ...... Mind you, by declaring your methods on the internet you have adopted the most modern approach to announcing your partnership understandings.... The agreement is no longer implicit, beyond doubt it is now explicit. -- Labeo In later life memory is a thing of the past From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 17:22:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 17:22:58 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA27307 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 17:22:53 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA08891 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:22:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:22:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804020722.XAA08891@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Law 20F1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everyone. Sorry to barge right in and hope I'm addressing this message correctly (or should it be "rgb" in place of "octavia"?) The clause is somewhat contradictory. The culprits imo seem to be the words "full" and "auction". Since the "auction" is understood to mean *all* calls made up to that point, it doesn't seem to help to qualify "full" as meaning also indirect inferences etc,etc. Wouldn't a simple remedy be to change the wording into either: ".....a full, or partial, explanation....." or maybe better: ".....a comprehensive explanation of any one or more of the opponents' CALLS ..." (my emphasis)? This would also fit better with the end of the sentence which also refers to "calls". I apologize if this has been mentioned earlier, but I only subscribed since yesterday. Regards Jan Kamras From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 21:48:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:48:12 +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 VAA28028 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:48:05 +1000 Received: from default (client84fc.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.252]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA29186; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:47:56 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:36:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5e2b$977258a0$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: 01 April 1998 11:27 Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. >>David Stevenson wrote: > >>> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>>> David Stevenson wrote: > >>>> The inability to ask a question about a specific call is completely >>>>impractical and was ignored by nearly every player under the 1987 Laws. \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ >This seems to have become a bit of private debate, so sorry to butt in. >Whatever the theoretical reason for the restriction to asking about the whole >auction, in practice it is very common to respond to a request for information >about one call, rather than, as on theoretically should, giving a full >explanation of the whole auction. > \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ >Whilst I accept the position is not clear, I had heard that the 1997 Laws did >permit questions about single calls. >>> \X/ \X/ \X/ etc. >> >> Well, I believe it to be an opinion shared by various other people. >>Despite your arguments above, I believe that the Law is clear, and that >>it allows you to ask about individual calls subject to law 16 as stated, >>and other laws such as 72A1 and 72B1. >> \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ #### The change in adding the parenthesis to 20F1 was one of the earliest moves agreed by the drafting committee (1994/5). It took me a lot of digging to find the relevant comments from Edgar. I fully appreciate that what is happening at present is working tolerably well, although it is probably different in different parts of the world. I am certainly not suggesting anything should be changed here and now, and I have made it clear enough that the most I got from Edgar when I argued was the relaxation in the case of declarer only. David S. seems to have construed an interpretation of this law for himself. I fancy that he did not take on board the fact that the substantive law stands without the parenthesis and that anything inserted parenthetically lies within it. Now that I have found the document I am prepared to say categorically that the WBFLC position at present is that the substantive law was not changed by the addition of the parenthesis,and that the parenthesis was directed solely at the interpretation of 'full explanation'. Whether this will change in Lille is an open question and we should surely leave matters as they are until after the Lille meeting(s) since we cannot predict the outcome. My personal view about where we are for the moment is that the Kaplan dictum applies. To ask about one call, a common practice indeed, is extraneous action, outside of the provision of the law; it can happen but if in consequence there is damage unfairly to opponent the Director has Law 16 powers to provide redress. [For anyone who missed it, the Kaplan dictum is: "What the law says in plain English must prevail over what it was 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" (E. Kaplan, July 29,1985) ] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 2 22:27:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 22:27:47 +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 WAA28158 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 22:27:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019433; 2 Apr 98 12:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:21:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <199804012345.PAA09466@proxyb2.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >To avoid such problems, Alice and I have a policy of not answering >questions for which the answers are clearly provided on our (tabled!) >convention cards. We merely point to the answer. Apart from being illegal, this seems very impolite. If you need to do this to avoid ethical problems then NAmerican bridge must be in a poor state. If you are asked a legal question then you should answer. To do otherwise is ethically indefensible. > Often the opponent >will then read the pertinent information aloud (which can only be for >his/her partner's benefit), and certainly that should not be UI for >the bidder. If the opponent insists on an oral answer, and the answer >agrees with the card, then that also should be AI. Why should he have to insist on his right? >A related policy is one of not asking a question if the answer is on >the opposing card. When an opponent opens, say, 1NT or a two-level >bid, we glance at his/her card every time, or (more often, because >two cards are not on the table as per ACBL regulation) ask, "May I >see your card?" Often the bidder's partner will orally give the >answer, trying to be helpful perhaps. This is equivalent to an >Announcement, and should be outlawed. It is especially questionable >when the bid involved is a Roman or Flannery 2D opening by an >inexperienced player, when the answer gives reassurance to the >bidder's partner ("See, pard, I haven't forgotten!"). The policy of not asking is not related *at all*. You have a *right* to refer to the opponents' CC rather than asking questions. You have no right to refuse to answer an opponent's question. On the other hand, if you ask to see your opponent's CC he certainly must not answer your presumed question out loud. -- 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 Apr 2 23:58:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 23:58:12 +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 XAA28462 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 23:58:06 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id JAA14705; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:00:30 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma014658; Thu, 2 Apr 98 08:59:58 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04314; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 08:55:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199804021355.IAA04314@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Apr 98 13:43:18 GMT Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >To avoid such problems, Alice and I have a policy of not answering >questions for which the answers are clearly provided on our (tabled!) >convention cards. We merely point to the answer. As David Stevenson points out this appears to be illegal. Where I play bridge such behaviour would be regarded as extremely rude. I certainly wouldn't try it in a ZT tournament over here. Just shows how the USA and the UK are two countries divided by a common language. >Often the opponent will then read the pertinent information aloud (which can only be for his/her partner's benefit), That's a very authoritative statement about law-breaking for someone who apparently seeks to breach the law every time he is asked a question about bids explained on his cc. In my experience many players, especially those for whom bridge is more a recreation than a competition, find it easier to understand a spoken explanation rather than a written one. Some find the written explanation easier. I see nothing wrong in their using the laws of the game to get a spoken explanation when they are entitled to one. >and certainly that should not be UI for the bidder. All that said, I do have some sympathy with the view that correct answers to superfluous questions should be AI. That's not the law, however. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 3 02:25:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 02:25:29 +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 CAA01741 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 02:25:22 +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 LAA05754 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:25:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:25:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199804021625.LAA21358@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (twm@cix.compulink.co.uk) Subject: Re: Revoke, claim, and confusion Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads writes: > In-Reply-To: >> (the only way North could make another trick would be to ruff the next >> club and have East discard a heart - now North can concede a heart, and >> West will have to discard the diamond A, leaving East to lead to South's >> high diamond; but there is no justification in the Laws for forcing East > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> to pitch a heart, and doubtful points are supposed to be resolved >> against the claimer). > This is the bit I was unsure about since I thought there was something in > the '97 laws about penalty cards and UI (probably just me going mad). There is. The bridge-laws consensus is that the fact of the penalty card, and the associated penalties, are AI, while any other information (for example, the information that a player who leads the CQ out of turn doesn't have the CK and does have the CJ) is UI. It is thus AI to East that West will have to discard the high diamond before East gets on lead with a heart, and East is allowed to base his subsequent defense on this fact. -- 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 Apr 3 02:53:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 02:53:29 +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 CAA02042 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 02:53:19 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA00642; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 10:52:39 -0600 (CST) Received: from 37.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.37) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000523; Thu Apr 2 10:52:19 1998 Received: by 37.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5E2D.6541EB00@37.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:49:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5E2D.6541EB00@37.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jan Kamras'" Subject: RE: Law 20F1 Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:49:28 -0500 Encoding: 41 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome to the group Jan. Those of us who have read your copious intelligent posts on rgb know that you will have much to add to the discussions. I think though, that David failed to mention one additional qualification for being on blml...you must tell us about your cats (if any). Craig Senior ---------- From: Jan Kamras[SMTP:jkamras@cts.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:22 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 20F1 Hi everyone. Sorry to barge right in and hope I'm addressing this message correctly (or should it be "rgb" in place of "octavia"?) The clause is somewhat contradictory. The culprits imo seem to be the words "full" and "auction". Since the "auction" is understood to mean *all* calls made up to that point, it doesn't seem to help to qualify "full" as meaning also indirect inferences etc,etc. Wouldn't a simple remedy be to change the wording into either: ".....a full, or partial, explanation....." or maybe better: ".....a comprehensive explanation of any one or more of the opponents' CALLS ..." (my emphasis)? This would also fit better with the end of the sentence which also refers to "calls". I apologize if this has been mentioned earlier, but I only subscribed since yesterday. Regards Jan Kamras From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 3 04:15:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 04:15:41 +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 EAA02300 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 04:15:30 +1000 Received: from default (client850b.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.11]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA19292; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 19:15:17 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Jan Kamras" Subject: Re: Law 20F1 Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 19:13:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5e62$f95a69e0$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: Jan Kamras To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 April 1998 08:57 Subject: Law 20F1 >Hi everyone. >Sorry to barge right in and hope I'm addressing this message correctly (or >should it be "rgb" in place of "octavia"?) > >The clause is somewhat contradictory. The culprits imo seem to be the words >"full" and "auction". Since the "auction" is understood to mean *all* calls >made up to that point, it doesn't seem to help to qualify "full" as meaning >also indirect inferences etc,etc. > >Wouldn't a simple remedy be to change the wording into either: >".....a full, or partial, explanation....." >or maybe better: >".....a comprehensive explanation of any one or more of the opponents' CALLS >..." (my emphasis)? >This would also fit better with the end of the sentence which also refers to >"calls". > >I apologize if this has been mentioned earlier, but I only subscribed since >yesterday. > ####Hi Jan and welcome in......... Thank you for the suggestion. The discussion swings around what the Committee did in 1994/95 and David Stevenson's opinion of what the law meant as published. Largely between him and me as representing the two different angles from which we come at it. (He is a highly knowledgeable and practical TD, I am a dumb legislator and nominated to communicate for the WBF Committee.) What I have to do is to pass it back to the Committee in August-September for a fresh look; in the interim I have said how the Committee has viewed it to date and David has contested the validity of my expression of the Committee view. (Document lately found shows I am not wrong.) The players kibitzing have finally spoken and there is little doubt the majority feel the law would be better if it took on board the question asked about a specific call where to now the law specifies that the player should ask about the auction as a whole. The majority, but not all. What I cannot predict is what the *Committee* will now say. Kaplan was the firm advocate of the current state of the law; we have a new chairman and a committee still to find its feet without Edgar. So having explored the subject to exhaustion my opinion is that we should all now sit tight until after the meeting in Lille. - And then, maybe, gripe! ##### Grattan Endicott, Secretary, WBF Laws Committee.#### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 3 05:42:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 05:42:11 +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 FAA02680 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 05:42:05 +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 LAA29203; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:40:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804021940.LAA29203@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Craig Senior" , Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:39:37 -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: Craig Senior > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. > Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 2:08 PM > > After the 1987 laws came out, one of my regular partners, in an > attempt to comply, began giving complete reviews of the auction whenever > asked about a call. An explanation of the auction should not include a review of the auction. Only those calls that are the subject of a special partnership agreement should be explained. Otherwise a player could obtain an illegal review of the auction after he has played to a trick, by asking for an explanation of the auction. (snip) > This was a bad law, especially in a club game where most players did > not want it. If we can find (as David and others have) a way to interpret > the Laws to eliminate it, we should do so. If Grattan and his estimable > colleagues meant something else, they should change their minds...and if > they have doubts they have already changed the law, they should take steps > to make it crystal clear that you MAY inquire about a single call, subject > to the potential for the consequences of UI. > Sometimes even the greats like Mr. Kaplan can be in error, or out of > touch with the needs and desires of the more pedestrian players. In spite > of my great admiration for E.K. I cannot agree with him on this one...and I > believe he would want dissenters to speak out. I only wish he were able to > respond and explain the (to me) dubious merits of his position; I am > certain he had good reason for it. > By this reasoning, the rule outlawing requests for a partial review should also be changed, since it can take quite a while to review a complicated auction when the questioner is interested in only one call. Asking for an explanation of a particular call is just as deadly as asking for the repeat of a particular call instead of asking for a review of the entire auction. Using common sense, one can break the rules when it is harmless to do so, as in "How many key cards did the reply to 4NT show?" or "I'm sorry, but did you bid 2C or 3C in response to his 1H opening?" I for one am tired of the UI being passed by the questioning of particular calls, especially since TDs rarely apply L16 or L73. Playing in a lengthy team match against players known to be ethical, I would start by suggesting a mutual relaxation of both the auction review and auction explanation rules, if the TD agrees it's okay. A TD is empowered to waive penalties for any offense when requested to do so, so I guess this is okay. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 3 05:48:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 05:48:51 +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 FAA02732 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 05:48:46 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA13631 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:48:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01836; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:48:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:48:51 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804021948.OAA01836@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 20F1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > So having explored the subject to exhaustion my > opinion is that we should all now sit tight until after the meeting > in Lille. - And then, maybe, gripe! If the question is what the Law ought to say, as opposed to what it does say, perhaps you can stand one more opinion? These comments relate to asking about individual calls instead of a whole auction. 1. It would seem a bad idea to include a prohibition so strong as to trigger PP's. 2. Emphasizing the UI possibilities does seem good. ("Does that really show _clubs_?!" is not the sort of question to be encouraged!) 3. There might be a special dispensation for the immediate prior call, especially if it is alerted. (The ACBL recommends "Please explain," but whether this is supposed to ask about one call or the whole auction is unclear. Most players answer by explaining only the last call.) 4. The rules for an initial question and for a followup question, when the initial answer may have been incomplete, may differ. Putting all the above into legislative language is something I will leave to the highly paid professionals. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 3 17:20:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:20:54 +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 RAA04456 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:20:49 +1000 Received: from station36.comlaw.utas.edu.au (station36.comlaw.utas.edu.au [131.217.71.81]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA28953 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:20:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980403182123.3347bba2@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 18:21:23 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Count CPU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An interesting thought occured to me on OKbridge today. When defending against weaker declarers, a defender can give an accurate count all the time with less likelihood that declarer will make use of the information available. It would be silly to throw away a natural advantage by giving inaccurate count, or deliberately falsecarding without purpose. But against a strong declarer, there is good sense in only giving accurate count when you have some reason to believe that partner can make use of it, or that you think you can mislead declarer by falsecarding more than you will mislead your partner. This would seem to create a CPU - partner knows to trust your count more against weaker players than against stronger. Nor could one declare it easily on a CC - "We give more accurate count when we think we're better than you". Opp asks, "So do you think you're better than us?" Or do we expect declarer to know as a matter of bridge logic that opponents will mix up their count signals playing against equal or better calibre declarers? Thoughts? Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 3 18:16:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 18:16:50 +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 SAA04535 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 18:16:42 +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 AAA05381; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 00:16:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804030816.AAA05381@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 00:13:26 -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: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >To avoid such problems, Alice and I have a policy of not answering > >questions for which the answers are clearly provided on our (tabled!) > >convention cards. We merely point to the answer. > > As David Stevenson points out this appears to be illegal. Did you really point that out, David? It's illegal to use one's convention card in order to provide information sought by an opponent? That's hard to believe.The ACBL Encyclopedia correctly states that the convention card "is used by players in duplicate bridge to indicate to the opponents the conventions and special understandings a pair has." While a large percentage of players in the U. S. regard the card as merely a means of documenting understandings for the benefit of the partnership rather than for the opponents, this is not what the ACBL had in mind when it devised the card. If partnership understandings can be conveyed orally, then the card serves no purpose and may as well remain tucked away (as many are) instead of on the table as required. Of course when we refer an opponent to the card we don't look at it ourselves unless the opponent needs help in finding something. > > Where I play bridge such behaviour would be regarded as extremely rude. I > certainly wouldn't try it in a ZT tournament over here. Just shows how the USA > and the UK are two countries divided by a common language. > O Tempora! O Mores! When convention cards first came out years ago, we were told to consult the opposing card before asking questions, and moreover we were expected to do this in a way that did not make it obvious to partner that we were greatly interested. A quick glance was considered appropriate and was ususally sufficient, since early cards were quite simple to read. Asking a question that was clearly answered on the card was a no-no except for those with sight problems. > >Often the opponent will then read the pertinent information aloud (which can > only be for his/her partner's benefit), > Here's an example of what can happen: My partner opens 1NT, passed around to fourth seat, who asks me "What is your range?" I refer him to the card, which he picks up and reads aloud: "Hmm, 16 to 18." Then he puts it down and doubles, a conventional call vs strong notrumps but business vs weak notrumps. The question is highly improper. He is violating L73B1, but TDs around here don't enforce that law with any vigor. Another example, which I have recounted on rgb: With both sides vulnerable, I overcall 1H with 2S, a strong jump overcall (not Alertable at that time). LHO looks at my card and passes with his bust hand. Alice bids 3C and RHO bids 3H, I 3S. Now LHO starts asking questions: "Was that a strong jump overcall?" "What do you mean by strong?" and so on. (Our card clearly shows STRONG, followed by the clarification ABOUT 8 TRICKS). LHO was simply worried that his vulnerable partner didn't realize that I was strong, and wanted to make sure that he did. The TD saw nothing wrong with this questioning: "Players have the right to ask about a bid." Of course L73B1 was being violated, but the "right to ask questions" is being treated by TDs in this area (U. S. West) as overriding that law. > That's a very authoritative statement about law-breaking for someone who > apparently seeks to breach the law every time he is asked a question about bids > explained on his cc. What law am I breaking by communicating our understandings in the authorized way? I hope it's clear that we explain all Alerted calls orally when asked, as required by the ACBL. The subject here concerns such mundane things as strong notrump range, weak two bids, limit raises, and other non-Alertable calls. While on this subject, I think that it is wrong to inquire about a non-Alerted call that has only one interpretation in the absence of an Alert. I'm tired of being asked "Is that strong?" when Alice makes a non-Alerted jump takeout or jump raise. If it's not strong, it has to be Alerted, so the question is a needless intrusion. > In my experience many players, especially those for whom > bridge is more a recreation than a competition, find it easier to understand a > spoken explanation rather than a written one. Some find the written > explanation easier. I see nothing wrong in their using the laws of the game to > get a spoken explanation when they are entitled to one. If they need it, we give it graciously. No problem there. > > >and certainly that should not be UI for the bidder. > > All that said, I do have some sympathy with the view that correct answers to > superfluous questions should be AI. That's not the law, however. Well, L16A says that information derived from an answer to a question must be "extraneous" in order to be UI, and I don't believe that partner's correct answer to a superfluous question is extraneous. A final note: We tolerate almost anything from C players, who cannot be expected to be familiar with all the details of correct procedure. We are also very tolerant of players from the U. K., who seem to be more thin-skinned than Americans. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 3 19:02:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 19:02:15 +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 TAA04638 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 19:02:06 +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 BAA08217 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 01:01:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804030901.BAA08217@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 01:00:33 -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 > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >To avoid such problems, Alice and I have a policy of not answering > >questions for which the answers are clearly provided on our (tabled!) > >convention cards. We merely point to the answer. > > Apart from being illegal, this seems very impolite. If you need to do > this to avoid ethical problems then NAmerican bridge must be in a poor > state. > The ACBL provides a convention card for the purpose of communicating partnership understandings to the opponents. Why is it illegal for us to use the authorized vehicle for communication? My words "not answering questions" were misleading. It should have been "not immediately answering questions." The questions get answered one way or another, of course. > If you are asked a legal question then you should answer. To do > otherwise is ethically indefensible. We answer legal questions by showing the answers to them if they are clearly shown on our card. Communication does not have to be oral. > > Often the opponent > >will then read the pertinent information aloud (which can only be for > >his/her partner's benefit), and certainly that should not be UI for > >the bidder. If the opponent insists on an oral answer, and the answer > >agrees with the card, then that also should be AI. > > Why should he have to insist on his right? Because he is often in violation of 73B1, which is not his right. Also partner's answer is treated as UI for me, which is unfair if the question is unnecessary. We are not strict about this sort of thing. If an opponent shows reluctance about looking at the card, we readily provide the information. But first we offer the card, with a smile (in Alice's case, at least), and a statement like "It's right here on the card." If they say, "I'll have to put on my glasses," or something like that, we give the information orally, no problem. > > >A related policy is one of not asking a question if the answer is on > >the opposing card. When an opponent opens, say, 1NT or a two-level > >bid, we glance at his/her card every time, or (more often, because > >two cards are not on the table as per ACBL regulation) ask, "May I > >see your card?" Often the bidder's partner will orally give the > >answer, trying to be helpful perhaps. This is equivalent to an > >Announcement, and should be outlawed. It is especially questionable > >when the bid involved is a Roman or Flannery 2D opening by an > >inexperienced player, when the answer gives reassurance to the > >bidder's partner ("See, pard, I haven't forgotten!"). > > The policy of not asking is not related *at all*. Opponents ask, we don't. The two policies seem related to me. I would like opponents to do as we do, which I think is the proper procedure.. > You have a *right* > to refer to the opponents' CC rather than asking questions. You have no > right to refuse to answer an opponent's question. > We don't refuse. Sorry if I gave that impression. > On the other hand, if you ask to see your opponent's CC he certainly > must not answer your presumed question out loud. > Glad you agree. And he/she should not read my card out loud. This is getting long, but here's a final point: Our policy was developed mainly as a countermeasure to the trouble that opponents were causing our partnership by asking unnecessary questions. Alice would answer inaccurately on occasion, forgetting what the exact answer is, or not knowing it, which led to all sorts of problems. Or I would give an answer that revealed to Alice something she didn't know, which is UI that no one knows about. That isn't right. I told Alice, "Please stop answering questions if the answer is on the card," and I stopped doing so myself. The policy seems to be working well, and I don't remember anyone's thinking it "rude." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 4 01:08:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 01:08:14 +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 BAA08212 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 01:08:05 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA29129 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 09:07:28 -0600 (CST) Received: from 146.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.146) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029122; Fri Apr 3 09:07:16 1998 Received: by 146.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5EE7.ED833FE0@146.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 10:04:45 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5EE7.ED833FE0@146.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Count CPU Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 10:04:31 -0500 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk That certainly sounds like playing bridge, rather than any CPU. It would only deteriorate into a CPU IMO if you and partner were to agree on a specific list of opponents against whom you would be more or less likely to falsify count or if you would make some hard and fast agreement on the subject (such as more deception always against pair 3 because they figure to be seeded). Using common sense would not seem to be a CPU any more than feeling you have carte blanche to bid to a shaky contract against perceived weak defenders would be one. Craig Senior "Can Law 40A be declared an endangered species?" ---------- From: Mark Abraham[SMTP:mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 1:21 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Count CPU An interesting thought occured to me on OKbridge today. When defending against weaker declarers, a defender can give an accurate count all the time with less likelihood that declarer will make use of the information available. It would be silly to throw away a natural advantage by giving inaccurate count, or deliberately falsecarding without purpose. But against a strong declarer, there is good sense in only giving accurate count when you have some reason to believe that partner can make use of it, or that you think you can mislead declarer by falsecarding more than you will mislead your partner. This would seem to create a CPU - partner knows to trust your count more against weaker players than against stronger. Nor could one declare it easily on a CC - "We give more accurate count when we think we're better than you". Opp asks, "So do you think you're better than us?" Or do we expect declarer to know as a matter of bridge logic that opponents will mix up their count signals playing against equal or better calibre declarers? Thoughts? Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 4 02:43:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 02:43:29 +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 CAA08798 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 02:43:20 +1000 Received: from default (client82d1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.209]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA27314; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:43:13 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:34:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5f1e$6d05dbc0$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: 01 April 1998 00:23 Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. >Grattan Endicott wrote: ++++ well, not exactly, this was David:- > >>> 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! ++++ > >>{{ I have much sympathy with these thoughts. That is why I did try >>to persuade Edgar. But unsuccessfully. Obviously I have no problem >>with the thought of another look at it. I do not know what Ton, or the >>Committee without Edgar, will think. In the meantime I cannot drift >>away at this stage in what I say from the 'law according to Edgar' - >>although I would hope TDs are tolerant and relaxed about what the >>players do unless there is advantage taken and damage caused, as >>Edgar suggested there could be. (I am not altogether clear where >>you got your opinion on the law from? - has some authority made a >>statement?) }} ++++ David : - > Well, I believe it to be an opinion shared by various other people. >Despite your arguments above, I believe that the Law is clear, and that >it allows you to ask about individual calls subject to law 16 as stated, >and other laws such as 72A1 and 72B1. > > When "advantage is taken" there is no problem, surely, about ruling >under one of these other Laws? ++++ > >-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 4 02:43:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 02:43:30 +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 CAA08799 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 02:43:22 +1000 Received: from default (client82d1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.209]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA27301; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:43:07 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 17:19:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5f1c$46ba9d40$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: 18 March 1998 18:29 Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only >> From: "Anne Jones" >> I am not yet sufficiently > ......questions are: >1) What happens if the written language of a Law is inconsistent with >the known intent of the writers? #### when the WBFLC settles a matter of law it knows, as a body, the reason for and the purpose of the decision. In the past one of us has spoken up - often EK, sometimes myself - if there seemed to be a misunderstanding in the world at large. To meet with the communications explosion we will be making a stronger effort; in the past the committee has frequently acquiesced in Edgar's opinions which then (pace DWS) became decisions of the committee. See also what I have said on BLML about "Kaplan's dictum"; alleged ambiguity will no doubt be settled by what the Committee has intended: no member of the Committee demurred when Edgar wrote the words I have quoted. ### >2) Are official interpretations promulgated only via official channels >or by any medium that happens to exist? ###The formal channel is snail mail to zones and through zones to NBOs. The NBO is responsible for implementation. TDs and players, must look to their NBO for guidance. However, on an information only basis a degree of open communication on BLML would no doubt be welcomed and, if you read between the lines of recent statements, you will see that the WBFLC has a desire to ensure that discussion on the internet has the benefit of knowing where the WBFLC stands.### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 4 06:39:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 06:39:22 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA00553 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 06:39:15 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yLDF0-0001KE-00; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 21:39:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4bp30ZB+vRJ1EwT5@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 18:27:26 +0100 To: Mark Abraham Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Count CPU In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19980403182123.3347bba2@postoffice.utas.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.16.19980403182123.3347bba2@postoffice.utas.edu.au>, Mark Abraham writes >An interesting thought occured to me on OKbridge today. > >When defending against weaker declarers, a defender can give an accurate >count all the time with less likelihood that declarer will make use of the >information available. It would be silly to throw away a natural advantage >by giving inaccurate count, or deliberately falsecarding without purpose. > >But against a strong declarer, there is good sense in only giving accurate >count when you have some reason to believe that partner can make use of it, >or that you think you can mislead declarer by falsecarding more than you >will mislead your partner. > >This would seem to create a CPU - partner knows to trust your count more >against weaker players than against stronger. Nor could one declare it >easily on a CC - "We give more accurate count when we think we're better >than you". Opp asks, "So do you think you're better than us?" Or do we >expect declarer to know as a matter of bridge logic that opponents will mix >up their count signals playing against equal or better calibre declarers? > >Thoughts? > >Mark Abraham > This is true in any bridge event, and there are many pointers as soon as they sit at the table, even in an event where you don't know the quality of the oppo. I also psyche less against weaker players and overbid more. That's bridge. The only CPU is with a regular partner when you know his habits in specific areas. I know Damian gives more true count than I do. He also makes take-out doubles on more hands than I do, while I prefer to overcall slightly more. He passes 10 card suits more often than I do too! There isn't enough space to put all this on a cc and so far as I can tell it's not illegal. It's just things we know. -- 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 Apr 4 07:09:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:09:26 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00636 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:09:18 +1000 Received: from ldubreui.uqss.uquebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA146327753; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 16:09:13 -0500 Message-Id: <35255002.38EE@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:09:22 -0500 From: Laval Dubreuil X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold [fr] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Review and UI/AI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk North opens 2N, Est P, and S bids 3S. O asks for a review of the auction and given by N. S corrects this review, saying N opened 2D (Flannery). DIRECTOR Ruling Bidding continues. The fact that S bid 3S on 2D(Flannery) is UI for N. He should bid logically to a 3S response to 2N (their CC says that 3S shows a minor suit). In fact, he made a logical 3N and S converted to 4S with 6 cards in that suit. They played 4S like everybody. Question. Does S can use information coming from auction review? Does he can legally base his 2nd bid on a 2N opening hand or does he must continue to act logically on a 2D Flannery opening (3S on 2D showed a fit an is forcing to game)? The result would be the same (4S) but I would like your opinion concerning UI and AI coming from bid review. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City My cats's name is Picatou....like my school of bridge From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 4 07:34:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:34:28 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00714 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:34:20 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp45.ac.net [205.138.54.124]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA15131 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 16:34:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199804032134.QAA15131@primus.ac.net> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 12:32:16 -0500 From: Linda Weinstein <"lobo@ac.net"@ac.net> Reply-To: "lobo@ac.net"@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Review, Please" References: <199804030901.BAA08217@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin: I think you are 100% right on for this one... It also covers the case when I am asked and am playing a new agreement. I know the info is on the card and I also know that what I say may not be a complete answer that the card will provide. As long as it is done politely, I have never had anyone take offense. Of course, what you are suggesting is very different from the rude "It's on the card, can't ya read?" as the card is being rudely shoved in your face. That is different. I also hate it when Mr. Pro and Mr. Client come to the table and after say, Pass - 1C - 2C (which I happen to play is top and bottom and not Michaels) auction occurs, Mr. Pro just has to know what this means! Mr. Client never asks, but I guess if poor, confused Mr. Pro needs to know, Mr. Client never makes a mistake. Think if I played Michaels, Mr. Pro would need to know? Hardly. And there is really nothing I can do. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 4 07:38:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:38:24 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00745 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:38:18 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic91.cais.com [207.226.56.91]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA09275 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 21:38:21 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980403163831.00690ad0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 16:38:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Review and UI/AI In-Reply-To: <35255002.38EE@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:09 PM 4/3/98 -0500, Laval wrote: >North opens 2N, Est P, and S bids 3S. >O asks for a review of the auction and given by N. >S corrects this review, saying N opened 2D (Flannery). >DIRECTOR >Ruling >Bidding continues. >The fact that S bid 3S on 2D(Flannery) is UI for N. He should bid >logically to a 3S response to 2N (their CC says that 3S shows a minor >suit). In fact, he made a logical 3N and S converted to 4S with 6 cards >in that suit. They played 4S like everybody. >Question. >Does S can use information coming from auction review? Does he can >legally base his 2nd bid on a 2N opening hand or does he must continue >to act logically on a 2D Flannery opening (3S on 2D showed a fit an is >forcing to game)? >The result would be the same (4S) but I would like your opinion >concerning UI and AI coming from bid review. The information that S thought that N had opened 2D is UI to N. Once the review has been requested by an opponent and given, though, the correct auction is now AI to S. There is some doubt as to whether it would be AI or UI had N requested the review. Of course, had N actually opened 2D (simply misspoke in giving the original review), there would be no UI either way. 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 Apr 4 09:10:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 09:10:32 +1000 Received: from proxyb2.san.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.11]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00965 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 09:10:26 +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 PAA25716; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 15:09:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804032309.PAA25716@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Law 20F1 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 15:07:10 -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: Steve Willner > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > So having explored the subject to exhaustion my > > opinion is that we should all now sit tight until after the meeting > > in Lille. - And then, maybe, gripe! > > If the question is what the Law ought to say, as opposed to what it > does say, perhaps you can stand one more opinion? These comments > relate to asking about individual calls instead of a whole auction. > > 1. It would seem a bad idea to include a prohibition so strong as to > trigger PP's Using the word "should" in a reworded L20F1 will take care of that. As specified in the Laws' Preface, "When a player *should* do something..., his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." > 2. Emphasizing the UI possibilities does seem good. ("Does that really > show _clubs_?!" is not the sort of question to be encouraged!) > It's already emphasized by the footnote reference to L16, isn't it? But TDs have to be instructed carefully in the when and how of enforcing L16 in connection with auction explanation requests. In my experience L16 has never been applied to L20F1. TDs around these parts seem to believe that the "right to ask" overrides the provisions of L16 and L73. > 3. There might be a special dispensation for the immediate prior call, > especially if it is alerted. (The ACBL recommends "Please explain," > but whether this is supposed to ask about one call or the whole auction > is unclear. Most players answer by explaining only the last call.) > We all should have made clear that we are not discussing the method of explaining Alerted calls. The "please explain" recommended by the ACBL is surely meant to apply to the Alerted call, not to any previous calls. Obviously the Alert itself frees a questioner who uses the appropriate words ("Please explain") from UI considerations. After "Please explain" is satisfied, one may ask for an explanation of the auction if necessary. > 4. The rules for an initial question and for a followup question, when > the initial answer may have been incomplete, may differ. > No one would expect a rehash of the entire auction when a previously explained call needs further clarification. Whether that clarification is requested during the auction explanation, or later, would be unlikely to affect the degree of any UI attached to the question. > Putting all the above into legislative language is something I will > leave to the highly paid professionals. :-) > Ah yes, but let that include wordsmith professionals. We have encountered too much ambiguity in the Laws. Lest anyone think that an explanation of the auction necessarily includes a review of the auction, the words of L75C, referenced by L20F1, should be read carefully. Only special information that comes from partnership agreement or partnership experience need be explained, which should save time. The word *special* was inserted for a reason. It excludes information which, although sanctioned by partnership experience, and maybe explicitly agreed to by the partnership, is common to the great majority of partnerships; i.e., it's nothing special. You don't have to explain that the double of a 1S opening was for takeout, or that the double of an artificial bid merely showed something good in the suit. After explaining all the calls that contain special information, one ends with "The inferences from all other calls come from general knowledge and experience," using the words of L75C. I agree with what Edgar Kaplan wrote to me on this subject, which included the hope that players would explain any call with which an opponent may not be familiar, as with neophytes, or foreign players who may not follow American bidding practices. My definition of neophytes excludes ACBL Life Masters, whom I expect to have a general knowledge of what ordinary calls mean. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 4 12:14:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 12:14:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01472 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 12:13:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003053; 4 Apr 98 2:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 20:56:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <199804030816.AAA05381@proxyb2.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >> From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com >> As David Stevenson points out this appears to be illegal. >Did you really point that out, David? It's illegal to use one's >convention card in order to provide information sought by an >opponent? That's hard to believe. The Law gives a player the right to ask Questions and to receive replies and explanations. I know you are going to bandy words with me but I am not interested: that does not give you the right not to speak the answers. You give as part of your answer some possible problems. That is of no interest to a right given by Law, and anyway there are also problems as you know perfectly well with your illegal method of communication, which makes your explanations both moot and irrelevant. -- 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 Apr 4 20:39:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 20:39:41 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03021 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 20:39:33 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-5.uunet.be [194.7.13.5]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23520 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 12:39:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352608E7.9B5AB8F6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 12:18:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Revoke, claim, and confusion X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don Kersey wrote: > > > [ObBio: I've been lurking for several months. I'm a club director from > Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and I'm allergic to cats.] > > Welcome Don, At last there are now two of us. Atchiee. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 01:22:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 01:22:16 +1000 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06272 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 01:22:04 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-101.access.net.il [192.116.204.101]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA24591; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 18:18:39 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35265084.8B085859@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 18:23:48 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Volhejn CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Re_Definitions References: <01BD481B.81DA5BD0@pc52.fsp.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I don't want to restart this thread , but 4 days ago I was asked to be TD in a club , running a national simultaneous contest. A player came to me and asked what can he do in order to achive equity or leave the session, because his partner acted twice against him ..... "Hmmm I said - I can't do anything because one year ago I suggested Ton Kooijman to add a new definition to the laws : FO , but he didn't yet agree." FO = Front Opponent .... Sometimes I accept Jan's thoughts ....... I hope that the Zero Tolerance Principles will help us not adding this new definition. Dany Jan Volhejn 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 > > > 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 Sun Apr 5 03:52:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 03:52:21 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07088 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 03:52:11 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-170.access.net.il [192.116.198.170]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA13269; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 20:44:05 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <352673CE.6F9814F0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 20:54:22 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Active_Passive References: <01bd5dcf$b843b3a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Anne & all contributors Two years ago at Tel-Aviv Festival I consulted Ton Kooijman - the chief TD - and removed a board from two tables at the top tables !!! ( As much as I remember one was Granovetter's and the other was a chinese player . don't remember his name..). The session was 55 min. for 8 boards and after 60 min they were playing the 7th board . It was impossible to run the contest otherwise (Swiss teams). Ton even wanted to stop playing the 7th board , but they finished after 61 min. and we didn't want to decide the victory by a PP.... I also remember that at European championships (at Montecatini , as much as I remember..?) were 2 cases when TD didn't let play the 32nd board ... even in a round Robin (10 min. after the normal end time..). The TD should use Law 81C4 in order to do it.. I always remind people - all level tournaments - that "..Z minutes left until the end of the round/match..." . When it becomes almost impossible to let the board be played if you can't insure the right and pleasant progress of the game (maybe one pair will be very upset , but other 20 will be happy ... this are the dangers of the TD's job !!!!!) Dany Anne Jones wrote: > > This is getting out of hand.:-(( > When I was very( more than I am now) inexperienced I would call "no > more boards" frequently in a teams event. I did have problems with slow > play. > I do not have as many problems now. However, I have NEVER removed a > board after the cards have been removed from the board. > I find it hard to believe that ,in prestigious events, especially, the > TD will act in this way. It is not permitted by Law. > The European Champs?Please somebody,tell me that this is not true! > > There are penalties that one can impose for slow play and usually they > are mandatory. When they do exist a "Slow play warning" is usually > sufficient. > > This Active versus Passive TD'ing is all very well. > > I have a Duplicate practice Class for beginners to the game. They know > that I am a TD. They know that in a proper competition I have great > power(because I have told them). They are the only ones who are allowed > to "get away with breaching the Laws". > Any game that has any validity as a competition must be played according > to the Laws, and the TD is the person to see that this is done. > When I go for my walk I will take a pack of cards,and a Duplimate > machine which is my newly aquired companion. Gratton will have his draft > of the business to be discussed at Lille , David S will have his soft > backed copy of the FLB, and David M will no doubt have his Laptop with > Modem to keep you all informed of the "happenings" of the day. > Anne (signiature still undecided) > -----Original Message----- > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 8:29 PM > Subject: Active_Passive > > >Hi all:) > > > >Well, well - every joke has a bit of joke:) > >You may walk, may not - but reaction proved (one more > >time) that you prefer to analyse and discuss cases:)) > >The more complex - the more discuss:)) Great but what > >about problems of players that meet real TD?:))) > > > >David wrote: > >"Competent Directors do not stop partly played boards" > >And then corrected: > >"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" - It is > >theory, because it happened at European Championship in > >Bordeaux and repeated - in same contest in Monaco. What is > >it? Does SO (EBL?) demands such TD's doing? Or do we have > >incompetence TD at European Championships?:)) Or may be > >this problem does be worth of paying attention of Law Committee > >members? Or leading TD?:))) Oh, let them go walking - they are > >sick and tired for such simplisity:)) > >I think that there is place in the Laws - Preface, where might be > >included such simple and understandable slogans "Board should > >be played", etc. - and it will be obligatory for TD as part of the > >Laws:)) > >Surprising that there were no (David's) comments about board > >removed in match. It happened in Tel-Aviv festival. Never mind > >regulation - the board WAS played at the one table and there > >happened result, far from average:)) AC should adjust it - ."that > >is subject to commonsense being applied"(David's words on other > >problem). But for my opinion - Active Chief TD should insist on > >change such Regulation by SO - or refuse to be TD:))) > >It seems to me that among trees of cases one might not see forest:)) > >Nevertheless - I will follow to John's advice and try to improve my > >English via publish posters in BLML:)) > > > >Vitold > > > >P.S. Especially thanks to Patrick and Craig for their comments > >P.P.S. I am not angry with David - sorry if it looks like:) Usually > >he makes remarks almost on any posters - and I used to use his > >comments:) > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 05:55:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 05:55:01 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07444 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 05:54:54 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h48.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id XAA24649; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 23:54:32 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352739C8.C16@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 1998 23:59:04 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active_Passive References: <01bd5dcf$b843b3a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <352673CE.6F9814F0@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I was wrong - I thought it were only symptoms... And now I see it is ilness Cases I described happened with me personally: twice in pairs (European Campionship in Bordaeux and Monaco) once in team - in Tel-Aviv 4 years ago And m-r Haimovici described two more cases... Do you remember one of my slogans I proposed to place in Preface?:) "TD is for player's service" Dany Haimovici wrote: "this are the dangers of the TD's job !!!!!)" And for my (TD) opinion this is very danger ilness cause TD becomes active participant of contest and may determine who will win this contest, who - lost etc. (as in ice-dancing...) Dany:) When I act as TD in teams - I prepared in advance lots of duplicated boards. And when players play their complect - I notice if there is danger of delay. When such danger appears - I remove 1-2 boards BEFORE they are played:)) At the end of match (or half of match) I give duplicated boards simultaniously to both tables - if time allows:) But it is ACTIVE TD-ship:)) And never remove boards that were played at one table because nobody has enough authority to cancell result that was achieved in sport game (any sport game). Otherwise bridge is not kind of sport:)) In pairs - TD may not allow to play one board in next round - for return this pair to the time order. But never stop board that has been already played... But it is my personal opinion. And I am not neither TD's authority nor leading players - just common amatour of this sport The Laws should be developed for determine Contract bridge as sport Because just now our Laws describe it as robber bridge, played simultaniously at great number of tables with a lot of innovations in biddig and card play:)) Vitod From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 06:02:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 06:02:44 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07483 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 06:02:38 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h48.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id AAA24889; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 00:02:32 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35273BA9.4829@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 00:07:05 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active_Passive References: <01bd5dcf$b843b3a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <352673CE.6F9814F0@internet-zahav.net> <352739C8.C16@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry - should add to the end of my previouse message: innovations in biddig, card play and scorring:)) > Vitod From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 09:19:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 09:19:48 +1000 Received: from glinda.oz.net (glinda.oz.net [208.154.100.6]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07937 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 09:19:42 +1000 Received: from sense-sea-pm1-19.oz.net (sense-sea-pm1-19.oz.net [208.154.96.19]) by glinda.oz.net (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA18101 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 15:18:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804042318.PAA18101@glinda.oz.net> From: "Donald Mamula" Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 15:17:32 -0800 Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199804030901.BAA08217@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pardon while I de-lurk for a moment..... On 3 Apr 98 at 1:00, Marvin L. French wrote about Re: "Review, Please": > > >To avoid such problems, Alice and I have a policy of not answering > > >questions for which the answers are clearly provided on our > > >(tabled!) convention cards. We merely point to the answer. Then later came the glaring admission: > This is getting long, but here's a final point: Our policy was > developed mainly as a countermeasure to the trouble that opponents > were causing our partnership by asking unnecessary questions. Alice > would answer inaccurately on occasion, forgetting what the exact > answer is, or not knowing it, which led to all sorts of problems. Or > I would give an answer that revealed to Alice something she didn't > know, which is UI that no one knows about. That isn't right. I told > Alice, "Please stop answering questions if the answer is on the > card," and I stopped doing so myself. The policy seems to be working > well, and I don't remember anyone's thinking it "rude." IIRC, a partnership is required to know both their agreements and the details thereof. It seems that you are admitting that you and your partner a): have had problems fufilling this requirement, and b): utilize a method to circumvent that responsibility, thrusting the onus onto the opponents reading the text of your card. Further, in an additional post he writes: > A final note: We tolerate almost anything from C players, who > cannot be expected to be familiar with all the details of correct > procedure. We are also very tolerant of players from the U. K., who > seem to be more thin-skinned than Americans. It would seem to me that a technique which is designed to allow members of an established partnership to avoid their responsibilities to know and properly disclose their system, is far from correct procedure. Perhaps WE are expected to "tolerate anything" from certain A players...... Returning to Lurk status. -- Donald Mamula mamula@oz.net Kirkland, WA USA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 10:35:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 10:35:49 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08105 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 10:35:42 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client246b.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.107]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA04455; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 01:35:33 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Active_Passive Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 01:35:37 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd602a$c11f7880$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 -----Original Message----- From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru To: Dany Haimovici Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 9:31 PM Subject: Re: Active_Passive >Hi all:) >I was wrong - I thought it were only symptoms... And now I see it is >ilness No Vitold, You spoke of telling players to "close eyes" That is OK for a beginners class but not for a tournament. The Laws say "could have seen" no did see. >Cases I described happened with me personally: >twice in pairs (European Campionship in Bordaeux and Monaco) >once in team - in Tel-Aviv 4 years ago >And m-r Haimovici described two more cases... I think this is really bad. Surely not EBU Directors? >Do you remember one of my slogans I proposed to place in Preface?:) >"TD is for player's service" Surely we can agree that the TD is for the implementation of the Laws. Usually this is for the players' service. Usually for the service of the non-offender. >Dany Haimovici wrote: >"this are the dangers of the TD's job !!!!!)" I scored up in tears last Thursday beacause one International had changed his pair No from 12 to 1 on Pair No travellers, and another pair had forgotten to A/S and had just made a note of it on the traveller instead of telling me about it. THESE are the dangers of a TDs' job:-( >And for my (TD) opinion this is very danger ilness cause TD becomes >active participant of contest and may determine who will win this >contest, who - lost etc. (as in ice-dancing...) >Dany:) And rightly so, if rulings are made within the meaning of the Laws. >When I act as TD in teams - I prepared in advance lots of duplicated >boards. I appreciate you hard work in preparing boards. I have done this for years but have now got the use of a machine. I can reccommend it!! And when players play their complect - I notice if there is >danger of delay. When such danger appears - I remove 1-2 boards BEFORE >they are played:)) Have the players realised that when boards 1 and 2 are removed early, there may be difficult hands to come? This may be influential in the bidding of such hands. >At the end of match (or half of match) I give duplicated boards >simultaniously to both tables - if time allows:) >But it is ACTIVE TD-ship:)) I agree with your philosophy but would expect no less of a good TD. >And never remove boards that were played at one table because nobody has >enough authority to cancell result that was achieved in sport game (any >sport game). Otherwise bridge is not kind of sport:)) TRUE >In pairs - TD may not allow to play one board in next round - for return >this pair to the time order. But never stop board that has been already >played... Brilliant. >But it is my personal opinion. And I am not neither TD's authority Yes you are when you are TD. > nor leading players - just common amatour of this sport >The Laws should be developed for determine Contract bridge as sport If we want to be part of the Olympic movement you are obviously correct. >Because just now our Laws describe it as robber bridge, played >simultaniously at great number of tables with a lot of innovations in >biddig and card play:)) I love the mis-spelling of "Rubber". It reminds me of the last game I played at King's Road!! (:-)) for UK TDs) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 11:00:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:00:31 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA08147 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:00:24 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-170.access.net.il [192.116.198.170]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA18256; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 03:52:19 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3526D82A.FBAAB2C0@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 04:02:34 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active_Passive References: <01bd5dcf$b843b3a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <352673CE.6F9814F0@internet-zahav.net> <352739C8.C16@elnet.msk.ru> <35273BA9.4829@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Vitold Maybe even 4 years ago I was the "bad guy" who didn't let you play (or maybe Ilan Shezifi ???) , but still we did it in order to let the game progress , not to punish anyone !!!!!!! The Td , IMHO shuldn't be "felt" around the tables , but only when players need him ....... Friendly Dany vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Sorry - should add to the end of my previouse message: > innovations in biddig, card play and scorring:)) > > Vitod From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 11:17:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:17:32 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA08177 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:17:27 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client248c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.140]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA05659 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 02:17:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Re_Definitions Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 02:17:27 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6030$991f3d60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Dany Haimovici To: Jan Volhejn Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 4:50 PM Subject: Re: Re_Definitions >Hi all > >I don't want to restart this thread , but 4 days ago I was >asked to be TD in a club , running a national simultaneous contest. > >A player came to me and asked what can he do in order to achive equity >or leave the session, because his partner acted twice against him ..... > >Dany > >Jan Volhejn 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 >> And what about the opponent sitting at the same table just across the table? Often the most dangerous of all! ;-)) Bridge is a Partnership game. If you and you partner are in competition ,this is like 2 negatives and will cancel in favour of the opposition usually. However there may be place within the Laws for a partnership tantrum which damages the opposition. It is a bit like the bad bidding of a beginner which gives a Grand master a bad board. This is Bridge! Can I claim redress when the lead of a small card from AX of S against my 6H contract defeats me because I do not anticipate the ruff ? Do you think this shoud be allowed for as well? Anne >> >> Jan Volhejn, Praha >> (Listening to the list with interest for long time and awaiting his opportunity for poor joke...) Jan. Do not sit on the side-lines. We are delighted with any opportunity to joke:-)) > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 17:26:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA08937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 17:26:30 +1000 Received: from proxyb2.san.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.11]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA08932 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 17:26:23 +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 XAA10002 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 1998 23:25:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804050725.XAA10002@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 23:24:52 -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: Donald Mamula > Pardon while I de-lurk for a moment..... > > On 3 Apr 98 at 1:00, Marvin L. French wrote about Re: "Review, > Please": > > > > >To avoid such problems, Alice and I have a policy of not answering > > > >questions for which the answers are clearly provided on our > > > >(tabled!) convention cards. We merely point to the answer. > I should have worded this better, saying we do not *immediately* answer such questions, for of course we see to it that the questioner gets his/her answer one way or another. If he/she doesn't want to read the card, we give the information orally, no problem. We ourselves never ask a question for which the answer is on the opposing card, and we ignore any oral offering of such information. > Then later came the glaring admission: > > > This is getting long, but here's a final point: Our policy was > > developed mainly as a countermeasure to the trouble that opponents > > were causing our partnership by asking unnecessary questions. Alice > > would answer inaccurately on occasion, forgetting what the exact > > answer is, or not knowing it, which led to all sorts of problems. Or > > I would give an answer that revealed to Alice something she didn't > > know, which is UI that no one knows about. That isn't right. I told > > Alice, "Please stop answering questions if the answer is on the > > card," and I stopped doing so myself. The policy seems to be working > > well, and I don't remember anyone's thinking it "rude." > > IIRC, a partnership is required to know both their agreements and the > details thereof. Sorry, I don't know what IIRC means. We try our best. I see top-level players forgetting agreements, so the perfection you probably enjoy yourself is not all that common. It seems that you are admitting that you and > your partner a): have had problems fufilling this requirement, and > b): utilize a method to circumvent that responsibility, thrusting the > onus onto the opponents reading the text of your card. The ACBL Encyclopedia says that the convention card "is used by players in duplicate bridge to indicate to opponents the conventions and special understandings a pair has." Is that no longer true? I've never felt that reading such things as an opposing notrump range is an "onus." If it is indeed an onus, why not do away with the cards and communicate understandings orally all the time? > > Further, in an additional post he writes: > > > A final note: We tolerate almost anything from C players, who > > cannot be expected to be familiar with all the details of correct > > procedure. > > It would seem to me that a technique which is designed to allow > members of an established partnership to avoid their > responsibilities to know and properly disclose their system, is far > from correct procedure. Perhaps WE are expected to "tolerate > anything" from certain A players...... > >From that I assume you are a C player, which makes your perfectionism all the more admirable. Most C players that I come across don't know their system, ACBL regs, the Laws, or even standard bidding. What I was trying to say is that we hold them to a lower standard of conformance with proper procedures, as do TDs, which I think is appropriate. As they move up the ladder, more is expected of them. > Returning to Lurk status. Thanks for your comments. I'm always interested in what C players have to say on such matters. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 21:26:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 21:26:21 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09537 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 21:26:14 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-107.uunet.be [194.7.9.107]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16077 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 13:26:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352769CC.F8972D19@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 13:23:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: revoke and claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just returned from the European Mixed Championships in Aachen. BLML is getting known even to directors without e-mail and one of them came to me with a proble we would like to submit. With four cards to play, declarer shows his hand and says : "these are all high, but I have revoked a few tricks ago, let's call the director". The final cards are : - KJx x - - x KJ 8 Declarer has revoked in diamonds (I presume in a NT contract) but he knows that all six cards are high. When told the revoke rule, he will undoubtedly play his club and three heart tricks in dummy. The director ruled this to be a claim without complete statement, so he awarded two penalty tricks, but he was uncertain. In my opinion, declarer did not state a line, but would not choose the irrational line of taking a diamond trick, once the revoke rule is explained to him. Let's further state that we all agree that if he had not realized himself that he had revoked, then two penalty tricks would be the correct ruling. What do you think ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 5 23:33:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 23:33:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA09810 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 23:33:34 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008296; 5 Apr 98 13:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 01:18:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <199804042318.PAA18101@glinda.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Donald Mamula wrote: >Pardon while I de-lurk for a moment..... Very sensible, Donald, and I agree, but ..... .... if you de-lurk and are going back to lurking, should you not mention your cats? >Returning to Lurk status. -- 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 Apr 5 23:35:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 23:35:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA09835 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 23:35:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008297; 5 Apr 98 13:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 01:22:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Nanki Poo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nanki Poo is ***five*** today, the 5th of April! Emails to . Quango wants to know if Nanki Poo is getting any tuna so he can eat it for him. -- 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 Apr 6 01:55:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 01:55:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA12824 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 01:55:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020615; 5 Apr 98 15:48 GMT Message-ID: <0Op6B0CKN6J1Ewjc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 16:29:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <352769CC.F8972D19@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I have just returned from the European Mixed Championships in Aachen. > >BLML is getting known even to directors without e-mail and one of them >came to me with a proble we would like to submit. > >With four cards to play, declarer shows his hand and says : >"these are all high, but I have revoked a few tricks ago, let's call the >director". > >The final cards are : > > - > KJx > x > - > > - > x > KJ > 8 > >Declarer has revoked in diamonds (I presume in a NT contract) but he >knows that all six cards are high. > >When told the revoke rule, he will undoubtedly play his club and three >heart tricks in dummy. > >The director ruled this to be a claim without complete statement, so he >awarded two penalty tricks, but he was uncertain. > >In my opinion, declarer did not state a line, but would not choose the >irrational line of taking a diamond trick, once the revoke rule is >explained to him. > >Let's further state that we all agree that if he had not realized >himself that he had revoked, then two penalty tricks would be the >correct ruling. > >What do you think ? > I agree with you. ------------------------------------------------------- By the way, Nanki Poo is *five* today [the fifth]. Emails to . -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 6 05:00:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 05:00:38 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13707 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 05:00:29 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-195.access.net.il [192.116.198.195]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA26962; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 21:52:14 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3527D540.BCCEDF57@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 1998 22:02:24 +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: Nanki Poo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nanki Poo Happy birth day to you ... hapy birth day to you ..... (did you hear the change of intonation >?????) I send you a tuna or rabbit ..... By the way ... Spotty , Shemaya's daughter was sent back to us because Dany's son & his wife can't deal with her for a long while. So now we are six....... Shobo David Stevenson wrote: > > Nanki Poo is ***five*** today, the 5th of April! > > Emails to . > > Quango wants to know if Nanki Poo is getting any tuna so he can eat it > for him. > > -- > 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 Apr 6 09:48:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 09:48:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA14507 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 09:48:31 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001371; 5 Apr 98 23:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 00:29:44 +0100 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <352769CC.F8972D19@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <352769CC.F8972D19@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I have just returned from the European Mixed Championships in Aachen. > >BLML is getting known even to directors without e-mail and one of them >came to me with a proble we would like to submit. > >With four cards to play, declarer shows his hand and says : >"these are all high, but I have revoked a few tricks ago, let's call the >director". > >The final cards are : > > - > KJx > x > - > > - > x > KJ > 8 > >Declarer has revoked in diamonds (I presume in a NT contract) but he >knows that all six cards are high. > >When told the revoke rule, he will undoubtedly play his club and three >heart tricks in dummy. > >The director ruled this to be a claim without complete statement, so he >awarded two penalty tricks, but he was uncertain. > >In my opinion, declarer did not state a line, but would not choose the >irrational line of taking a diamond trick, once the revoke rule is >explained to him. > >Let's further state that we all agree that if he had not realized >himself that he had revoked, then two penalty tricks would be the >correct ruling. > >What do you think ? > IMO it would have been irrational of declarer to make a play for 2 tricks when 3 are avaliable. The only difference between this and a normal claim is that there is a complex law which had declarer known he would have applied. His error is failure to know the law rather than anything else. As you say because he knew he'd revoked he' knew what was going on in the hand. Id he didn't know he'd revoked then presumably the opponents would draw his attention to it at the point he claimed and I would then as you say award two tricks. In summary I concur. -- 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 Apr 6 14:59:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 14:59:16 +1000 Received: from nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au (nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au [147.109.36.12]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15294 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 14:59:10 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 06 Apr 1998 14:59:43 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 14:59:12 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: revoke and claim 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 Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> Herman De Wael 5/04/98 21:23:56 >>> With four cards to play, declarer shows his hand and says : =22these are all high, but I have revoked a few tricks ago, let=27s call = the director=22. The final cards are : - KJx x - - x KJ 8 Declarer has revoked in diamonds (I presume in a NT contract) but he knows that all six cards are high. When told the revoke rule, he will undoubtedly play his club and three heart tricks in dummy. The director ruled this to be a claim without complete statement, so he awarded two penalty tricks, but he was uncertain. In my opinion, declarer did not state a line, but would not choose the irrational line of taking a diamond trick, once the revoke rule is explained to him. Let=27s further state that we all agree that if he had not realized himself that he had revoked, then two penalty tricks would be the correct ruling. What do you think ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All seem to concur so far, except that...... Declarer has realised an infraction (the revoke) has occurred, yet has failed to summon the director. He has now completed the play by claiming without stating a line of play. Should we not consider what would happen without the claim? Herman says that when told the revoke rule, declarer will play club then three hearts. I think that declarer would not be in a position to hear the revoke ruling - the hand would be played out without summoning the director and declarer is just as likely to cash diamonds as hearts - hence I would rule two penalty tricks. Just love to stick my neck out.....:) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 6 15:53:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA15523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 15:53:08 +1000 Received: from proxyb2.san.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.11]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA15518 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 15:52:52 +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 WAA06928 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 22:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804060552.WAA06928@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 22:51:12 -0700 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 ---------- A friend wrote to correct me about the impression I had that Don Mamula was a C player: > Don Mamula is a fine Flight A player. Best known today > as Vice-Chair of Board of Governors of ACBL. Nice person, too. > Thanks, I guess I should have recognized the name. The following exchange led me to believe he is a C player: My words: >> > final note: We tolerate almost anything from C players, who >> > cannot be expected to be familiar with all the details of correct >> > procedure. Don Mamula's words: >> >> It would seem to me that a technique which is designed to allow >> members of an established partnership to avoid their >> responsibilities to know and properly disclose their system, is far >> from correct procedure. Perhaps WE are expected to "tolerate >> anything" from certain A players...... >From that I inferred that he was a C player. Sorry, Don, no offense intended. As to Don's words above, the methods that Alice and I use to fully disclose our partnership agreements are designed to avoid the creation or communication of UI, all in accordance with ACBL regulations. By avoiding (but not refusing) oral communication of what is clearly on the convention card, we ensure that our agreements are accurately communicated. We ourselves always look at opponents' cards rather than ask for the information that is printed there, and wish everyone would do the same. This policy avoids selective questioning based on one's hand, ensures accurate knowledge of opponents' agreements, and precludes the common practice of asking questions mainly for the benefit of one's partner. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 6 16:32:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 16:32:33 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA15616 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 16:32:27 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-26.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.192]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA28557 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 02:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35287727.185EEFEA@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 02:33:11 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: revoke and claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is declarer required by law to point out his own revoke????? Nancy Simon Edler wrote: > Regards, > Simon Edler, > Information Technology Branch, > Forestry Tasmania > Email: Simon.Edler@forestry.tas.gov.au > > >>> Herman De Wael 5/04/98 21:23:56 >>> > With four cards to play, declarer shows his hand and says : > "these are all high, but I have revoked a few tricks ago, let's call the > director". > > The final cards are : > > - > KJx > x > - > > - > x > KJ > 8 > > Declarer has revoked in diamonds (I presume in a NT contract) but he > knows that all six cards are high. > > When told the revoke rule, he will undoubtedly play his club and three > heart tricks in dummy. > > The director ruled this to be a claim without complete statement, so he > awarded two penalty tricks, but he was uncertain. > > In my opinion, declarer did not state a line, but would not choose the > irrational line of taking a diamond trick, once the revoke rule is > explained to him. > > Let's further state that we all agree that if he had not realized > himself that he had revoked, then two penalty tricks would be the > correct ruling. > > What do you think ? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > All seem to concur so far, except that...... > > Declarer has realised an infraction (the revoke) has occurred, > yet has failed to summon the director. He has now completed the > play by claiming without stating a line of play. Should we not consider > what would happen without the claim? > > Herman says that when told the revoke rule, declarer will play club > then three hearts. I think that declarer would not be in a position to > hear the revoke ruling - the hand would be played out without > summoning the director and declarer is just as likely to cash > diamonds as hearts - hence I would rule two penalty tricks. > > Just love to stick my neck out.....:) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 6 20:27:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 20:27:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA16056 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 20:27:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2028725; 6 Apr 98 10:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:20:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <35287727.185EEFEA@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Is declarer required by law to point out his own revoke????? No. He may not hide it - for example to claim now by flashing his cards, or even not showing them, would be illegal - but he is not required to point it out. Many people do so, however, either because they do not realise it is not required, or because they do know but their own ethics suggests they should. To be honest, the weaker the opposition, the more likely I am to point out my own revoke: if I am playing against two Grand Masters, and they don't notice then I don't care! Anyway, when I revoke I usually don't notice otherwise I wouldn't revoke! -------------------------- Simon Edler wrote: >All seem to concur so far, except that...... > >Declarer has realised an infraction (the revoke) has occurred, >yet has failed to summon the director. He has now completed the >play by claiming without stating a line of play. Should we not consider >what would happen without the claim? > >Herman says that when told the revoke rule, declarer will play club >then three hearts. I think that declarer would not be in a position to >hear the revoke ruling - the hand would be played out without >summoning the director and declarer is just as likely to cash >diamonds as hearts - hence I would rule two penalty tricks. > >Just love to stick my neck out.....:) This is a not unreasonable approach, IMO. -------------------------- So far Nanki Poo has had *ten* emails, considerably more than I got for my birthday, mainly from Bridge players. His picture is on my Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 00:57:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 00:57:27 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA19135 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 00:57:17 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yMDKj-0007Sl-00; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 15:57:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 15:39:37 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Nancy T Dressing wrote: >>Is declarer required by law to point out his own revoke????? > > No. He may not hide it - for example to claim now by flashing his >cards, or even not showing them, would be illegal - but he is not >required to point it out. Many people do so, however, either because >they do not realise it is not required, or because they do know but >their own ethics suggests they should. > > To be honest, the weaker the opposition, the more likely I am to point >out my own revoke: if I am playing against two Grand Masters, and they >don't notice then I don't care! Anyway, when I revoke I usually don't >notice otherwise I wouldn't revoke! > > -------------------------- > >Simon Edler wrote: > >>All seem to concur so far, except that...... >> >>Declarer has realised an infraction (the revoke) has occurred, >>yet has failed to summon the director. He has now completed the >>play by claiming without stating a line of play. Should we not consider >>what would happen without the claim? >> >>Herman says that when told the revoke rule, declarer will play club >>then three hearts. I think that declarer would not be in a position to >>hear the revoke ruling - the hand would be played out without >>summoning the director and declarer is just as likely to cash >>diamonds as hearts - hence I would rule two penalty tricks. >> >>Just love to stick my neck out.....:) > > This is a not unreasonable approach, IMO. > > -------------------------- > > So far Nanki Poo has had *ten* emails, considerably more than I got for >my birthday, mainly from Bridge players. His picture is on my Catpage >at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm. > > clearly we need to record the cat's birthdays as well as their names on blml. The we need a volunteer to set-up an automated posting system to send them e-mails on their birthdays and to remind blml.cat.owners to send their season's cat birthday card. BTW Stephen, my son, the infamous Junior Caddy, collects the tokens at our local filling station and sends off for the cash in the name of Figaro. I then have a monthly argument with my bank when I try to pay a cheque made out to F Probst into my account. So we have a rubber stamp for the back of the cheque with a paw print and "Pay Daddy" on it. I have to explain that I'm acting as agent for the cat. :) -- 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 Apr 7 01:55:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:55:47 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19409 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:55:39 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA28997 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 10:55:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 197.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.17.197) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028946; Mon Apr 6 10:54:30 1998 Received: by 197.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6152.75EFBC20@197.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net>; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:52:23 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6152.75EFBC20@197.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: revoke and claim Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:52:20 -0400 Encoding: 36 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mine have managed to get on all sorts of mailing list. One now belongs to a book club. Another was just invited to join a dating service. They also get cat food coupons in the mail. So far, no solicitations for bridge related merchandise. Perhaps vendors in our genre are a little more careful about building their mailing lists. I have, however, taken them to several tournaments (at least their hair, which adheres remarkably well to every garment I own). Craig Senior clearly we need to record the cat's birthdays as well as their names on blml. The we need a volunteer to set-up an automated posting system to send them e-mails on their birthdays and to remind blml.cat.owners to send their season's cat birthday card. BTW Stephen, my son, the infamous Junior Caddy, collects the tokens at our local filling station and sends off for the cash in the name of Figaro. I then have a monthly argument with my bank when I try to pay a cheque made out to F Probst into my account. So we have a rubber stamp for the back of the cheque with a paw print and "Pay Daddy" on it. I have to explain that I'm acting as agent for the cat. :) -- 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 Apr 7 01:56:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:56:59 +1000 Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19421 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:56:53 +1000 Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id SRHa010941 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:56:16 -0500 (EDT) From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: <8338728.3528fb21@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:56:16 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/6/98 0:54:25 AM EST, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > As to Don's words above, the methods that Alice and I use to fully > disclose our partnership agreements are designed to avoid the > creation or communication of UI, all in accordance with ACBL > regulations. There is no such regulation! We clearly allow oral disclosure of agreements. If UI results, we have Laws to deal with that. > By avoiding (but not refusing) oral communication of > what is clearly on the convention card, we ensure that our agreements > are accurately communicated. We ourselves always look at opponents' > cards rather than ask for the information that is printed there, and > wish everyone would do the same. You're entitled to that opinion. But it is totally unrealistic to think that that the details of all agreements can possibly be disclosed on an ACBL convention card. It is even difficult to do so on a WBF convention card. What's more, locating where an agreement is explained can be a problem. My card says we play constructive raises of majors and Reverse 2-way Drury. If you asked about agreements after a 3rd seat opener, I would make it clear that we may frequently bid a semi-forcing NT as a passed hand with support if it does not meet our requirements for a constructive raise by a passed hand which is slightly less than our requirements for Drury. This is only one example of an agreement that it would be difficult to disclose on the convention card. And there are so many more like this. > This policy avoids selective > questioning based on one's hand, You know full well we can deal with that problem. And would you actually suggest that it is any different if an opponent grabs a convention card at an inappropriate moment? > ensures accurate knowledge of > opponents' agreements, and precludes the common practice of asking > questions mainly for the benefit of one's partner. > > The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. And methinks that Marvin French doth protest too much! It is common practice to verbally ask questions about agreements. And it is common practice to receive answers to those questions. I personally rarely look at a convention card to receive information. I remember Bobby Goldman making the same disclosure in a Board of Governors meeting. What's more, I am well aware of the practice in NABC open events. Verbal disclosure and explanations is the practice used by the vast majority of the players. If Alice gets confused and can't explain agreements, perhaps it is because Alice doesn't understand the agreements. If there is confusion, the opponents certainly have a right to know about it. I have a set of notes for Tom Clarke and I that is roughly 15 pages in length to explain most of our agreements. Should I force the opponents to read these notes to get the information they want? Our regulations CLEARLY allow me to ask about your agreements at the table, Marvin. Whether it is on your card or not, I may ask for an explanation of your agreements. Whats more, I'm sure you're aware that the Laws specifically allow me to ask. You may not be aware of it Marvin, but even in WBF events the participants practice verbal disclosure and RARELY consult a card. It may be time to examine your practices and recognize that you're out of step with reality. As your opponent, I assure you that I will be asking questions if the need arises... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 05:17:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 05:17:38 +1000 Received: from netgates.co.uk (genesis.netgates.co.uk [193.9.120.100]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA20502 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 05:17:29 +1000 Received: from mitl001a.netgates.co.uk (mitl001a.netgates.co.uk [194.105.65.226]) by netgates.co.uk (8.7.5/8.x.x) with SMTP id UAA20060; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 20:17:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 20:17:39 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199804061917.UAA20060@netgates.co.uk> X-Sender: mitl001b@mail.netgates.co.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: AlLeBendig From: Larry Bennett Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 06/04/98 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 4/6/98 0:54:25 AM EST, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > >> > >And methinks that Marvin French doth protest too much! It is common practice >to verbally ask questions about agreements. And it is common practice to >receive answers to those questions. I personally rarely look at a convention >card to receive information. I remember Bobby Goldman making the same >disclosure in a Board of Governors meeting. What's more, I am well aware of >the practice in NABC open events. Verbal disclosure and explanations is the >practice used by the vast majority of the players. If Alice gets confused and >can't explain agreements, perhaps it is because Alice doesn't understand the >agreements. If there is confusion, the opponents certainly have a right to >know about it. I have a set of notes for Tom Clarke and I that is roughly 15 >pages in length to explain most of our agreements. Should I force the >opponents to read these notes to get the information they want? > >Our regulations CLEARLY allow me to ask about your agreements at the table, >Marvin. Whether it is on your card or not, I may ask for an explanation of >your agreements. Whats more, I'm sure you're aware that the Laws specifically >allow me to ask. You may not be aware of it Marvin, but even in WBF events >the participants practice verbal disclosure and RARELY consult a card. > >It may be time to examine your practices and recognize that you're out of step >with reality. As your opponent, I assure you that I will be asking questions >if the need arises... > >Alan LeBendig > >Hear hear. Well put. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 06:42:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:42:05 +1000 Received: from mail-atm.maine.rr.com (ns.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.1]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA20773 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 06:41:59 +1000 Received: from Goodwin.maine.rr.com (dt032n51.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.81]) by mail-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA00719; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 16:33:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980406163534.487f0c06@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 16:35:34 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199804061917.UAA20060@netgates.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is the purpose of a convention card? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 07:49:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 07:49:42 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA21057 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 07:49:37 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23406; 6 Apr 98 14:49 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Apr 1998 16:35:34." <3.0.5.16.19980406163534.487f0c06@maine.rr.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 14:48:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804061449.aa23406@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > What is the purpose of a convention card? > > Tim I always thought it was to take up all the space on the table so that there's no room left for my coffee. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 09:20:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 09:20:36 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21357 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 09:20:26 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2697.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.151]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA04634 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 00:20:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 00:20:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd61b2$960c3fa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 11:39 PM Subject: Re: "Review, Please" > >> What is the purpose of a convention card? >> >> Tim > >I always thought it was to take up all the space on the table so that >there's no room left for my coffee. > > -- Adam How inconsiderate. You are instructed to exchange CCs with your opponents. Get yours laminated so that they can use it as a mat for their coffee:-)) Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 10:00:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:00:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21534 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 09:59:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2023098; 6 Apr 98 23:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 00:46:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980406163534.487f0c06@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >What is the purpose of a convention card? To provide one of two distinct and complementary channels of communication to opponents about the methods you play in the interests of full disclosure. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 11:03:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:03:11 +1000 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA21681 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:03:05 +1000 Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id SRHAa16330 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 21:01:20 -0500 (EDT) From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 21:01:20 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/6/98 3:43:42 PM EST, timg@maine.rr.com writes: > What is the purpose of a convention card? One very real purpose of the convention card is to establish what agreements a partnership has. It is very difficult to detail all agreements on a convention card but there should be some evidence that an agreement exists. TDs and ACs will look to a convention card to determine whether an agreement exists. Example: Over 1NT, you overcall 2D playing that as a transfer to hearts. Partner alerts that it shows the majors. After the opponents have lost their spade fit and are upset, the TD is called. You say that partner has given the correct information and you just forgot what you are playing. Yes, it is legal to forget your agreements. But the TD checks your convention card and finds it is marked that you are playing transfer overcalls of their NT. You and your partner say that you used to play that but recently switched to Hamilton (Cappeletti) and have forgotten to make the change on your card. Therefore the opponents were given a correct explanation of your true methods and there was no misinformation, just a "forget". Sorry, you lose. An adjustment would be in order. Your CC does not reflect this new agreement and that is the "evidence" of what your agreements are. Still need to know the purpose of a convention card? If all those opposed to verbal questions would read Law 20F, perhaps we could end this senseless discussion. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 14:52:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 14:52:19 +1000 Received: from mail-atm.maine.rr.com (ns.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.1]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22303 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 14:52:09 +1000 Received: from Goodwin.maine.rr.com (dt032n51.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.81]) by mail-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA01989; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 00:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980407004559.3a670742@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 00:45:59 To: AlLeBendig , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:01 PM 4/6/98 EDT, AlLeBendig wrote: >In a message dated 4/6/98 3:43:42 PM EST, timg@maine.rr.com writes: > >> What is the purpose of a convention card? > >One very real purpose of the convention card is to establish what agreements a >partnership has. It is very difficult to detail all agreements on a >convention card but there should be some evidence that an agreement exists. >TDs and ACs will look to a convention card to determine whether an agreement >exists. What if I have a set of system notes and a convention card which do not agree? >Still need to know the purpose of a convention card? It was not a rhetorical question. I am not opposed to verbal answers to opponents' questions, in fact I think they are far more efficient than looking at a convention card. Usually a verbal question will get you more information, as well. If you ask me about my partner's 2S opening bid, I will be able to tell you that it is a weak two which varies greatly by position and vulnerability and I will be able to tell you what kind of a suit I might expect for this particular position and vulnerability. I simply cannot fit all of this information on the ACBL convention card. Tim >If all those opposed to verbal questions would read Law 20F, perhaps we could >end this senseless discussion. > >Alan LeBendig > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 21:43:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 21:43:11 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA23068 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 21:43:03 +1000 Received: from default (client82d9.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.217]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA21714; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:43:01 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:40:04 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6219$e8253960$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: Adam Beneschan To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Date: 06 April 1998 23:39 Subject: Re: "Review, Please" > >> What is the purpose of a convention card? >> >> Tim > >I always thought it was to take up all the space on the table so that >there's no room left for my coffee. > #### Coffee on a bridge table? Really! Adam! #### G #### > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 21:43:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 21:43:13 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA23073 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 21:43:07 +1000 Received: from default (client82d9.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.217]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA21709; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:42:58 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Cc: Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:38:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6219$b60dbce0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Tim Goodwin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 06 April 1998 22:43 Subject: Re: "Review, Please" >What is the purpose of a convention card? > #### See Law 40E1; the sponsoring organisation regulates the use of a convention card. There is no law to say that the requirements of SOs shall be everywhere the same.#### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 21:55:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 21:55:50 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA23122 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 21:55:44 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yMWyc-0006pY-00; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:55:43 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <23X5C4Z1>; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:55:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: "Review, Please" Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:55:50 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > >> What is the purpose of a convention card? > >> > >> Tim > > > >I always thought it was to take up all the space on the table so that > >there's no room left for my coffee. > > > > #### Coffee on a bridge table? Really! Adam! #### G #### > > > > ???????? Presumably tea and alcohol are OK? ????????? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 7 22:36:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:36:55 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA23329 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:36:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2000396; 7 Apr 98 12:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 13:17:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980407004559.3a670742@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >What if I have a set of system notes and a convention card which do not agree? What happens if you bid out of turn? If you infract the Law, it is dealt with. But that is no reason not to have a CC or not to answer questions [or not to bid ]. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 00:50:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 00:50:58 +1000 Received: from mail.thebest.net (thebest.net [207.124.26.14]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA26000 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 00:50:51 +1000 Received: from thebest.net ([207.124.26.212]) by thebest.net (Eureka! Gold(tm) v2.4) id AA-1998Apr07.105246.G1013.607815; Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:52:47 -0400 Message-ID: <352A3D28.BB26201E@thebest.net> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:50:16 -0400 From: ann parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailServer: Eureka! Gold Internet Server (v2.4) Organization: TheBest.Net, St. Simons Island, GA 31522, USA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Before you leave this subject completely, I would like to see what you all think of the following ruling: In a local game recently, I was given the incorrect interpretation of a bid by my LHO. As a result of his explanation, I went down one in a bid that everyone else made. At the end of the hand, I called the director. After looking at my opponent's card, his response was, "He had the correct explanation on his card. You should have looked at it. No adjustment." What do you think of his ruling? Incidentally, I am a lurker and just a lowly fairly-new Life Master, but I really enjoy your discussions. Ann Parker From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 01:12:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 01:12:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA26229 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 01:12:21 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yMa2l-0007hp-00; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 16:12:12 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <23X5C46R>; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 16:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 16:08:32 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ann wrote: > Before you leave this subject completely, I would like to see what you > all think of the following ruling: In a local game recently, I was > given the incorrect interpretation of a bid by my LHO. As a result of > his explanation, I went down one in a bid that everyone else made. At > the end of the hand, I called the director. After looking at my > opponent's card, his response was, "He had the correct explanation on > his card. You should have looked at it. No adjustment." What do you > think of his ruling? Incidentally, I am a lurker and just a lowly > fairly-new Life Master, but I really enjoy your discussions. Ann > Parker > > ####### You are entitled to receive correct explanations at all > times, both verbally and on the CC. You are also entitled under Law > 40C to receive an adjusted score whenever you are damaged by an > opponent's incorrect explanation. > > More generally on this topic, the importance of the CC is shown in the > EBL Commentary which states that doubt as to the system being played > by your opponents exists whenever: > > 1 the opponents present differing explanations of a call and this > is not cleared up by a uniform explanation on both of their CCs; > > 2 the opponents' CCs disagree despite the fact that both opponents > agree with one of the CCs; > > 3 there is only one CC which disagrees with the statements of both > players who are themselves in agreement. ########## > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 01:24:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 01:24:49 +1000 Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.38]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA26325 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 01:24:42 +1000 Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id SMSFa15786 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:24:05 -0500 (EDT) From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: <6aee0ec4.352a4517@aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:24:05 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/7/98 9:52:20 AM EST, annparker@thebest.net writes: > In a local game recently, I was > given the incorrect interpretation of a bid by my LHO. As a result of > his explanation, I went down one in a bid that everyone else made. At > the end of the hand, I called the director. After looking at my > opponent's card, his response was, "He had the correct explanation on > his card. You should have looked at it. No adjustment." What do you > think of his ruling? I think the director erred. You are entitled to rely on being given the correct explanation. You do NOT have to search the convention card for the correct information. A more common problem occurs when you are told that an agreement exists which is reflected on the convention card but has nothing to do with the hand which made the bid. The bidder says "Sorry - I forgot" and directors are much to quick to accept this at face value. In the ACBL, we have footnotes to Law 75 which make it clear that we are to presume misexplanation rather than mistaken bid unless there is evidence to the contrary. The convention card is some evidence but not necessarily conclusive evidence. For example, S opens 2D with his weak 2 and N alerts as Flannery. The convention card reflects that they are indeed playing Flannery. Do we just rule "mistaken bid"? A few more questions will determine that N filled out the card after S said to put down whatever and he would play it. The fact that S never knew what was on the card means that this is a case of misinformation since they never had an agreement and yet it was represented that one existed. Such a case should not be treated as a "forget". I find that it is a frequent problem that a pair has not agreed on the details of how things work more often than forgetting what they are playing. Yet they frequently resort to "I forgot" as this will sometimes get them of the hook. > Incidentally, I am a lurker and just a lowly > fairly-new Life Master, but I really enjoy your discussions. Give us time - we specialize in changing opinions... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 01:56:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 01:56:21 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA26499 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 01:56:15 +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 LAA17572 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804071556.LAA21453@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <352A3D28.BB26201E@thebest.net> (message from ann parker on Tue, 07 Apr 1998 10:50:16 -0400) Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ann parker writes: > Before you leave this subject completely, I would like to see what you > all think of the following ruling: In a local game recently, I was > given the incorrect interpretation of a bid by my LHO. As a result of > his explanation, I went down one in a bid that everyone else made. At > the end of the hand, I called the director. After looking at my > opponent's card, his response was, "He had the correct explanation on > his card. You should have looked at it. No adjustment." This seems to be an unreasonable attempt to rule by the letter of the law. It is standard procedure to ask questions about the opponents' agreements; this often saves time, particularly if you are not sure what will be on the card or there is only one card. There is a risk of transmitting UI by asking a question, but that is not what happened here. You were misinformed under Law 21, and are entitled to redress. The "could have known" laws don't seem to cover this case. I could argue that a ruling should be made based on Law 73F: If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 05:11:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 05:11:46 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA28064 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 05:11:39 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA25352 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 12:11:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804071911.MAA25352@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: CC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Based on how it is actually used in the US, the purpose of the CC seems twofold: 1) To provide some text for the back of the private scoresheet, and 2) To serve as a "coaster" for bidding-boxes, presumably to avoid them scratching the (cheap, plastic-covered) table. And Alan (LeBendig), if the main purpose was to settle disputes in AC meetings, why is it required: a) to have TWO copies, and b) that they are placed on the table in front of each opponent? One copy tucked away in the bag would suffice to serve your purpose, and as a bonus free-up space for the other posters' drinks. Not accepting that the MAIN purpose is (was) to provide opponents easy and handy access to our agreements, in a way that reduces the occassions when we transmit UI with our (mis)explanations, is imo an attempt (maybe unconscious) to adjust the intent to suit the actual (ab)use. It is always easier to adjust rules to behaviour, rather than behaviour to rules. That doesn't meen it's always good. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 05:37:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 05:37:55 +1000 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA28227 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 05:37:41 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-167.access.net.il [192.116.198.167]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA27051; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:34:02 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <352A80F4.783EAFD8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 22:39:32 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ann parker CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" References: <352A3D28.BB26201E@thebest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear lady I read your message and some other contributors' answers. I agree especially with Alan's full answer and have nothing to add but the following sarcastic "black scientific humor". I hope not to be very rude but i don't believe you summoned a tournament director : you meant to call a TD , but at the table arrived a "hotentotic backgammon" referee or any kind of a referee from a cosmic "white hole" (maybe the real TD fell into a "black hole" so couldn't get out anymore, but escaping from that "white hole" after an undefined nonconservative transformation). Dany ann parker wrote: > > Before you leave this subject completely, I would like to see what you > all think of the following ruling: In a local game recently, I was > given the incorrect interpretation of a bid by my LHO. As a result of > his explanation, I went down one in a bid that everyone else made. At > the end of the hand, I called the director. After looking at my > opponent's card, his response was, "He had the correct explanation on > his card. You should have looked at it. No adjustment." What do you > think of his ruling? Incidentally, I am a lurker and just a lowly > fairly-new Life Master, but I really enjoy your discussions. Ann Parker From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 06:20:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 06:20:44 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA28497 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 06:20:36 +1000 Received: from default (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA28088 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:20:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804072020.WAA28088@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:21:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ann parker asked: > Before you leave this subject completely, I would like to see what you > all think of the following ruling: In a local game recently, I was > given the incorrect interpretation of a bid by my LHO. As a result of > his explanation, I went down one in a bid that everyone else made. At > the end of the hand, I called the director. After looking at my > opponent's card, his response was, "He had the correct explanation on > his card. You should have looked at it. No adjustment." What do you > think of his ruling? It looks as if I disagree with his interpretation of L40C, which reads: >If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its >opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he >may award an adjusted score. We have had an appeal before the Danish National Appeals Committee earlier this year, where a player discovered a discrepancy between the CC and a missing alert, went on to query about the missing alert, was given an oral explanation that fit with the missing alert but not with card, had the director called, and finally doubled 5S, which would only make sense if he was speculating that his opponents were having a serious misunderstanding. They were not. 5S redoubled won all 13 tricks. The oral explanation was correct, and the convention name listed on the card was apparently based on a misunderstanding of the semi-official definition of the convention. The director awarded an adjustment to 5S undoubled. The local AC upheld the adjusted score for the "misinforming" side, but let the doubler keep his score based on the "wild or gambling" aspect of the double. The National AC restored the table score, reasoning that the player must believe what he is told and can use an apparent discrepancy with the CC only at this own risk; we fined the "misinforming" side 1 VP for their carelessness with their CC. This is a case law precedent for Denmark that the oral explanation has priority when there is a disagreement with the CC. Which reminds me: Since Milan 1996, when I direct I tend to interpret the footnote to L75 more strictly than earlier. I rule misinformation in most cases where players apparently cannot remember their agreements, using reasoning like "if you can't remember it, it is not really a partnership understanding, even if it is on page 83 of your system notes." This doesn't mean that rulings like "misbid, no infraction" don't occur; it just means that "I forgot" leads to a ruling of misinformation if there are no special circumstances leading to this sudden attack of amnesia. Am I too far out here? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 10:25:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:25:51 +1000 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA29654 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:25:42 +1000 Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id SQAIa24517 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 20:24:00 -0500 (EDT) From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: <882eeb61.352ac3a2@aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 20:24:00 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/7/98 3:22:15 PM EST, alesia@pip.dknet.dk writes: > We have had an appeal before the Danish National Appeals Committee > earlier this year, where a player discovered a discrepancy between > the CC and a missing alert, went on to query about the missing > alert, was given an oral explanation that fit with the missing alert > but not with card, had the director called, and finally doubled 5S, > which would only make sense if he was speculating that his opponents > were having a serious misunderstanding. They were not. 5S redoubled > won all 13 tricks. The oral explanation was correct, and the > convention name listed on the card was apparently based on a > misunderstanding of the semi-official definition of the convention. > > The director awarded an adjustment to 5S undoubled. The local AC > upheld the adjusted score for the "misinforming" side, but let the > doubler keep his score based on the "wild or gambling" aspect of the > double. The National AC restored the table score, reasoning that > the player must believe what he is told and can use an apparent > discrepancy with the CC only at this own risk; we fined the > "misinforming" side 1 VP for their carelessness with their CC. > > This is a case law precedent for Denmark that the oral explanation > has priority when there is a disagreement with the CC. A very well reasoned decision. I feel it carried the appropriate amount of weight for all parties. I would like some more information about this "National AC" and what the structure is. In the ACBL, the only avenue of appeal from an AC is to our Laws Commission and ONLY if the party wishing the appeal can establish one of three criteria: 1) Misapplication of the Law 2) Incompetence on the part of the committee 3) Prejudice on the part of the committee Since it would be quite difficult to establish either of the last 2, it is quite rare for an appeal to be heard by the Laws Commission. It sounds like you have found a way to effectively hear appeals at a higher level. > Which reminds me: Since Milan 1996, when I direct I tend to > interpret the footnote to L75 more strictly than earlier. I rule > misinformation in most cases where players apparently cannot > remember their agreements, using reasoning like "if you can't > remember it, it is not really a partnership understanding, even if > it is on page 83 of your system notes." This doesn't mean that > rulings like "misbid, no infraction" don't occur; it just means that > "I forgot" leads to a ruling of misinformation if there are no > special circumstances leading to this sudden attack of amnesia. > > Am I too far out here? I LOVE your approach to this constant problem. I agree wholeheartedly with such a tough stand and firmly believe that this is the intent of the Laws. Unfortunately, I find too many TDs that are not willing to be so harsh. And in fact they are quite willing to accept an "I forgot" without doing any research as to what really happened. I'm not trying to say that there is no such thing as a "forget". But I think they are the exception rather than the rule. When I have found myself in these situations, it was usually because my partner and I were on different wavelengths. And that simply means that we didn't have an agreement about how this sequence works. He may have been right with the explanation of what he believed we were playing, but if I didn't think it worked that way there is misinformation. I find that a simple concept and I'm glad Jens is ruling in that fashion. Do the majority of us feel that this should become a more standard approach? Surely we can exert some pressure in our own areas if we agree on this. The eventual outcome will be bound to be less complex methods if "they" are "always" going to lose when problems arise. (IMO) Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 18:20:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 18:20:19 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA02531 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 18:20:08 +1000 Received: from 145.18.125.142 (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA09770 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:20:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804080820.KAA09770@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:25:28 Subject: 3NT on UI? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No BLML messages for several days (???) If there is still anybody out there, I would appreciate your comments on the following: Dealer: W, EW vul, teams Q9 AQT AT83 KT95 A J876543 K87542 J63 K965 QJ A3 2 KT2 9 742 QJ8764 Bidding: West North East South 1h 1NT* 2s 2NT 3h 3NT end * 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended 2NT as Lebensohl. The play: East leads h3 to king and ace, West takes the second club, plays a heart to 10 and jack and East clears the hearts. When North reels off the clubs, West parts with two hearts, enabling North to develop his ninth trick in spades. Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? Cheers, ( ) JP ( \\\|// ) (@ @)___U -----------------------oOO--OOOo------------------------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jan Peter Pals * e-mail: j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl * Faculty of Environmental Sciences, dept. European Archaeology * University of Amsterdam * Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam * Tel: (31)-20-525 5811/5172/5830, Fax: (31)-20-525-5822 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 20:52:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:52:48 +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 UAA03490 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:52:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026402; 8 Apr 98 10:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 00:59:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <01bd6219$e8253960$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >#### Coffee on a bridge table? Really! Adam! #### G #### It is better if you put it in a cup and put the cup on the table. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 21:29:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:29:29 +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 VAA03601 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:29:23 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-153.uunet.be [194.7.9.153]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29886 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:29:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352B5A14.8F023E0F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:05:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804072020.WAA28088@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > This is a case law precedent for Denmark that the oral explanation > has priority when there is a disagreement with the CC. > It should really be a precedent to suggest that an opponent may not choose from among conflicting evidence the one which is wrong. This player was very clearly going for a double shot. > Which reminds me: Since Milan 1996, when I direct I tend to > interpret the footnote to L75 more strictly than earlier. I rule > misinformation in most cases where players apparently cannot > remember their agreements, using reasoning like "if you can't > remember it, it is not really a partnership understanding, even if > it is on page 83 of your system notes." This doesn't mean that > rulings like "misbid, no infraction" don't occur; it just means that > "I forgot" leads to a ruling of misinformation if there are no > special circumstances leading to this sudden attack of amnesia. > > Am I too far out here? I agree wholeheartedly and I think many problems would be solved if we all were a bit more strict in applying the footnote. It really has to be good evidence ! > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 21:29:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:29:43 +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 VAA03608 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:29:35 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-153.uunet.be [194.7.9.153]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29894 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:29:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352B5C04.4EFFB78D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:14:12 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804080820.KAA09770@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl wrote: > > Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > Q9 > AQT > AT83 > KT95 > A J876543 > K87542 J63 > K965 QJ > A3 2 > KT2 > 9 > 742 > QJ8764 > > Bidding: > > West North East South > 1h 1NT* 2s 2NT > 3h 3NT end > > * 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > > NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > > Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT > overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had > overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended > 2NT as Lebensohl. > > Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you > that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? > I would even find it the active ethical thing to do ! If he has fully understood the nature of the UI to him, then he knows partner wants him to bid 3C, possibly to pass. But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should of course accept on a maximum. I would rather punish him for NOT bidding 3NT. Now of course, before the lead, he should clearly explain both the misinformation concerning his 1NT overcall range AND the idea that probably 2NT is intended as transfer to clubs. Rulings concerning misinformation are of course always allowed. And I did not study the play or the lead - in there anything more there? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 23:10:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:10:39 +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 XAA03934 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:10:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2024620; 8 Apr 98 13:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:45:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" In-Reply-To: <882eeb61.352ac3a2@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig wrote: >In a message dated 4/7/98 3:22:15 PM EST, alesia@pip.dknet.dk writes: >> We have had an appeal before the Danish National Appeals Committee >> earlier this year, where a player discovered a discrepancy between >> the CC and a missing alert, went on to query about the missing >> alert, was given an oral explanation that fit with the missing alert >> but not with card, had the director called, and finally doubled 5S, >> which would only make sense if he was speculating that his opponents >> were having a serious misunderstanding. They were not. 5S redoubled >> won all 13 tricks. The oral explanation was correct, and the >> convention name listed on the card was apparently based on a >> misunderstanding of the semi-official definition of the convention. >> >> The director awarded an adjustment to 5S undoubled. The local AC >> upheld the adjusted score for the "misinforming" side, but let the >> doubler keep his score based on the "wild or gambling" aspect of the >> double. The National AC restored the table score, reasoning that >> the player must believe what he is told and can use an apparent >> discrepancy with the CC only at this own risk; we fined the >> "misinforming" side 1 VP for their carelessness with their CC. >> >> This is a case law precedent for Denmark that the oral explanation >> has priority when there is a disagreement with the CC. >A very well reasoned decision. I feel it carried the appropriate amount of >weight for all parties. > >I would like some more information about this "National AC" and what the >structure is. In the ACBL, the only avenue of appeal from an AC is to our >Laws Commission and ONLY if the party wishing the appeal can establish one of >three criteria: > >1) Misapplication of the Law >2) Incompetence on the part of the committee >3) Prejudice on the part of the committee > >Since it would be quite difficult to establish either of the last 2, it is >quite rare for an appeal to be heard by the Laws Commission. It sounds like >you have found a way to effectively hear appeals at a higher level. Without going into whether the Danish method is correct - my doubts have been expressed before, but it is a complex subject - if the wish is to have major case law disseminated then the EBU follows the following course: [1] All Appeals and Psyche forms from any EBU event are sent to EBU headquarters. [2] Two members of the Laws & Ethics Committee look through them for any points of interest for the Committee [each of the two looks at every form]. [3] About one-third of the forms are looked at by the Committee with comments attached from one or both of the screeners mentioned in [2]. [4] The Committee discuss any points of interest, and where something important is covered they minute it. [5] All EBU TDs, EBU Referees and various other interested parties get minutes of L&EC meetings. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 23:16:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:16:33 +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 XAA03968 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:16:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024621; 8 Apr 98 13:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:33:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <199804080820.KAA09770@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JPP wrote: >No BLML messages for several days (???) We were all discussing you behind your back? :)))) Does that means you missed Nanki Poo's birthday? [groan] >If there is still anybody out there, I would appreciate your comments >on the following: > > >Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > Q9 > AQT > AT83 > KT95 >A J876543 >K87542 J63 >K965 QJ >A3 2 > KT2 > 9 > 742 > QJ8764 > >Bidding: > >West North East South >1h 1NT* 2s 2NT >3h 3NT end > >* 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > >NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > >Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT >overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had >overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended >2NT as Lebensohl. > >The play: East leads h3 to king and ace, West takes the second club, >plays a heart to 10 and jack and East clears the hearts. >When North reels off the clubs, West parts with two hearts, enabling >North to develop his ninth trick in spades. > >Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you >that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? I expect I give him 2NT+1. More importantly, this is *extremely* blatant use of UI so it is one of the *very* rare situations where I would fine NS as well. A 10 imp fine should probably make sure he never does this again. As always there is a danger with hands presented on pieces of paper for comment [virtual paper, that is!]. In fact I am going to ask him why he bid 3NT, and he might easily talk his way out of the fine, or reduce it. But that is what it looks like to me at first sight. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 23:47:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:47:27 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04128 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:47:20 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA12770; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:47:13 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:47:13 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <352B5C04.4EFFB78D@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: > J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl wrote: > > > > Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > > > Q9 > > AQT > > AT83 > > KT95 > > A J876543 > > K87542 J63 > > K965 QJ > > A3 2 > > KT2 > > 9 > > 742 > > QJ8764 > > > > Bidding: > > > > West North East South > > 1h 1NT* 2s 2NT > > 3h 3NT end > > > > * 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > > > > NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > > > > Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT > > overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had > > overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended > > 2NT as Lebensohl. > > > > Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you > > that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? > > > > I would even find it the active ethical thing to do ! > > If he has fully understood the nature of the UI to him, then he knows > partner wants him to bid 3C, possibly to pass. All he really knows is that partner has mis-described his NT range. > But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should of > course accept on a maximum. He has a minimum and should decline. > I would rather punish him for NOT bidding 3NT. Sorry, I would adjust back to 3H +140 to EW. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 8 23:53:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:53:58 +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 XAA04168 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:53:50 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yMvGS-0007O4C; Wed, 8 Apr 98 08:51 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 08:53:46 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <352B5C04.4EFFB78D@village.uunet.be> References: <199804080820.KAA09770@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:14 PM 4/8/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl wrote: >> >> Dealer: W, EW vul, teams >> >> Q9 >> AQT >> AT83 >> KT95 >> A J876543 >> K87542 J63 >> K965 QJ >> A3 2 >> KT2 >> 9 >> 742 >> QJ8764 >> >> Bidding: >> >> West North East South >> 1h 1NT* 2s 2NT >> 3h 3NT end >> >> * 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). >> >> NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's >> >> Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT >> overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had >> overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended >> 2NT as Lebensohl. >> >> Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you >> that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? >> > >I would even find it the active ethical thing to do ! > >If he has fully understood the nature of the UI to him, then he knows >partner wants him to bid 3C, possibly to pass. > >But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should of >course accept on a maximum. But North doesn't have a maximum for his overcall. In fact he has, by his own statement, a minimum. The only maximum he has is for the range (incorrectly) alerted by his partner, and that is UI to him. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 00:07:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:07:52 +1000 Received: from nz15.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (exim@nz15.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04204 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:07:42 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243] (af06) by nz15.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 1.80 #4) id 0yMvVZ-0000kw-00; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:07:21 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA040924400; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:06:40 +0200 Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <352B5C04.4EFFB78D@village.uunet.be> from Herman De Wael at "Apr 8, 98 01:14:12 pm" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:06:40 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2037 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman, Sure you haven't read this case bass ackwards ;-)? According to Herman De Wael: > J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl wrote: > > > > Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > > > Q9 > > AQT > > AT83 > > KT95 > > A J876543 > > K87542 J63 > > K965 QJ > > A3 2 > > KT2 > > 9 > > 742 > > QJ8764 > > > > Bidding: > > > > West North East South > > 1h 1NT* 2s 2NT > > 3h 3NT end > > > > * 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > > NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > > > > Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT > > overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. Which means, of course, that 1NT by North was intended as showing 15-17, i.e. North is minimum. > > It appears that South had > > overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended > > 2NT as Lebensohl. > > > > Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you > > that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? > > > > I would even find it the active ethical thing to do ! ??? He should bid as he always would with a *minimum* 1NT overcall over a 1h opening bid. I don't think the North hand is worth 3NT, neither opposite an invitational 2NT, nor opposite a Lebensohl 2NT. > If he has fully understood the nature of the UI to him, then he knows > partner wants him to bid 3C, possibly to pass. If 2NT is standard Lebensohl opposite a 1NT overcall , then North should always bid 3C. Not 3NT. > But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should of > course accept on a maximum. Nope, if he has a *minimum*, he should pass. UI says that South has any of several Lebensohl variations, and not an invitational 2NT. Especially UI says that South is strong enough to compete opposite a weak NT, which makes game a good shot with the good 15 count. Score adjusted to 2NT resp. 3C making whatever, of course. In addition, North gets a PP for blantant use of UI. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 00:35:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:35:11 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06567 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:35:05 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA08503 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:34:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 192.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.192) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008479; Wed Apr 8 09:34:21 1998 Received: by 192.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD62D9.960558C0@192.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:32:10 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD62D9.960558C0@192.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: 3NT on UI? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:32:03 -0400 Encoding: 78 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The question appears to be one of bridge judgement: was 3N demonstrably suggested over alternatives BY THE UI. If 2N suggests pass or 3C as explained, and 3N is indeed a logical alternative, then I agree with Herman's analysis that 3N is not only permitted but highly ethical. It does seem a little anti-percentage, but if pass and 3C are indeed suggested by the UI, it may be the best action. The spot cards are unusually good, making this about equal to a good 16 without tennines. Partners NT over the spades promotes the Q significantly, the hearts are well located on the bidding. However the UI also conveyed the info that partner thought North was a queen or so lighter for his bid. This WOULD indeed suggest 3N, IF 2N were an invitational raise. But it looks as though is is a weaker bid according to the explanation. If that is so in their partnership agreement then it would NOT suggest 3N. I'm also a bit unclear whether the UI makes the bid definitivelty promise a long club suit, which could suggest 3N. That's what AC's are for to rule on the finer points of bridge judgement. I would probably roll back to 2N+1 (resolving the doubtful situation in favour of NOS)and advise of right to appeal, but I would not consider PP, and I would expect the deposit to be returned even if the AC did not overrule me. I do not see the blatency that David does in the action. Even an experienced pair can fail to hear a bid. I would want a lot more evidence that the pair was "up to something" before tagging them for 10 IMPS. (If the pair has a known tendency to try to play games, that may be another story.) In any case, kudos to the lol pair for calling the director and allowing him to sort it out. Too many just kvetsch for the rest of the week about how they got taken by those sharpies. JPP wrote: >Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > Q9 > AQT > AT83 > KT95 >A J876543 >K87542 J63 >K965 QJ >A3 2 > KT2 > 9 > 742 > QJ8764 > >Bidding: > >West North East South >1h 1NT* 2s 2NT >3h 3NT end > >* 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > >NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > >Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT >overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had >overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended >2NT as Lebensohl. > >The play: East leads h3 to king and ace, West takes the second club, >plays a heart to 10 and jack and East clears the hearts. >When North reels off the clubs, West parts with two hearts, enabling >North to develop his ninth trick in spades. > >Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you >that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? David Stevenson wrote: I expect I give him 2NT+1. More importantly, this is *extremely* blatant use of UI so it is one of the *very* rare situations where I would fine NS as well. A 10 imp fine should probably make sure he never does this again. As always there is a danger with hands presented on pieces of paper for comment [virtual paper, that is!]. In fact I am going to ask him why he bid 3NT, and he might easily talk his way out of the fine, or reduce it. But that is what it looks like to me at first sight. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 00:53:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:53:10 +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 AAA06623 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:52:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012560; 8 Apr 98 14:35 GMT Message-ID: <4zhpOeBl73K1EwpN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 14:43:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <352B5C04.4EFFB78D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should of >course accept on a maximum. He accepted on a *minimum*. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 01:17:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 01:17:10 +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 BAA06885 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 01:17:01 +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 LAA19695 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05131; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:16:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:16:55 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804081516.LAA05131@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >West North East South > >1h 1NT* 2s 2NT > >3h 3NT end > >* 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > I expect I give him 2NT+1. More importantly, this is *extremely* > blatant use of UI so it is one of the *very* rare situations where I > would fine NS as well. A 10 imp fine should probably make sure he never > does this again. While I agree with the overall sentiment (as, it seems, does almost everyone else), it looks to me as though the adjustment will be to 3H= by West. Of course nobody knows what would have happened if North had passed as the Laws require, but I don't think South's bidding 4C and making it is out of the question. Or the LOL declarer might misplay 3H. By the (apparently) illegal 3NT bid, North has lost his chance to find out. [Sorry, David, this will be a second copy to you. I accidentally sent the first to you alone and not to the whole list.] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 02:15:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:15:21 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07359 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:15:15 +1000 Received: from freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet2 [134.117.136.22]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id MAA16777 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:15:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA24208; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804081615.MAA24208@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Fixed Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ACBL Bridge Bulletin, April 1998, p.87: Fixing the Fixers Remember the time an opponent forgot a convention and "fixed" you? Remember the time you forgot a convention and "fixed" yourself? That doesn't happen much these days at the Victoria Duplicate Bridge Club in Victoria BC--not since club manager Mike Ayer instituted his "strike two rule" about eight months ago. You are allowed one "forget" of a convention. A second forget means you and partner may not play any Alertable bid the rest of the session. "I have very few complaints about people forgetting their system.", said Ayer. "People seem a lot happier." [published without permission, and with apologies] This was in a section called "Here's the Latest about Clubs". It is devoted to what various ACBL clubs are doing and showcases interesting events, ideas and players. As such, I "presume" the ACBL agrees with these ideas. There is no disclaimer otherwise, and I assume (yes, yes, "ass" of "me" and "you") that it has been edited for content. Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with this policy? It seems quite illegal. The ACBL policy towards conventions in clubs is that the individual club can permit/forbid any convention it wants to in their own games. However, I cannot find anywhere in the Laws where a pair can be effectively forced to change legal systems in mid-session. Nor have I found a law which bans a pair from using a convention which is otherwise permitted to the rest of the contestants. It seems to me that if a club wishes to limit the use of conventions, this policy should apply to all the players, and not just to those who may be less experienced or more forgetful. Bridge is, after all, a game of mistakes; I do not need Big Brother to protect me from an opponent who is about to fall on his sword--even if that "opponent" happens to be myself! Please comment on the legality and practicality of this policy. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 02:42:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:42:19 +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 CAA07464 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:42:12 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24b1.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.177]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA26205 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:42:11 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:38:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd630c$ce185360$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 10:08 AM Subject: 3NT on UI? > >Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > Q9 > AQT > AT83 > KT95 >A J876543 >K87542 J63 >K965 QJ >A3 2 > KT2 > 9 > 742 > QJ8764 > >Bidding: > >West North East South >1h 1NT* 2s 2NT >3h 3NT end > >* 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > >NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > >Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT >overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had >overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended >2NT as Lebensohl. I think this is more complicated than it looks. North is not allowed to "hear" anything that S says. He has overcalled 1NT with 15 points which is minimum for his range. I suspect however that given an invitation, 3NT is a logical alternative on the hand, and this is not suggested by the UI (even the fact that he can play the Club suit) but by the very nice intermediates he has in his own hand. I would like to know if the 2NT in this auction was Lebensohl but I would still allow the 3NT. However I am not happy with the gratuitous information given to the opponents before the opening lead. " Our agreement is 15-17" If this came from S, all well and good, but North has got no reason to muddy the waters. He has 15 points but he is suggesting to the opps that he has more (is max). Even LOLs can count and this might make the difference between getting the defence right, and not. N has told E that her pard has not got two diamond honours. I would rule 3NT - 2 and a PP for N/S. > >The play: East leads h3 to king and ace, West takes the second club, >plays a heart to 10 and jack and East clears the hearts. >When North reels off the clubs, West parts with two hearts, enabling >North to develop his ninth trick in spades. > >Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you >that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If he says this, he is saying that he has "heard" and now I would not allow 3NT. His enthusiastic disclosure however is still going to give his opps difficulty with the defence. If he had 16 or 17, fair enough. But 15 is what his pard said he might have. His 3NT has said he has 15. Why say more. Cheers Anne > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >* Jan Peter Pals From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 02:51:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:51:48 +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 CAA07524 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:51:42 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21830; 8 Apr 98 9:51 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Apr 1998 00:59:39 PDT." Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 09:51:03 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804080951.aa21830@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >#### Coffee on a bridge table? Really! Adam! #### G #### > > It is better if you put it in a cup and put the cup on the table. I have found this to be true, in general. However, on those occasions where I have decided to bypass the cup, I have found that another purpose of the convention card is as a handy napkin. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 02:58:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:58:19 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07586 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:58:13 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA01428 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:57:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 3.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net(12.68.179.3) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001298; Wed Apr 8 11:56:47 1998 Received: by 3.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD62ED.7AB38B00@3.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net>; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:54:34 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD62ED.7AB38B00@3.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Fixed Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:54:25 -0400 Encoding: 78 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am astounded by such a policy. Even the specious logic the ACBL uses to illegitimately restrict conventional bidding should not stretch this far without tearing the fabric of the laws. A far better policy would be to say: "We might give you the benefit of the doubt on a misbid once in a session, but if you persist in using conventions you do not remember thereafter, we are very likely going to rule against you when your opponents are damaged, and will probably give you a (procedural) penalty on top of a bad board as a reminder not to play a system you can't handle in the future." That seems to be much more legal, and would probably be even more effective than telling someone they can't use transfers, inverted minors, splinters and Jacoby 2NT because they bollix up Drury or Lebensohl. The likelihood of confusion at the table for the rest of the session as the pair tried to play an alert free system (something they may NEVER have done since they learned the game) would probably irritate the opponents, keep the director very busy, and significantly alter results (not always to opponents benefit, as they may have no idea how to cope with such a radical system.) If announceable bids are also banned it only adds to the problem. Chyah (or Alan), if you are reading this, do you know if the ACBL has a policy of tolerating or recommending such a procedure? How is it justified, if so? -- Craig Senior ---------- From: A. L. Edwards[SMTP:ac342@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 8:15 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Fixed ACBL Bridge Bulletin, April 1998, p.87: Fixing the Fixers Remember the time an opponent forgot a convention and "fixed" you? Remember the time you forgot a convention and "fixed" yourself? That doesn't happen much these days at the Victoria Duplicate Bridge Club in Victoria BC--not since club manager Mike Ayer instituted his "strike two rule" about eight months ago. You are allowed one "forget" of a convention. A second forget means you and partner may not play any Alertable bid the rest of the session. "I have very few complaints about people forgetting their system.", said Ayer. "People seem a lot happier." [published without permission, and with apologies] This was in a section called "Here's the Latest about Clubs". It is devoted to what various ACBL clubs are doing and showcases interesting events, ideas and players. As such, I "presume" the ACBL agrees with these ideas. There is no disclaimer otherwise, and I assume (yes, yes, "ass" of "me" and "you") that it has been edited for content. Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with this policy? It seems quite illegal. The ACBL policy towards conventions in clubs is that the individual club can permit/forbid any convention it wants to in their own games. However, I cannot find anywhere in the Laws where a pair can be effectively forced to change legal systems in mid-session. Nor have I found a law which bans a pair from using a convention which is otherwise permitted to the rest of the contestants. It seems to me that if a club wishes to limit the use of conventions, this policy should apply to all the players, and not just to those who may be less experienced or more forgetful. Bridge is, after all, a game of mistakes; I do not need Big Brother to protect me from an opponent who is about to fall on his sword--even if that "opponent" happens to be myself! Please comment on the legality and practicality of this policy. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 03:27:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 03:27:55 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07895 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 03:27:45 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26721 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:27:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <9804080951.aa21830@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >#### Coffee on a bridge table? Really! Adam! #### G #### > > > > It is better if you put it in a cup and put the cup on the table. > > I have found this to be true, in general. However, on those occasions > where I have decided to bypass the cup, I have found that another > purpose of the convention card is as a handy napkin. > Unfortunately, convention cards I have met are not made of absorbant paper, and a plastic convention card holder hinders the mopping use even more. -- Richard Lighton lighton@idt.net NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 03:30:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 03:30:25 +1000 Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07912 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 03:30:18 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21168 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:30:18 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id NAA16030 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:29:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199804081729.NAA16030@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:29:56, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Fixed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chyah (or Alan), if you are reading this, do you know if the ACBL has a policy of tolerating or recommending such a procedure? How is it justified, if so? ********** I can ask, I have never heard of this before. But the rule is generally that clubs are autonomous, meaning they can do almost anything they want. On the list of things they cannot forbid is psyching. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 03:35:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 03:35:21 +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 DAA07929 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 03:35:15 +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 KAA27793 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA26290; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:37:52 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 10:37:52 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199804081737.KAA26290@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Fixed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chyah says: > But the rule is generally that clubs are > autonomous, meaning they can do almost > anything they want. On the list of things > they cannot forbid is psyching. Many do, nonetheless. I haven't run a club in five years or so, but I never saw any ACBL missive that forbade clubs from outlawing psyching (other than the Laws, of course). --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 04:21:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 04:21:56 +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 EAA08159 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 04:21:50 +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 TAA09673 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:21:45 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:22:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd631b$3aa99120$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 Those posters who are ruling this back to 2NT, or 3C are overlooking the fact that W has bid 3H. Anne -----Original Message----- From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 4:22 PM Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? >Hi Herman, > >>According to Herman De Wael: >> J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl wrote: >> > >Score adjusted to 2NT resp. 3C making whatever, of course. >In addition, North gets a PP for blantant use of UI. > > >Thomas > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 04:38:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 04:38:33 +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 EAA08245 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 04:38:26 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA30928 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 14:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05276; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 14:38:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 14:38:21 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804081838.OAA05276@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > He has overcalled 1NT with 15 points which is minimum for his range. > I suspect however that given an invitation, 3NT is a logical alternative > on the hand, The legal question is not whether 3NT is a LA but whether _something else_ (e.g. pass) is a LA. > and this is not suggested by the UI This is the proper legal question, but I don't understand why it is not suggested. North at the bottom of his notrump range. But if South has made an invitation thinking North's range is 13-15, that suggests South has 10-11 points, not 8-9. And South's implied extra strength suggests 3NT over pass. As others have noted, there are complicating factors in that we don't know what 2NT was supposed to be. This affects LA's, but I don't see how it affects "suggested over another." North has the upper end, not the lower end, of the range partner is expecting, and the information that partner is expecting a different range than North intended is unauthorized. > However I am not happy with the gratuitous information given to the > opponents before the opening lead. " Our agreement is 15-17" This is not gratuitous information; it is required by L75D2. Technically North should have called the TD before giving the corrected explanation, but I confess I wouldn't always do so myself. In this case, where the opponents were LOL's, it would have been best, but I don't see that it matters this time. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 05:09:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:09:12 +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 FAA08344 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:09:05 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA28377; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199804081908.MAA28377@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Apr 8 01:48 PDT 1998 > > Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > Q9 > AQT > AT83 > KT95 > A J876543 > K87542 J63 > K965 QJ > A3 2 > KT2 > 9 > 742 > QJ8764 > > Bidding: > > West North East South > 1h 1NT* 2s 2NT > 3h 3NT end > > * 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > > NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > > Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT > overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had > overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended > 2NT as Lebensohl. On the evidence provided, that 2NT would be Leb opposite a prec 1NT opener, but was not alerted, it would presumably be natural and invitational opposite the 1NT overcall. Thus North faces an invitational bid with the UI that South may have less than an invitational hand, and could be expected to bid again with a stronger Leb hand. This UI strongly suggests passing 3H, which would cater to all the various Leb possibilities, so it appears to me that North's debateable acceptance of the inadvertant invitation to 3NT is the commendably ethical call. First, why would various able contributors suggest a rollback to 2NT when the auction was already at 3H when North made the call in question? Just hasty replies? To minimize noise in everyone's mailbox, everyone should IMHO give due consideration to a question before responding. (There's value in fun replies, but full points only to replies which are both fun and considered.) Now for my question on this. Someone wants to punish North for gratuitous disclosure of the incorrect explanation. What a gauntlet we put North through for his partner's mistake! Is it really unfair to expect the opponents to realize that UI considerations might have caused North to accept with a good 15-count including, as they soon see, HAQT over opener? Or should the director perhaps have spelt out those facts of life for the lol opps? I disapprove of punishing North's correction here, and don't see that he should be expected to instruct his opponents in the bridge considerations created by UI, unless they ask after the hand. Everett Boyer ACBL member From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 05:50:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:50:03 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08446 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:49:58 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA22834 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804081949.MAA22834@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: 3NT on UI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To me it's pretty clear that 3NT is not allowed. In addition to the obvious reason stated by others, I'd also conclude from North's failure to alert 2NT that Leben does not apply when overcalling 1NT, thus negating those who argue that North's 3NT is in fact fraught with risk. He clearly took 2NT as a natural invitation, so 3NT is out. I'd consider PP as well, since this seems fairly blatant, but that depends on what North says when interviewed. Also interesting is the question if EW brought part of the bad table-result upon themselves. I have always felt that the NOS should not have to struggle to do well in an illegal contract, to protect their rights. (I have noticed many ACBLers seem to interpret the laws differently). This is one of the reasons why I've always favoured a change in the rules so that "illegal" contracts are simply never played. TD immediately stops the bidding when the acttion allegedly taken based on UI is taken,makes the ruling and, if he so rules, rolls the contract back to a legal one, which is then played. Info from action taken after the legal contract is UI for OS but AI for NOS. This change would increase fairness as well as save time both for TD's and AC's. Appeals would probably come from OS more often than not, which is the way it should be. OS would already be partly "punished" by NOS getting some extra AI, which seems fine with me. Today ACs are faced with a real table-result for the illegal contract and having to predict/guess what would have happened in a legal one (as determined by TD that is). My suggestion would create the opposite scenario. Anyway, those are my 2 =F6res/rappen worth. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 07:10:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:10:39 +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 HAA08699 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:10:33 +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 RAA26529 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:10:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804082110.RAA00181@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199804081949.MAA22834@mh2.cts.com> (jkamras@cts.com) Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras writes: > I have always felt that the NOS should not have to struggle to do well in an > illegal contract, to protect their rights. (I have noticed many ACBLers seem > to interpret the laws differently). > This is one of the reasons why I've always favoured a change in the rules so > that "illegal" contracts are simply never played. TD immediately stops the > bidding when the acttion allegedly taken based on UI is taken,makes the > ruling and, if he so rules, rolls the contract back to a legal one, which is > then played. The problem is that this forces the TD to determine what is a violation, which he can only do by looking at the player's hand before play is complete. An action taken after partner's slow pass may be clear-cut, but should the TD let the players know this? And in UI/MI cases, the information wouldn't be available until after the hand in any case. If West misexplains East's bid and East is on defense, East cannot correct the explanation until the end of play even it is wrong. > Info from action taken after the legal contract is UI for OS > but AI for NOS. This change would increase fairness as well as save time > both for TD's and AC's. Appeals would probably come from OS more often than > not, which is the way it should be. This should happen under the current rules. If the TD rules for an adjustment, he will assign an adjusted score in the new contract, and the OS must appeal to restore the table result. > Today ACs are faced with a real table-result for the illegal contract and > having to predict/guess what would have happened in a legal one (as > determined by TD that is). This would still happen if the TD rules an adjustment to a different contract and the AC overrules him. And under your scenario, the AC would have to assign a score when there was no infraction. Suppose that 4H and 4S both depend on the lead. N-S bid to 4H, West makes a slow pass, and East competes to 4S. The TD rules that East may have acted on UI. Under the current rules, he assigns a score of 4H making, which was the most favorable likely result for the NOS. (This has the side effect of being a more severe penalty than rolling back the contract and letting E-W play there; East loses the chance for +50 that he could have had by being ethical.) The AC then decides that East's action was clear, and with no infraction, the table result should stand; E-W get to keep 4S making if South found the wrong lead. Under your suggestion, the TD would roll the contract back to 4H, which might make or go down one. The AC then overrules the TD, deciding that East's action was clear and there was no infraction, but it doesn't have a score to assign in 4S, and either -50 or +420 is unfair to one side. Since East made a legal bid, and West's hesitation is not itself an infraction, East is entitled to his chance of making. -- 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 Apr 9 07:39:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:39:08 +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 HAA08772 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:39:00 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA08974 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA05379; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:38:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:38:57 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804082138.RAA05379@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Everett Boyer > On the evidence provided, that 2NT would be Leb opposite a prec 1NT > opener, but was not alerted, it would presumably be natural and > invitational opposite the 1NT overcall. Thus North faces an invitational > bid with the UI that South may have less than an invitational hand, and > could be expected to bid again with a stronger Leb hand. This UI > strongly suggests passing 3H, which would cater to all the various Leb > possibilities, so it appears to me that North's debateable acceptance > of the inadvertant invitation to 3NT is the commendably ethical call. This is a wrinkle that the rest of us missed. _If_ North can read South's explanation as implying all the above, he has two pieces of UI: 1) South expects him to have 13-15. (He actually has a super 15.) 2) Opposite 13-15, South was trying to sign off. (If not, North's action won't matter.) Item 1) suggests bidding on, but item 2) suggests passing. If both pass and 3NT are LA's, which is suggested over the other? What about double? If North gives an explanation like the above, I think he has avoided the PP and possibly score adjustment as well! What do others think? Of course there is also: 3) 3NT, an impossible response to Lebensohl, may wake partner up. Does this make any difference? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 08:29:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:29:50 +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 IAA08899 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:29:43 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h25.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id CAA11687; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 02:29:40 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352C9618.2FE5@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 02:34:17 -0700 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: 3NT on UI? References: <199804081949.MAA22834@mh2.cts.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Let me say a couple words on the theme:) Jan Kamras wrote: > In addition to the obvious reason stated by others, I'd also conclude from > North's failure to alert 2NT that Leben does not apply when overcalling 1NT But North did not alert because under their agreement it WAS invitation:) Nevertheless - from the South's point it was rather Leb - because opposite 13-15 points it is not probable to make an invitation with 6 points... David pointed that North took the decision with MINIMUM... And what? It was bridge decision. With North's estemations of his hand as maximum. And who will not support that decision?:) That's why I almost agree with Everett Boyer:) The only difference - following Active Ethics demands I would explaine (before 1-st lead) that 2 NT was Leb - as my pd took 1 NT as 13-15:)) But result shd stand:)) More over - again there appears TD's trend to stop boards... Let us see - that very case provided BLML to a lot of differ suggestions, from 2NT and punishing through 3NT, down - till result stand, no infraction How can TD (at the table) make a decision about removing such a board? It is bridge decision, for AC authority. And let players to compete... Otherwise we (TDs) will stop boards at any case when we (TDs) do not understand current events - because it will be much easily to hold contest in progress:))) That's why I strongly disagree with Jan statement that "NOS should not have to struggle to do well in an illegal contract, to protect their rights". Because only AC, after the session ends, will determine that contract as legal - or illegal:) And in the thread "Fixed" there discusses similar problem where TD for making his job more simple - forbids using some conventions... Really - who is for whom? Players for TD or TD for players?:))) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 08:36:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:36:32 +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 IAA08923 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:36:26 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client263c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.60]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA20898 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:36:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re 3NT on UI? Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:32:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd633e$326a6e80$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 Several have written commenting on my point about gratuitous information. I think perhaps I did not make myself clear. e.g. On the way to the club pard and I, who have always played Ghestem agree to play Michaels. We pencil it in on the cc. The first two suited overcall, I forget and make a Ghestem cue bid over a 1H opening showing Spades and Clubs. Pard forgets and tells the opps that we are playing Ghestem. The opening lead is about to be made. I tell the opps that our agreement is that we are playing Michaels. This can do no more than help them to misdefend. OK I "Could have known" , but I am doing what the Law requires of me. e.g. I decide to psyche 1S on a hand void in spades. Pard bids impecably with his 3 card support and I eventually play in our 4/4 Heart fit. During the Auction opps have asked 4 or 5 card majors? Pard has said 4. We actually play 5 card majors/15-17 NT. The opening lead is about to be made and I tell my LHO that we actually play 5 cards. Is this intended to help them to get it right? OK I "could have known", but I am only doing what the Law requires of me. I think this is akin to Norths' action in the subject. He did not have his bid in HCPs. To impress upon his opps that their agreement was different from what they had been told to expect, when he had exactly what they expected seems to me to be unethical. BUT it cannot be so because the Law requires it! Is that what you are saying. I appreciate your comments. Even the ones that tell me I am doing the right thing for the wrong reason.(The last temptation, the greatest treason) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 08:51:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:51:32 +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 IAA08960 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:51:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025708; 8 Apr 98 22:48 GMT Message-ID: <3eT6lKCvB6K1Ew7n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:06:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L43B2C MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This Law applies rarely, since it is only when dummy loses his rights in specific ways, exchanging hands, leaving his seat to watch declarer play, looking at a defender's hand. If he then asks about a possible irregularity, L43B2C applies, basically applying the revoke penalty if declarer has done something wrong. According to EBL 43.6[ii] the WBFLC has stated: "The reference in Law 43B2C to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the _two trick_ penalty in this law". So, I have a few questions: [1] Why is the two trick penalty? [2] Why not just apply L64, which is clear as to the number of tricks? [3] This was written for the 1987 Laws. Does it apply now, since the wording of L43B2C is unchanged? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 09:00:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 09:00:00 +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 IAA08986 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:59:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025706; 8 Apr 98 22:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:05:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <01BD62D9.960558C0@192.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > That's what AC's are for to rule on the finer points of bridge >judgement. I would probably roll back to 2N+1 (resolving the doubtful >situation in favour of NOS)and advise of right to appeal, but I would not >consider PP, and I would expect the deposit to be returned even if the AC >did not overrule me. Actually, it should be 3H as has been pointed out to me: the auction has reached 3H before the problem bid. > I do not see the blatency that David does in the action. Even an >experienced pair can fail to hear a bid. I would want a lot more evidence >that the pair was "up to something" before tagging them for 10 IMPS. Hang on: you are suggesting that ***each*** member of the partnership ***separately*** missed the opening bid? North overcalled a 15-17 NT. South alerted it as 13-15 because he had missed the opening bid. You are now suggesting that North can treat his hand as a maximum 13-15 because he, too, has not heard the opening bid? No way, Jose! Furthermore, he explained it as 15-17 as an overcall, at the end of the auction! Oh no, he did not mishear the opening bid: he just assumed two LOLs would not call him if he took advantage. >JPP wrote: >>Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT >>overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had >>overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended >>2NT as Lebensohl. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 09:46:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 09:46:31 +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 JAA09123 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 09:46:25 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client27df.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.223]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA27329 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:46:22 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: L43B2C Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:46:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6348$9486cfa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 12:24 AM Subject: L43B2C But David There is no Law 43B2C. The was in the old code, but now there is Law 43A1.a.b.c; Law 43A2a.b.c Law43B1;B2a and B2b.and Law 43(3) which seems wrong. It should probably be Law 43 C. But there is no Law 43B2C. > > If he then asks about a possible irregularity, L43B2C applies, >basically applying the revoke penalty if declarer has done something >wrong. > > According to EBL 43.6[ii] the WBFLC has stated: "The reference in Law >43B2C to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the _two trick_ >penalty in this law". > > So, I have a few questions: > >[1] Why is the two trick penalty? >[2] Why not just apply L64, which is clear as to the number of tricks? >[3] This was written for the 1987 Laws. Does it apply now, since the > wording of L43B2C is unchanged? But it has changed David. Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 10:18:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:18:19 +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 KAA09204 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:18:12 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:18:44 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:18:26 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L43B2C 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 >>> =22Anne Jones=22 9/04/98 9:46:41 >>> -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws=40octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 12:24 AM Subject: L43B2C Anne wrote >But David >There is no Law 43B2C. The was in the old code, but now there is Law >43A1.a.b.c; Law 43A2a.b.c Law43B1;B2a and B2b.and Law 43(3) which seems >wrong. It should probably be Law 43 C. But there is no Law 43B2C. How about a third option? Law 43B3 Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 10:40:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:40:04 +1000 Received: from fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp [164.71.1.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09286 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:39:53 +1000 Received: from fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.6W-MX980408-Fujitsu Mail Gateway) id JAA02225; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 09:39:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp by fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.6W-980405-Fujitsu Domain Mail Master) id JAA02451; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 09:39:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp (petern.msl.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp [164.71.137.30]) by mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp (8.6.9+2.4W/3.3W8) id JAA05396; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 09:43:34 +0900 Message-ID: <352C18A1.A075153A@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:38:57 +0900 From: Peter Newman Organization: Fujitsu Japan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? References: <199804081949.MAA22834@mh2.cts.com> <352C9618.2FE5@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, As a bridge player (who has no cats - not allowed in apartments in Japan!) this hand really intrigues me. Imagine if you were sitting North. You make a normal overcall of 1NT only to hear partner describe this as 13-15. Suppose for a moment it went pass by your LHO and prd bids an invitational 2NT. Summarising the discussion on this thread between your LAs of pass and 3NT the 3NT bid is suggested over Pass so you should pass. This is ONLY if you believe that Pass is a LA. The original problem described NS as an expert pair. On an expected heart lead (OK they could lead something else but life ain't perfect) your AQT of hearts seems worth about 8-9 HCP. This makes your hand 18-19. The fact that prd has not staymaned (a great verb - my time in Japan leads to the odd US not British spelling) suggests they have length in a/both minors which fits your hand well. You are playing LOLs and expect to take an extra trick. As such I would never consider pass an LA on this hand. Should I then say nothing to my opponents about partners misexplanation? I hope not. I have read Anne Jones' examples with great interest. If we both get the system wrong at the same time then I can sympathise with not saying anything that would just confuse the opponents. What should an ethical player do in this situation? I am interested in the BLML comments here. My general position is that if both players give the same explanation that matches the hands but is in fact systemically incorrect then I would say nothing. Otherwise I would give the correct system agreement..[if I psyche on a spade void and get to a 4-4 heart fit (the card Gods have been very kind to me) then I would have absolutely no problem in correcting prds explanation] But wait, in our hand there is more: What was 2NT? This is where you would need to know the NS system. Would 1NT (2S) 2NT be lebensohl? Would (1H) 1NT (2S) 2NT be lebensohl? It seems fromt the S hand that they thought this sequence was Lebensohl. Why didn't North alert it? Perhaps he feared that it would wake up partner to the real situation? As an aside this leads me to another practical player problem. This is a real hand from an event in Japan Prd RHO You LHO 1NT (2C)* 2H (P) 2S 2C is alerted as a single suiter in C/D/H or S and a minor. You bid 2H as natural. This is your agreement. Prd alerts 2H as a transfer to 2S. Now over a transfer 2S by prd. shows a maximum NT with 3 card support and a 5 card spade suit. If you alert this then you are alerting partner to your disagreement. [Note: I had a 4-5-2-2 shape and raised to 3S (I had about 9 pts opposite prds 12-14 NT) the 4-2 fit didn't make :-( ] Must you "wakeup" partner by alerting? It seems to me as a practical matter, you give more information to partner by alerting, not the opponents. It just seems to me that at least you now have some (little) chance of playing the board as a hand of bridge rather than as an appeal case due to UI. Surely this should be encouraged. Back to the original problem. N is in an invidious situation. If 2NT was invitational then 3NT is clear (to me, even more so after the 3H bid making the heart lead even more certain). If 2NT was lebensohl [how much of this auction has partner been with me for??] then over 3NT prd. may bid 4 of a minor which I am also happy with. If prd holds a 5 point hand with a 6 card minor then I would like to play 4 of a minor,if I pass then that will end the auction. Pass seems bizarre. To be told that I should be fined 10imps for blatant use of UI is quite scary to me. [Particularly if I had said nothing before the lead, the opponents would have no reason to even suspect that there had been a problem!] I would not be surprised to hear the appeals committee say you only had 15HCP. You must pass 3H. -140. For the reasons outlined above I think this is wrong BUT only if the NS pair are expert. Hopefully the appeals committee would have the appropriate bridge expertise to make this decision. I can find no reason for W to not come down to stiff K of Diamonds on the run of the clubs. It may give away an overtrick (or two) if N has AQJx of Diamonds but certainly gave up all hope of beating the contract (even if prd had Jx in Diamonds). Maybe there is some good reason that I have missed. No-one has yet mentioned one. In summary it seems to me that N made the bid they thought was ethically correct, found a 6 point dummy and after misdefence made game anyway. [That is how bridge should be played. As Al Roth would say "At the table"] Cheers, Peter Newman Bridge is not a game - it is a way of life From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 11:15:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 11:15:39 +1000 Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09357 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 11:15:33 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA37482 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:15:34 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id VAA13006 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:11:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199804090111.VAA13006@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:11:58, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL replies on fixed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is the blurb from the ACBL Tournament dept in regards to the subject of "fixed." This was in regards to can a club make people play only unalertable bids if they get two partnership understandings wrong in a single session. ************************************* A partnership is required to have an agreement as to the meaning of their calls for all reasonably to be expected auctions. A partnership is required to have two identically filled out convention cards that reflect their agreements (in particular conventional methods). Any pair found in violation of this requirement may be restricted to employing only standard methods until such a time as they can meet the requirement. Additionally, if it is discovered that while the convention cards may be properly filled out, the partnership has not discussed specifics (and thus have no agreement about the meaning) it would be proper to require the pair to employ standard methods until they have the time to reach an agreement. Clubs do have the right to restrict/permit conventional calls at their discretion. While the same rules should apply to all contestants, if a Club Director/Manager determines that a pair is having difficulty employing a particular method(s), they certainly have the right to deny that pair the privilege until they become proficient with the method(s) involved. With regards to the specific question, yes a club/director has the right to require a pair to change their methods during a session. While the policy they have announced is permitted, it would seem that this is rather harsh and I would suggest allowing the director to use the aforementioned guidelines. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 12:12:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:12:09 +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 MAA09425 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:12:01 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA11797; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 19:11:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199804090211.TAA11797@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JP wrote: > Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > > Q9 > AQT > AT83 > KT95 > A J876543 > K87542 J63 > K965 QJ > A3 2 > KT2 > 9 > 742 > QJ8764 > > Bidding: > > West North East South > 1h 1NT* 2s 2NT > 3h 3NT end > > * 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). Vitold wrote: > David pointed that North took the decision with MINIMUM... And what? > It was bridge decision. With North's estemations of his hand as maximum. > And who will not support that decision?:) A bridge decision perhaps influenced by UI suggesting pass in North's mind, in that 3NT should have been bid if it was an LA to pass, rather than if it seemed the best call on a straight bridge basis. Should the director have spelled out that distinction to the lol opps? ("With all his calls after 1NT, North should have avoided calls suggested by UI." It seems out of place for the TD to comment on which LA's North might have faced, and perhaps beyond the TD to know what was suggested--the AC can judge North on that later.) Once North has properly (IMHO) avoided the suggested LA, what further consequences are appropriate? Then again, perhaps the UI doesn't suggest pass after all, nor 3NT either... > That's why I almost agree with Everett Boyer:) > The only difference - following Active Ethics demands I would explaine > (before 1-st lead) that 2 NT was Leb - as my pd took 1 NT as 13-15:)) I don't disagree with this at all. On the contrary, it's IMHO a good point, which I merely overlooked. Though I might phrase it more cautiously, such as, "The alert and misexplanation suggests that my partner thought I had opened the bidding, in which case 2NT should have been intended as Lebensohl..." Anne wrote: > e.g. On the way to the club pard and I, who have always played Ghestem > agree to play Michaels. We pencil it in on the cc. > The first two suited overcall, I forget and make a Ghestem cue bid over > a 1H opening showing Spades and Clubs. Pard forgets and tells the opps > that we are playing Ghestem. > [...] I think this is akin to Norths' action in the subject. Anne, this example leads to a good question, but it is markedly different from the original case, in that you forgot Michaels. Please provide an example where you bid correctly but partner's incorrect explanation happens to fit your hand anyway. Steve wrote: > 1) South expects him to have 13-15. (He actually has a super 15.) > 2) Opposite 13-15, South was trying to sign off. (If not, North's > action won't matter.) Actually, sign off seems to have the wrong connotations. South was trying to compete, suggesting either a playable minor or strength. > Item 1) suggests bidding on, but item 2) suggests passing. If both > pass and 3NT are LA's, which is suggested over the other? What about > double? Now you're getting into questions which should be debated among the AC. I don't think the UI suggests double, which IMHO should show a max with strong majors on this auction with 2NT Leb. I'm willing to be persuaded that the UI in combination with North's length in both minors suggests 3S, competing and asking for South to consider 3NT with spade stoppers. IMHO North's spades are not good enough for the UI to suggest 3NT if 3S is a conceivable possibility for these players. But the AC may need to investigate the NS style to make any determination. And so we return to my previous concern, rulings about fantasy methods. The AC needs to decide what pass, double, 3S, 3NT and 4C might mean given these players, this auction, and the nonexistant agreement that 2NT is Lebensohl. What a quagmire! > Of course there is also: > 3) 3NT, an impossible response to Lebensohl, may wake partner up. > > Does this make any difference? To elaborate, is the likelihood that a bid will wake partner up any kind of consideration when determining whether a player has chosen a bid suggested by UI? Is the inference that partner is out of step part of the UI for any misexplanation? It seems so, even if partner might determine some meaning for the call in his deluded auction. But is 3NT really impossible, or just an offer to compete further, with good stoppers? Then why might it wake partner up? For those of us with bidding boxes, however, the chance that South will not already have been awakened by seeing the 1H bid next to the 3H bid seems entirely negligible. Anyone disagree? How far should we stretch credulity to suppose that a player might not have been awakened to the previous call when looking to see the next call placed next to it? Even given the fact that South has not interrupted the auction to summon the TD and provide a corrected explanation, might it not be right to presume that South has awakened to the 1H bid and just not yet diagnosed his responsibilities regarding a corrected explanation? Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 12:47:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:47:20 +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 MAA09527 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:47:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013713; 9 Apr 98 2:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 01:30:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fixed In-Reply-To: <199804081615.MAA24208@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >ACBL Bridge Bulletin, April 1998, p.87: > Fixing the Fixers > Remember the time an opponent forgot a >convention and "fixed" you? Remember the >time you forgot a convention and "fixed" >yourself? > That doesn't happen much these days at >the Victoria Duplicate Bridge Club in >Victoria BC--not since club manager Mike >Ayer instituted his "strike two rule" about >eight months ago. >You are allowed one "forget" of a convention. >A second forget means you and partner may not >play any Alertable bid the rest of the session. >"I have very few complaints about people >forgetting their system.", said Ayer. "People >seem a lot happier." [published without > permission, and with apologies] > > This was in a section called "Here's the Latest about >Clubs". It is devoted to what various ACBL clubs are >doing and showcases interesting events, ideas and players. >As such, I "presume" the ACBL agrees with these ideas. >There is no disclaimer otherwise, and I assume (yes, yes, >"ass" of "me" and "you") that it has been edited for >content. > Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with this policy? >It seems quite illegal. The ACBL policy towards conventions >in clubs is that the individual club can permit/forbid any >convention it wants to in their own games. However, I >cannot find anywhere in the Laws where a pair can be >effectively forced to change legal systems in mid-session. Nor >have I found a law which bans a pair from using a convention >which is otherwise permitted to the rest of the contestants. >It seems to me that if a club wishes to limit the use >of conventions, this policy should apply to all the >players, and not just to those who may be less experienced >or more forgetful. Bridge is, after all, a game of mistakes; >I do not need Big Brother to protect me from an opponent >who is about to fall on his sword--even if that "opponent" >happens to be myself! >Please comment on the legality and practicality of this policy. It think it is legal. SOs have complete control over conventions. There have been many complaints about SOs who have done things which, while legal, seem against the spirit of the game. In my view, this is one of the worst. I take it they do not allow beginners to play in this club! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 12:48:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:48:26 +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 MAA09542 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:48:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013710; 9 Apr 98 2:45 GMT Message-ID: <08eGLkAw8AL1EwxE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:58:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <199804081908.MAA28377@d2.ikos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everett Boyer wrote: >First, why would various able contributors suggest a rollback to 2NT >when the auction was already at 3H when North made the call in question? >Just hasty replies? Yes, as already apologised for [and now Steve has pointed it out again!]. It was me! I got it wrong! I am sorry! > To minimize noise in everyone's mailbox, everyone >should IMHO give due consideration to a question before responding. Well, thanks. Now I have been *thoroughly* told off, perhaps we can get on. >(There's value in fun replies, but full points only to replies which >are both fun and considered.) Should I write this out 100 times? >Now for my question on this. Someone wants to punish North for gratuitous >disclosure of the incorrect explanation. Unfortunately it was *not* gratuitous but required by Law. > What a gauntlet we put North >through for his partner's mistake! No, it is North's actions that worry us. He is the one trying to con two LOLs out of their rights. > Is it really unfair to expect the >opponents to realize that UI considerations might have caused North to >accept with a good 15-count including, as they soon see, HAQT over opener? >Or should the director perhaps have spelt out those facts of life for >the lol opps? I disapprove of punishing North's correction here, and >don't see that he should be expected to instruct his opponents in the >bridge considerations created by UI, unless they ask after the hand. Certainly not. He should play to the Laws of the game in future. There is no reason why he should break the Laws and then explain that he has! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 16:41:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:41:21 +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 QAA09933 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:41:11 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h57.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id KAA01207; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:41:08 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352D0947.3EB7@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:45:44 -0700 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: 3NT on UI? References: <199804090211.TAA11797@d2.ikos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) As I understand our Laws there should be two different consideration: 1 - from the point of TD's view. And here mmy mmopiniomn is "Result stand" (in agreement with Everett Boyer's position) 2. From the point of AC's view. And here (at least forrmally) there are unable to use LA definition:)) Because when one uses word "alternative" - he simultaneously agrees that there are only two possibilities:)) Such is meaning of the word. But in our case North has three possibilities: Pass, Double and 3NT. So as AC member (not as TD!) I would consider the case rather on basement of "free choice logics" than on "LA". Which of them is most safe (according to received UI)? No doubts - Pass. As South (after his Leb) will not continue bidding with weak variant. Which of them is most danger (according to received UI)? No doubts - Double. As South (after his Leb) will should pass... And may continue only on his own responsibility... It will provide to 9-10 tricks... And what about 3NT? It is "normal" decision that may seem even as Active Ethics consequence:) But - let ys estimate risks: - everybody will pass; the contract may be 1-2 tricks down (50-100 to opponents) or even just made (400 for NS) - in comparision with 140-170 for opponents in 3 Hearts - opponents will double; than it will high time to partner bid his Leb suit (that will be almost obvious after his previous Pass to 3NT) - and NS will lost about 100 in their suit contract; and North knows that they do have at least 9-cards (usually - 10-cards) suit This analysis shows that in fact 3NT bid was almost same safe as Pass:)) And moreover, AC may be sure that after such bidding weak opponents will not bid their possible contract 4 Hearts... That's why as AC member after long discussion and consideration I will propose rather adjust score 3 Hearts, doubled - as a less safe bid for player that received UI:)) But I'd like to underline - only as AC-member:) And never - as TD:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 17:23:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 17:23:47 +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 RAA10011 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 17:23:37 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id IAA19005 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:22:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 9 Apr 98 08:22 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? 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: <4zhpOeBl73K1EwpN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should > of > >course accept on a maximum. > > He accepted on a *minimum*. First things first, Q9 AQT AT83 KT95 is, by any normal standard of hand evaluation, not a *minimum* 15-17 1NT overcall of 1H. The intermediates are fabulous and the heart honours worth an upgrade (compare with Q4,A75,AK53,KJ32 eg). Absent the UI both 3NT and pass are, IMO, logical alternatives (assuming 2N is invitational with a hint of a spade guard). Thus we are left with determining what the UI suggests, which seems to be a choice of two opposed interpretations a) Pard thinks we are playing 13-15 overcalls and is making an invitational raise anyway. This definitely suggests 3N is better than pass. b) Pard didn't notice the 1H bid and thinks his 2NT is Lebensohl - probably weakish with a long minor. Consider the same auction but instead of getting UI from partner saying "13-15" you get the UI from him saying (before the 3H bid) "partner should have alerted 2NT as Lebensohl". Surely many of us would consider 3N the *only* ethical bid in that situation. Case a) seems pretty unlikely with even a moderately experienced precision partnership. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 18:45:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:45:53 +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 SAA10167 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:45:47 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-181.uunet.be [194.7.9.181]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA04210 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:45:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352B9297.25E7B442@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 17:07:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurence Kelso1 wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > All he really knows is that partner has mis-described his NT range. > > > But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should of > > course accept on a maximum. > > He has a minimum and should decline. Sorry, indeed he has. Oops ! See what you get when you're being quick ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 20:53:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 20:53:03 +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 UAA10543 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 20:52:56 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-86.uunet.be [194.7.9.86]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07143 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:52:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352CA534.9A451218@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 12:38:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the Japanese case X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804081949.MAA22834@mh2.cts.com> <352C9618.2FE5@elnet.msk.ru> <352C18A1.A075153A@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > > > As an aside this leads me to another practical player problem. > This is a real hand from an event in Japan > Prd RHO You LHO > 1NT (2C)* 2H (P) > 2S > > 2C is alerted as a single suiter in C/D/H or S and a minor. > You bid 2H as natural. This is your agreement. Prd alerts 2H as a transfer to 2S. > Now over a transfer 2S by prd. shows a maximum NT with 3 card support and a 5 > card spade suit. If you alert this then you are alerting partner to your > disagreement. > [Note: I had a 4-5-2-2 shape and raised to 3S (I had about 9 pts opposite prds > 12-14 NT) the 4-2 fit didn't make :-( ] > > Must you "wakeup" partner by alerting? It seems to me as a practical matter, you > give more information to partner by alerting, not the opponents. It just seems to > me that at least you now have some (little) chance of playing the board as a hand > of bridge rather than as an appeal case due to UI. Surely this should be > encouraged. > I also act like this - when partner misexplains a bid, I then continue to explain all bidding as of his first explanation, all the while bidding as if I handn't heard it, of course. I think this is the most ethical manner of proceeding IMO. The fact that I now continue to give wrong explanation to opponents is minor, I should think. They already have misinformation and we shall face the TD or the firing squad on that one already. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 21:10:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:10:28 +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 VAA10675 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:10:23 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client277c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.124]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA05599 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:10:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:10:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd63a8$24cb4a00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Peter Newman To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 2:19 AM Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? >Hi all, > >As a bridge player (who has no cats - not allowed in apartments in Japan!) this >hand really intrigues me. > >. I have read Anne Jones' examples with great interest. If we both get the >system wrong at the same time then I can sympathise with not saying anything that >would just confuse the opponents. What should an ethical player do in this >situation? I am interested in the BLML comments here. My general position is that >if both players give the same explanation that matches the hands but is in fact >systemically incorrect then I would say nothing. Otherwise I would give the >correct system agreement..[if I psyche on a spade void and get to a 4-4 heart fit >(the card Gods have been very kind to me) then I would have absolutely no problem >in correcting prds explanation] What if you get to 3NT, you are declarer and there will be no question of pard having fielded. LHO is poised with a Spade to lead (surely they have this time a 6/5 fit) You say , because you have read Law 75D2, our actual agreement is 5card majors. Defender thinks and leads a Club. You wrap up 11 tricks. Is this how it's supposed to be. Back to the original thread.North was not quite as blatant as this, probably only wishing to observe Law75. However the effect may be the same moreso against good players granted. But as I said before even (some)LOLs can count! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 21:17:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:17:01 +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 VAA10706 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:16:56 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client277c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.124]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA06521 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:16:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:17:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd63a9$1f77a700$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Everett Boyer To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 3:49 AM Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? >JP wrote: >> Dealer: W, EW vul, teams >> >> Q9 >> AQT >> AT83 >> KT95 >> A J876543 >> K87542 J63 >> K965 QJ >> A3 2 >> KT2 >> 9 >> 742 >> QJ8764 ..." > >Anne wrote: >> e.g. On the way to the club pard and I, who have always played Ghestem >> agree to play Michaels. We pencil it in on the cc. >> The first two suited overcall, I forget and make a Ghestem cue bid over >> a 1H opening showing Spades and Clubs. Pard forgets and tells the opps >> that we are playing Ghestem. >> [...] I think this is akin to Norths' action in the subject. > >Anne, this example leads to a good question, but it is markedly different >from the original case, in that you forgot Michaels. >Please provide an example where you bid correctly but partner's >incorrect explanation happens to fit your hand anyway. It wouldn't if I had bid correctly, but in my example we had both got it wrong and my hand was what the opps had been told to expect. Just like in the original thread. Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 21:18:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:18:57 +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 VAA10722 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:18:47 +1000 Received: from default (cph18.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.18]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA29797 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:18:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804091118.NAA29797@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:19:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > > > > This is a case law precedent for Denmark that the oral explanation > > has priority when there is a disagreement with the CC. > > > > It should really be a precedent to suggest that an opponent may not > choose from among conflicting evidence the one which is wrong. That was not our intention. > This player was very clearly going for a double shot. We thought so too. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 21:18:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:18:58 +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 VAA10723 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:18:49 +1000 Received: from default (cph18.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.18]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA29801 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:18:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804091118.NAA29801@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:19:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: "Purpose of a Convention Card?" Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig wrote: > I would like some more information about this "National AC" and what the > structure is. In the ACBL, the only avenue of appeal from an AC is to our > Laws Commission and ONLY if the party wishing the appeal can establish one of > three criteria: > > 1) Misapplication of the Law > 2) Incompetence on the part of the committee > 3) Prejudice on the part of the committee The National AC (NAC) in Denmark is a fairly autonomous committee of (currently) eight people, which reports to the DBF Board of Directors. Its responsibilities can be summarized as follows: 1) Decide all appeals made according to L93C. 2) Decide all appeals from national level tournaments according to L92. 3) Maintain a Danish language version of the international laws. 4) Interpret laws and regulations (but another committee drafts and issues regulations). 5) Publish case law precedents, interpretive comments on the laws, etc. The ideal member of the NAC is both a law expert and an excellent player. In practice we have to make do with a mixture of members who have one of these qualifications. How to weigh the two categories of members is currently under scrutiny and is the subject of lively public debate. The NAC members only meet once a year. Cases are decided by deliberation in writing possibly followed by formal voting; thus it takes 2-3 weeks to decide the typical case, and the AC does not get to cross-examine the players involved. This procedure has its drawbacks, especially when the NAC is performing L92 duties; this is also subject to lively debate. We average about 25 cases a year, with maybe 20 L92 cases, 3 L93C cases, and 2 queries on the interpretation of more or less obscure regulations. The DBF has 26 000 members; I am not sure whether players who belong to more than one club are counted more than once. The difference between the ACBL's approach and the DBF's approach that Al is looking for is undoubtedly that we interpret L93C differently: The NAC will happily hear any case that has been heard in another L92 AC, if someone is willing to deposit DKK 200. This includes cases where only the bridge judgement of the AC is being appealed. Theoretically, the NAC might declare a L93 appeal to be frivolous if it found no grounds to question the judgement of the L92 AC. In practice during my three years on the NAC, this has never happened. The Danish Team Championships, played annually in three divisions, is decided based on 222 matches @ 40 boards, played over 4 week-ends at venues all over the country. This leads to 10 or 15 appeals, all of which are decided by the NAC acting under L92. The criticism raised by the players is: 1. The response time for NAC decisions is intolerable. 2. The decisions are less fair when the AC does not have a chance to cross-examine the players. 3. The NAC makes strange bridge judgements, probably because the law experts on the NAC don't understand the high-level game. 4. There are too many appeals; the game is better off when the AC does not have to be involved. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 21:23:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:23:12 +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 VAA10758 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:23:06 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client254a.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.74]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA07264 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:23:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:23:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd63a9$eb648c20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: CHYAH E BURGHARD To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 3:12 AM Subject: ACBL replies on fixed >Here is the blurb from the ACBL >Tournament dept in regards to >the subject of "fixed." > >This was in regards to can a club >make people play only unalertable >bids if they get two partnership >understandings wrong in a single session. > >************************************* > >A partnership is required to have an >agreement as to the meaning of their calls >for all reasonably to be expected auctions. >A partnership is required to have two >identically filled out convention cards that >reflect their agreements (in particular >conventional methods). Any pair found in >violation of this requirement may be >restricted to employing only standard >methods until such a time as they can meet >the requirement. > >Additionally, if it is discovered that while >the convention cards may be properly filled >out, the partnership has not discussed >specifics (and thus have no agreement about >the meaning) it would be proper to require >the pair to employ standard methods until >they have the time to reach an agreement. > >Clubs do have the right to restrict/permit >conventional calls at their discretion. >While the same rules should apply to all >contestants, if a Club Director/Manager >determines that a pair is having difficulty >employing a particular method(s), they >certainly have the right to deny that pair >the privilege until they become proficient >with the method(s) involved. > >With regards to the specific question, yes a >club/director has the right to require a >pair to change their methods during a >session. > >While the policy they have announced is >permitted, it would seem that this is rather >harsh and I would suggest allowing the >director to use the aforementioned >guidelines. As I understand them, these are similar to the guidelines in operation in the UK. Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 21:53:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:53:08 +1000 Received: from alpha3.superonline.com (alpha3.superonline.com [194.242.73.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA10828 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 21:53:01 +1000 Received: from default (a5-02-asy13.bey-ro-01.superonline.com [195.33.216.67]) by alpha3.superonline.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 590-40531L0S0) with ESMTP id AAA13947 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:53:29 +0400 From: zipir@superonline.com (Ercan kuru) To: Subject: Directors for OKBOWL Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 14:50:27 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19980409105326.AAA13947@a5-02-asy13.bey-ro-01.superonline.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Last week i sent an e-mail and asked for volunteered directors for OKBOWL. (Free team event at okbridge). But my mail box crashed and i lost the reply's i recieved. The ones who want to direct this fun event, can u send another reply to me. Thanks Ercan PS : I still need 1 or 2 directors for Tue 5 PM and Thu 8 PM groups From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 22:02:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:02:18 +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 WAA10863 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:02:09 +1000 Received: from default (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA02041 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:02:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804091202.OAA02041@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:02:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the Japanese case Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Peter Newman wrote: > > > > As an aside this leads me to another practical player problem. > > This is a real hand from an event in Japan > > Prd RHO You LHO > > 1NT (2C)* 2H (P) > > 2S > > > > 2C is alerted as a single suiter in C/D/H or S and a minor. > > You bid 2H as natural. This is your agreement. Prd alerts 2H as a transfer to 2S. > > Now over a transfer 2S by prd. shows a maximum NT with 3 card support and a 5 > > card spade suit. If you alert this then you are alerting partner to your > > disagreement. > > [Note: I had a 4-5-2-2 shape and raised to 3S (I had about 9 pts opposite prds > > 12-14 NT) the 4-2 fit didn't make :-( ] Did you remember to call the director and explain the problem before the opening lead? And did you consider that if you had alerted 2S, they might have doubled you; now they are less likely to. > > Must you "wakeup" partner by alerting? Yes. Of course, he now gets to share your problem: you are having a misunderstanding, and you only know because of the UI. > > It seems to me as a practical matter, you > > give more information to partner by alerting, not the opponents. Well, yes, but you are not authorized as a player to let a judgement like that influence your adherence to the alerting rules. > > It just seems to > > me that at least you now have some (little) chance of playing the board as a hand > > of bridge rather than as an appeal case due to UI. Surely this should be > > encouraged. It is hard to encourage this when it involves disregarding the principle of full disclosure. You are advocating that not giving partner UI that he has misunderstood your bid should take priority over full disclosure to the opponents. I don't interpret the rules of the game that way, neither the spirit nor the letter. > I also act like this - when partner misexplains a bid, I then continue > to explain all bidding as of his first explanation, all the while > bidding as if I handn't heard it, of course. Don't do it while I am directing, Herman. You will be struck by L90. > I think this is the most ethical manner of proceeding IMO. > > The fact that I now continue to give wrong explanation to opponents is > minor, I should think. They already have misinformation and we shall > face the TD or the firing squad on that one already. The PP would be to write out the text of L72B2 100 times. No fair cutting and pasting! -- Jens og Bodil, hjemme http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 22:02:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:02:18 +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 WAA10862 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:02:07 +1000 Received: from default (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA02037 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:02:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804091202.OAA02037@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:02:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re 3NT on UI? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Anne Jones" wrote > e.g. On the way to the club pard and I, who have always played Ghestem > agree to play Michaels. We pencil it in on the cc. > The first two suited overcall, I forget and make a Ghestem cue bid over > a 1H opening showing Spades and Clubs. Pard forgets and tells the opps > that we are playing Ghestem. > The opening lead is about to be made. I tell the opps that our agreement > is that we are playing Michaels. This can do no more than help them to > misdefend. OK I "Could have known" , but I am doing what the Law > requires of me. No. Your partnership understanding turned out to be Ghestem after all: you bid it and partner explained it. The note on your cc is not your agreement, only a red herring. Correcting partner's explanation now is misinformation. Fortunately, the laws require that you call the director first, before correcting the explanation, and the director is likely to help you avoid misinforming the opponents. > e.g. I decide to psyche 1S on a hand void in spades. Pard bids impecably > with his 3 card support and I eventually play in our 4/4 Heart fit. > During the Auction opps have asked 4 or 5 card majors? Pard has said 4. > We actually play 5 card majors/15-17 NT. > The opening lead is about to be made and I tell my LHO that we actually > play 5 cards. Is this intended to help them to get it right? No, but neither was the psychic bid. > OK I "could have known", but I am only doing what the Law requires of > me. Certainly! You must correct. You are going to be unpopular with you opponents after the hand (but such is often the fate of psychers). If, OTOH you chose not to correct the explanation, you should be unpopular with the director. > I think this is akin to Norths' action in the subject. He did not have > his bid in HCPs. To impress upon his opps that their agreement was > different from what they had been told to expect, when he had exactly > what they expected seems to me to be unethical. BUT it cannot be so > because the Law requires it! If you want to protect the opponents while fulfilling the obligations of the Laws, you could try "Actually, our agreement is 15-17, but I happen to hold less than 15". I might do that as a matter of sportsmanship, and I don't think it would be illegal. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 22:05:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:05:44 +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 WAA10916 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:05:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005830; 9 Apr 98 12:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 11:34:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L43B2C In-Reply-To: <01bd6348$9486cfa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >But David >There is no Law 43B2C. The was in the old code, but now there is Law >43A1.a.b.c; Law 43A2a.b.c Law43B1;B2a and B2b.and Law 43(3) which seems >wrong. It should probably be Law 43 C. But there is no Law 43B2C. >> >> If he then asks about a possible irregularity, L43B2C applies, >>basically applying the revoke penalty if declarer has done something >>wrong. >> >> According to EBL 43.6[ii] the WBFLC has stated: "The reference in Law >>43B2C to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the _two trick_ >>penalty in this law". >> >> So, I have a few questions: >> >>[1] Why is the two trick penalty? >>[2] Why not just apply L64, which is clear as to the number of tricks? >>[3] This was written for the 1987 Laws. Does it apply now, since the >> wording of L43B2C is unchanged? > >But it has changed David. Ohttre! I really must stop trusting people! A *very* highly ranked TD asked me this question, and when he said the wording was unchanged I believed him without checking! Ssssssssnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 22:12:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:12:03 +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 WAA10979 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:11:57 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005834; 9 Apr 98 12:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:39:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <4zhpOeBl73K1EwpN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >But if in his system the raise to 2NT is a game trial, then he should >> of >> >course accept on a maximum. >> >> He accepted on a *minimum*. > >First things first, > Q9 > AQT > AT83 > KT95 >is, by any normal standard of hand evaluation, not a *minimum* 15-17 1NT >overcall of 1H. The intermediates are fabulous and the heart honours >worth an upgrade (compare with Q4,A75,AK53,KJ32 eg). Absent the UI both >3NT and pass are, IMO, logical alternatives (assuming 2N is invitational >with a hint of a spade guard). > >Thus we are left with determining what the UI suggests, which seems to be >a choice of two opposed interpretations > >a) Pard thinks we are playing 13-15 overcalls and is making an >invitational raise anyway. This definitely suggests 3N is better than >pass. > >b) Pard didn't notice the 1H bid and thinks his 2NT is Lebensohl - >probably weakish with a long minor. Consider the same auction but instead >of getting UI from partner saying "13-15" you get the UI from him saying >(before the 3H bid) "partner should have alerted 2NT as Lebensohl". >Surely many of us would consider 3N the *only* ethical bid in that >situation. > >Case a) seems pretty unlikely with even a moderately experienced precision >partnership. There seems to be an element of fantasy-land about this. What are you suggesting North is up to? Ok, he has a _medium_ hand for a 1NT overcall, let us say. I am certainly happy that Pass and 3NT are LAs if the 2NT is invitational. If partner makes an invitational raise, then the UI suggests 3NT rather than Pass so 3NT is illegal and we correct. If partner makes a Lebensohl bid, meaning he is not prepared to go to game opposite a 13-15 1NT bid [whether overcall or not] then you know you are too good for the 13-15 he is suggesting [know because of the UI] and thus that 3NT might be a winning action. 3NT rather than Pass is suggested by the UI. Whatever he means the 2NT as, being stronger than his partner is assuming suggests that stronger action by him is more likely to be successful. So 3NT is illegal **whatever partner intends 2NT as**. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 9 22:22:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:22:33 +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 WAA11019 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 22:22:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005835; 9 Apr 98 12:03 GMT Message-ID: <+fLolsAIhLL1Ewig@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:00:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <352C18A1.A075153A@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >Imagine if you were sitting North. You make a normal overcall of 1NT only to >hear >partner describe this as 13-15. > >Suppose for a moment it went pass by your LHO and prd bids an invitational 2NT. >Summarising the discussion on this thread between your LAs of pass and 3NT the >3NT bid is suggested over Pass so you should pass. > >This is ONLY if you believe that Pass is a LA. The original problem described NS >as an expert pair. On an expected heart lead (OK they could lead something else >but life ain't perfect) your AQT of hearts seems worth about 8-9 HCP. This makes >your hand 18-19. The fact that prd has not staymaned (a great verb - my time in >Japan leads to the odd US not British spelling) suggests they have length in >a/both minors which fits your hand well. You are playing LOLs and expect to take >an extra trick. As such I would never consider pass an LA on this hand. Are you overcalling a 15-17 1NT on: Q9 AQT AT83 JT95 ? Because if you are not then I do not believe the original hand was one that *all* expert players would treat as a maximum. It is not a question of whether you do: we are talking rulings and LAs, not bidding quizzes. For pass not to be an LA needs about 29 votes out of 30 in the ACBL, perhaps 25 elsewhere. And what is this heart lead? What do LOLs lead? Their suit! Especially since a strong heart holding might mean a singleton heart on lead. I bet you would get a spade lead 50% of the time, and they would cash the first five or six much of the time. The benefit of doubt should be with the NOs and LAs are not based on what one player would bid. Put these two together, and are you really saying that Pass is not an LA? >Should I then say nothing to my opponents about partners misexplanation? I hope >not. I have read Anne Jones' examples with great interest. If we both get the >system wrong at the same time then I can sympathise with not saying anything >that >would just confuse the opponents. What should an ethical player do in this >situation? I am interested in the BLML comments here. My general position is >that >if both players give the same explanation that matches the hands but is in fact >systemically incorrect then I would say nothing. Otherwise I would give the >correct system agreement..[if I psyche on a spade void and get to a 4-4 heart >fit >(the card Gods have been very kind to me) then I would have absolutely no >problem >in correcting prds explanation] I do not think that any suggestion of refusing to follow the Laws of the game is tenable here. I know that everyone may waive penalties from time to time when their opponents are at fault but that is a far cry from the offending side breaking the Laws, even though it *might* be to the oppos advantage. In the actual case, it is very close to cheating. The only reason not to inform the oppos, as you are required to, is to hide the fact that your side has committed an infraction. Hiding infractions in this way is very serious and certainly not to oppos' benefit. Remember that North has accepted on a hand that not 100% of people will accept and knows there is an infraction. For him not to do his duty would be disgraceful. If he knew the Laws and did so then it would certainly be a C&E matter, or L&EC in GBritain. >But wait, in our hand there is more: What was 2NT? >This is where you would need to know the NS system. Would 1NT (2S) 2NT be >lebensohl? Would (1H) 1NT (2S) 2NT be lebensohl? It seems fromt the S hand that >they thought this sequence was Lebensohl. Why didn't North alert it? Perhaps he >feared that it would wake up partner to the real situation? > >As an aside this leads me to another practical player problem. >This is a real hand from an event in Japan >Prd RHO You LHO >1NT (2C)* 2H (P) >2S > >2C is alerted as a single suiter in C/D/H or S and a minor. >You bid 2H as natural. This is your agreement. Prd alerts 2H as a transfer to >2S. >Now over a transfer 2S by prd. shows a maximum NT with 3 card support and a 5 >card spade suit. If you alert this then you are alerting partner to your >disagreement. There are alerting rules: just follow them. Then you are ethically correct. >[Note: I had a 4-5-2-2 shape and raised to 3S (I had about 9 pts opposite prds >12-14 NT) the 4-2 fit didn't make :-( ] > > >Must you "wakeup" partner by alerting? It seems to me as a practical matter, you >give more information to partner by alerting, not the opponents. It just seems >to >me that at least you now have some (little) chance of playing the board as a >hand >of bridge rather than as an appeal case due to UI. Surely this should be >encouraged. No, follow the Laws and leave the Directors/ACs/lawmakers to worry about the ramifications is to be encouraged. >Back to the original problem. N is in an invidious situation. If 2NT was >invitational then 3NT is clear (to me, even more so after the 3H bid making the >heart lead even more certain). If 2NT was lebensohl [how much of this auction >has >partner been with me for??] then over 3NT prd. may bid 4 of a minor which I am >also happy with. If prd holds a 5 point hand with a 6 card minor then I would >like to play 4 of a minor,if I pass then that will end the auction. Pass seems >bizarre. To be told that I should be fined 10imps for blatant use of UI is quite >scary to me. [Particularly if I had said nothing before the lead, the opponents >would have no reason to even suspect that there had been a problem!] Exactly. >I would not be surprised to hear the appeals committee say you only had 15HCP. >You must pass 3H. -140. For the reasons outlined above I think this is wrong BUT >only if the NS pair are expert. Hopefully the appeals committee would have the >appropriate bridge expertise to make this decision. I can find no reason for W >to >not come down to stiff K of Diamonds on the run of the clubs. It may give away >an >overtrick (or two) if N has AQJx of Diamonds but certainly gave up all hope of >beating the contract (even if prd had Jx in Diamonds). Maybe there is some good >reason that I have missed. No-one has yet mentioned one. > >In summary it seems to me that N made the bid they thought was ethically >correct, >found a 6 point dummy and after misdefence made game anyway. [That is how bridge >should be played. As Al Roth would say "At the table"] No, that is not the way the game is to be played. When your side creates UI difficulties, make the calls that you know cannot be challenged and suffer any consequences. That is the way the game should be played. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 00:17:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:17:49 +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 AAA13520 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:17:42 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-130.uunet.be [194.7.13.130]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12106 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:17:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352CD895.C22F2F4@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:17:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > There seems to be an element of fantasy-land about this. What are you > suggesting North is up to? Ok, he has a _medium_ hand for a 1NT > overcall, let us say. I am certainly happy that Pass and 3NT are LAs if > the 2NT is invitational. > > If partner makes an invitational raise, then the UI suggests 3NT > rather than Pass so 3NT is illegal and we correct. > > If partner makes a Lebensohl bid, meaning he is not prepared to go to > game opposite a 13-15 1NT bid [whether overcall or not] then you know > you are too good for the 13-15 he is suggesting [know because of the UI] > and thus that 3NT might be a winning action. 3NT rather than Pass is > suggested by the UI. > > Whatever he means the 2NT as, being stronger than his partner is > assuming suggests that stronger action by him is more likely to be > successful. So 3NT is illegal **whatever partner intends 2NT as**. > David, YOU are fantasy-landing here. What should 2NT mean to North : invitational. Therefor he should bid 3NT if his values suggest this (and I apologise for calling him maximal - but many posters do find he has extra values, even for a 15-17 overcall). Options to North : 3NT or Pass, with 3NT preferred by some. But what does 2NT mean to South : Lebensohl. Therefor South might be holding quite weaker values than suggested, and he might be wanting to pass 3Cl. Options to North : Pass or 3NT, with pass preferred. Now the knowledge that South wants to bid Lebensohl is UI. What is the action suggested by the UI : PASS !!! That is why I think 3NT is the actively ethical action. If they let it win - bad luck to them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 00:25:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:25:29 +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 AAA13553 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:25:22 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-130.uunet.be [194.7.13.130]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12277 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:25:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352CDA78.BA261876@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:26:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the Japanese case X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804091202.OAA02041@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > > I also act like this - when partner misexplains a bid, I then continue > > to explain all bidding as of his first explanation, all the while > > bidding as if I handn't heard it, of course. > > Don't do it while I am directing, Herman. You will be struck by L90. > Why ? What did I do ? > > I think this is the most ethical manner of proceeding IMO. > > > > The fact that I now continue to give wrong explanation to opponents is > > minor, I should think. They already have misinformation and we shall > > face the TD or the firing squad on that one already. > > The PP would be to write out the text of L72B2 100 times. No fair > cutting and pasting! > Intentionally breaking a Law - which one ? My partner misexplains my bidding and bids accordingly. Now what is his bidding supposed to mean ? If I explain it according to the system, then I am also giving misinformation, since this is not what he in fact holds. And I also now wake him up to the misunderstanding. If I explain the bidding according to my understanding of our system, then I am also in breach of L75D2 : I may not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made ! Would you please tell me which of these Laws I shall knowingly break ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 01:06:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:06:49 +1000 Received: from mail.thebest.net (mail.thebest.net [207.124.26.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13740 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:06:40 +1000 Received: from thebest.net ([207.124.26.193]) by thebest.net (Eureka! Gold(tm) v2.4) id AA-1998Apr09.110843.G1013.612528; Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:08:44 -0400 Message-ID: <352CE3E8.F7A83F4F@thebest.net> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:06:16 -0400 From: ann parker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Dummy's Duties Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailServer: Eureka! Gold Internet Server (v2.4) Organization: TheBest.Net, St. Simons Island, GA 31522, USA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would appreciate hearing what you think of the following ruling. Yesterday at our local club my partner and I were defending against a four-spade bid made by two silver life masters. I reneged and thus had a penalty card on the table (a small club). When my partner next took a trick, dummy said to his partner (who is also a director), "You know you have options regarding their penalty card, don't you"? Since there was a club singleton in the dummy, it was my opinion that dummy was making sure that his partner noticed the penalty card in front of me. (Surely a man who directs several games a week knows his options regarding a penalty card!) Thus, I called the director and asked him if the dummy was allowed to made such a statement. The director stated that the dummy's job was to prevent an irregularity, and he admitted that it was really stretching a point to call what dummy did "preventing an irregularity," but he didn't think that there should be a penalty. Declarer chose to tell my partner not to lead a club and I picked up my small club. As it turned out, we were not damaged by dummy's remark because I had the ace of clubs! We would have been damaged if declarer had demanded the lead of a club because I would not have been able to take a trick with my Ace of Clubs. What do you think of declarer's ruling? Was I wrong to have called him in the first place? (If we had been playing against novices, I wouldn't have.) Ann Parker From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 01:20:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:20:11 +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 BAA13859 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:20:03 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yNJ5V-0007LpC; Thu, 9 Apr 98 10:18 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:20:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:22 AM 4/9/98 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >b) Pard didn't notice the 1H bid and thinks his 2NT is Lebensohl - >probably weakish with a long minor. Consider the same auction but instead >of getting UI from partner saying "13-15" you get the UI from him saying >(before the 3H bid) "partner should have alerted 2NT as Lebensohl". >Surely many of us would consider 3N the *only* ethical bid in that >situation. > Alerting his own bid? Let's not go there. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 01:53:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:53:20 +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 BAA14070 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:53:13 +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 LAA17057 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 11:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05922; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 11:53:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 11:53:11 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804091553.LAA05922@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L43B2C X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >But it has changed David. > From: David Stevenson > Ohttre! I really must stop trusting people! Much as it pains me to say so :-), David was right the first time. The section has been renumbered L43B2b, but the text is unchanged. The former L43B2a was moved to L43B3 and modified (nicely done, BTW!), and 43B2b and c were renumbered a and b but not changed. I don't see how the alleged EBL interpretation conforms to the plain text of the Laws. Is there any further explanation to go with it? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 01:58:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:58:07 +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 BAA14093 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:57:59 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yNJgF-0007LpC; Thu, 9 Apr 98 10:55 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:57:57 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the Japanese case In-Reply-To: <352CDA78.BA261876@village.uunet.be> References: <199804091202.OAA02041@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:26 PM 4/9/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >My partner misexplains my bidding and bids accordingly. > >Now what is his bidding supposed to mean ? > >If I explain it according to the system, then I am also giving >misinformation, since this is not what he in fact holds. >And I also now wake him up to the misunderstanding. > >If I explain the bidding according to my understanding of our system, >then I am also in breach of L75D2 : I may not indicate in any manner >that a mistake has been made ! > >Would you please tell me which of these Laws I shall knowingly break ? > >-- You have two responsibilitys: First, to alert/explain your partners bids according to your agreements. Second, to not take advantage of any UI that may have come your way. If your required alert/explaination creates UI for your partner then it is his/her responsibility to deal with it correctly. You are never relieved from your responsibility to properly alert/explain because it might (will) create UI for your partner. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 02:00:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:00:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA14210 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:00:24 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yNJkN-0006uu-00; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 17:00:16 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <23X5CVJ2>; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 17:00:01 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Dummy's Duties Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:59:59 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ann wrote: > I would appreciate hearing what you think of the following ruling. > Yesterday at our local club my partner and I were defending against a > four-spade bid made by two silver life masters. I reneged and thus > had > a penalty card on the table (a small club). When my partner next > took > a trick, dummy said to his partner (who is also a director), "You know > you have options regarding their penalty card, don't you"? Since > there > was a club singleton in the dummy, it was my opinion that dummy was > making sure that his partner noticed the penalty card in front of me. > (Surely a man who directs several games a week knows his options > regarding a penalty card!) Thus, I called the director and asked him > if > the dummy was allowed to made such a statement. The director stated > that > the dummy's job was to prevent an irregularity, and he admitted that > it > was really stretching a point to call what dummy did "preventing an > irregularity," but he didn't think that there should be a penalty. > Declarer chose to tell my partner not to lead a club and I picked up > my > small club. As it turned out, we were not damaged by dummy's remark > because I had the ace of clubs! We would have been damaged if > declarer > had demanded the lead of a club because I would not have been able to > take a trick with my Ace of Clubs. What do you think of declarer's > ruling? Was I wrong to have called him in the first place? (If we had > been playing against novices, I wouldn't have.) Ann Parker > > > ####### Dummy's actions are clearly illegal as declarer is not about > to commit any irregularity. The information given to declarer is UI > and must not therefore be used. If declarer does select an LA > suggested over another by the UI then an adjusted score should be > given under Law 16. The TD should also consider fining dummy under > Law 90. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 02:52:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:52:26 +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 CAA14629 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:52:18 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yNKWo-0007O4C; Thu, 9 Apr 98 11:50 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 11:52:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties In-Reply-To: <352CE3E8.F7A83F4F@thebest.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:06 AM 4/9/98 -0400, ann parker wrote: >I would appreciate hearing what you think of the following ruling. >Yesterday at our local club my partner and I were defending against a >four-spade bid made by two silver life masters. I reneged and thus had >a penalty card on the table (a small club). When my partner next took >a trick, dummy said to his partner (who is also a director), "You know >you have options regarding their penalty card, don't you"? Since there >was a club singleton in the dummy, it was my opinion that dummy was >making sure that his partner noticed the penalty card in front of me. >(Surely a man who directs several games a week knows his options >regarding a penalty card!) Thus, I called the director and asked him if >the dummy was allowed to made such a statement. The director stated that >the dummy's job was to prevent an irregularity, and he admitted that it >was really stretching a point to call what dummy did "preventing an >irregularity," but he didn't think that there should be a penalty. >Declarer chose to tell my partner not to lead a club and I picked up my >small club. As it turned out, we were not damaged by dummy's remark >because I had the ace of clubs! We would have been damaged if declarer >had demanded the lead of a club because I would not have been able to >take a trick with my Ace of Clubs. What do you think of declarer's >ruling? Was I wrong to have called him in the first place? (If we had >been playing against novices, I wouldn't have.) Ann Parker > Since you had a major penalty card on the table your partner was not allowed to lead until the declarer had selected from his options (require/forbid the suit or allow any lead). One could argue that dummy was trying to prevent an iregularity by your partner :-) Note: If declarer had demanded your partner lead a club then your small club is no longer a penalty card. You return it to your hand and may play your Ace. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 03:08:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 03:08:18 +1000 Received: from praseodumium (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA14714 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 03:08:04 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.163] by praseodumium with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yNKng-0003S9-00; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:07:44 +0100 Message-ID: <002701bd63d9$e0e37ce0$a32d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:06:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01BD63E2.41CDB180" 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_0024_01BD63E2.41CDB180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable DWS wrote: > Whatever he means the 2NT as, being stronger than his partner is >assuming suggests that stronger action by him is more likely to be >successful. So 3NT is illegal **whatever partner intends 2NT as**. This is not altogether clear to me. Assuming that North knew that his = partner had not seen West's opening bid (which does not appear to be in = doubt), these interpretations are possible: (1) North believed that 2N was natural and invitational (as the = partnership agreement in the actual sequence may very well have been). = In that case, the question is one of evaluation only: is pass of 3H (for = this North) a LA to 3N? Regardless of various misguided comments to the = effect that this hand is really a 20-count, it really isn't, and I would = have no hesitation in deeming pass a LA. Moreover, if it transpired at = the AC hearing that North had bid 3N knowing that 2N was systemically = natural, I might be disposed to award some further penalty. (2) North believed (as South appears to have believed, and as the = partnership agreement may equally well have been) that 2N was Lebensohl, = possibly based on a weak hand with a long minor suit. In that case, why = did he not alert it? This divides into (at least) these sub-cases: (a) North did not alert 2N because he follows what we will term the "de = Wael school" of thought: if my partner won't tell them our system, then = neither will I, and the table will proceed ever deeper into the mire. I = have some sympathy with this approach at a practical level - it is more = likely than the correct approach to lead to the outcome of the hand = being decided by "normal bridge" processes, and it may lessen the burden = on already overworked TDs and ACs. But Jens has pointed out very clearly = why the approach is wrong, and I have nothing to add but this: if you = follow it, then you are simply denying your opponents their legal = rights, and against opponents who are not likely to know those rights in = the first place, this is serious indeed. I would point this out to North = as gently as Jens has pointed it out to Herman, and I would trust that = the situation did not recur. (b) North did not alert 2N because he was genuinely confused; knowing = that his partner was labouring under a misapprehension, he himself did = not know either what South actually meant by 2N, or what to do for the = best in terms of alerting it, or both. I have a great deal of sympathy = with this position, and I would not be inclined to censure North for = acting improperly if simply bewildered by the turn of events. (c) North did not alert 2N because he saw an opportunity to achieve a = good result by nefarious means - knowing that South probably had a weak = hand with a long minor suit, he did not want to inform his opponents of = the fact because, if they knew it (even LOLs), they might realise that a = spade lead was more likely to be successful than a heart. In this case, = I would suggest that North go for a long walk, pointing out for the = purpose a short pier. Without knowing what took place at the AC hearing, it is impossible to = know which of these cases was the actual one (or whether some other = interpretation was the truth of the matter). Without this knowledge, it = is impossible to decide on any kind of score adjustment, or indeed on = whether North was guilty of any wrongdoing. It is a capital mistake, as = Sherlock Holmes pointed out, to theorise without data. Not that this has = prevented certain eminent contributors from doing precisely that, but = their arguments have been ingenious and the debate a fascinating one. David Burn If I should die, think only this of me: He should have hid behind a bigger tree. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BD63E2.41CDB180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
DWS wrote:
 
> Whatever he means the 2NT as, = being=20 stronger than his partner is
>assuming suggests that stronger = action by=20 him is more likely to be
>successful.  So 3NT is illegal = **whatever=20 partner intends 2NT as**.
 
This is not altogether clear to me. Assuming that = North knew=20 that his partner had not seen West's opening bid (which does not appear = to be in=20 doubt), these interpretations are possible:
 
(1) North believed that 2N was natural and = invitational (as=20 the partnership agreement in the actual sequence may very well have = been). In=20 that case, the question is one of evaluation only: is pass of 3H (for = this=20 North) a LA to 3N? Regardless of various misguided comments to the = effect that=20 this hand is really a 20-count, it really isn't, and I would have no = hesitation=20 in deeming pass a LA. Moreover, if it transpired at the AC hearing that = North=20 had bid 3N knowing that 2N was systemically natural, I might be disposed = to=20 award some further penalty.
 
(2) North believed (as South appears to have = believed, and as=20 the partnership agreement may equally well have been) that 2N was = Lebensohl,=20 possibly based on a weak hand with a long minor suit. In that case, why = did he=20 not alert it? This divides into (at least) these sub-cases:
 
(a) North did not alert 2N because he follows what = we will=20 term the "de Wael school" of thought: if my partner won't tell = them=20 our system, then neither will I, and the table will proceed ever deeper = into the=20 mire. I have some sympathy with this approach at a practical level - it = is more=20 likely than the correct approach to lead to the outcome of the hand = being=20 decided by "normal bridge" processes, and it may lessen the = burden on=20 already overworked TDs and ACs. But Jens has pointed out very clearly = why the=20 approach is wrong, and I have nothing to add but this: if you follow it, = then=20 you are simply denying your opponents their legal rights, and against = opponents=20 who are not likely to know those rights in the first place, this is = serious=20 indeed. I would point this out to North as gently as Jens has pointed it = out to=20 Herman, and I would trust that the situation did not recur.
 
(b) North did not alert 2N because = he was=20 genuinely confused; knowing that his partner was labouring under a=20 misapprehension, he himself did not know either what South actually = meant by 2N,=20 or what to do for the best in terms of alerting it, or both. I have a = great deal=20 of sympathy with this position, and I would not be inclined to censure = North for=20 acting improperly if simply bewildered by the turn of = events.
 
(c) North did not alert 2N because = he saw an=20 opportunity to achieve a good result by nefarious means - knowing that = South=20 probably had a weak hand with a long minor suit, he did not want to = inform his=20 opponents of the fact because, if they knew it (even LOLs), they might = realise=20 that a spade lead was more likely to be successful than a heart. In this = case, I=20 would suggest that North go for a long walk, pointing out for the = purpose a=20 short pier.
 
Without knowing what took place at = the AC=20 hearing, it is impossible to know which of these cases was the actual = one (or=20 whether some other interpretation was the truth of the matter). Without = this=20 knowledge, it is impossible to decide on any kind of score adjustment, = or indeed=20 on whether North was guilty of any wrongdoing. It is a capital mistake, = as=20 Sherlock Holmes pointed out, to theorise without data. Not that this has = prevented certain eminent contributors from doing precisely that, but = their=20 arguments have been ingenious and the debate a fascinating = one.
 
David Burn
 
If I should die, think only this of=20 me:
He should have hid behind a bigger=20 tree.
 
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BD63E2.41CDB180-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 03:33:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 03:33:18 +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 DAA14780 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 03:33:10 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-226.uunet.be [194.7.9.226]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA17803 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 19:33:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352D0671.1588B7C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 19:33:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <002701bd63d9$e0e37ce0$a32d63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > (a) North did not alert 2N because he follows what we will term the > "de Wael school" of thought: if my partner won't tell them our system, > then neither will I, and the table will proceed ever deeper into the > mire. I have some sympathy with this approach at a practical level - > it is more likely than the correct approach to lead to the outcome of > the hand being decided by "normal bridge" processes, and it may lessen > the burden on already overworked TDs and ACs. But Jens has pointed out > very clearly why the approach is wrong, and I have nothing to add but > this: if you follow it, then you are simply denying your opponents > their legal rights, and against opponents who are not likely to know > those rights in the first place, this is serious indeed. I would point > this out to North as gently as Jens has pointed it out to Herman, and > I would trust that the situation did not recur. > I am very honoured to have my name tagged to a "school of thought", even if it is on an approach that is considered wrong by many of you. I agree that I am (deliberately) misinforming my opponents, but please consider the problem with which a player in my position is faced : - by continuing the explanation started by partner, I am telling the opponents exactly the same thing as my partner expects the bidding to mean. That way his next bid can again be explained in a similar fashion. - OTOH, by giving the (correct) explanation I am waking up my partner. Apart from the fact that L75D2 explicitely forbids me to do this, it now poses on my partner a piece of completely impossible bidding. He should now bid on, knowing that my bid meant what it did, but thinking it meant something else. He should find a bid that is consistent with what he previously thought it was, and the opponents know it. That piece of UI is almost certainly to be ruled on. - If however I do nothing to wake him up, he does not have UI. If he wakes up through my call, he is will inform opponents that he has worked out his mistake. This is explicitely covered in L75D1. There is no UI. This possibility has gone once I tell him. Few TD or AC believe that the call has waken up, when there is also UI. - L73B1 tells me I should not use (anything) to communicate information to partner. By deliberately telling him something I know he does not know, I am in breach of this. On the whole, I think that continuing the story started by partner is less of an infraction of the Laws. The reverse is in breach of L75D1, L73B1 and perhaps others. Of course I myself shall always call according to my notion of the system, not the one which we are telling the opponents. Besides : what happens with screens : there too one side of the screen will get a wrong, but consistent explanation of events. I do hope to convince Davids B and S of this. I shal think for some time about an example and come back to you on this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 03:37:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 03:37:11 +1000 Received: from netgates.co.uk (genesis.netgates.co.uk [193.9.120.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14808 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 03:37:04 +1000 Received: from mitl001a.netgates.co.uk (mitl001a.netgates.co.uk [194.105.65.226]) by netgates.co.uk (8.7.5/8.x.x) with SMTP id SAA05038; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:37:13 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:37:13 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199804091737.SAA05038@netgates.co.uk> X-Sender: mitl001b@mail.netgates.co.uk (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) From: Larry Bennett Subject: RE: Fixed Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Many do, nonetheless. I haven't run a >club in five years or so, but I never >saw any ACBL missive that forbade clubs from >outlawing psyching (other than the Laws, >of course). > --Jeff > This problem has come up with two of the clubs with which I have been associated. Whilst psyching is specifically allowed by the laws, the SO's have made it clear to habitual psychers (particularly when novices are present) that their membership could be in jeopardy if they continue to upset other members. The clubs rules/constitution allow for suspension/termination of membership without reason and the threat of being given back any subsciption paid and being told to re-apply in 3 or 6 months will usually achieve the desired effect. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 04:01:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 04:01:15 +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 EAA14863 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 04:01:09 +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 OAA24295 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06002; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:01:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:01:09 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804091801.OAA06002@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > ...these interpretations are possible: > > (1) North believed that 2N was natural and invitational ... > (2) North believed (as South appears to have believed, and as the partnership agreement may equally well have been) that 2N was Lebensohl Or perhaps more likely a combination of these: North believed 1) was the actual agreement after the 1NT overcall. Not belonging to the "de Wael school," he alerted according to this system, i.e. no alert. But North further believed (because of the UI) that South was bidding according to 2) and might well hold a weak, distributional hand (which in fact was what South held). I would hope we could decide on score adjustment (LA's and "suggested over another") without knowing what North was thinking. We do seem to need a bit more information about the NS system. Do they in fact play Lebensohl over their weak NT opening but not in advancing their strong NT overcalls? And if so, what hands can Leb 2NT show? PP's and conduct penalties might well depend on North's thought processes, of course. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 04:14:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 04:14:00 +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 EAA14883 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 04:13:51 +1000 Received: from default (client8522.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.34]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA30585; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 19:13:49 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L43B2C Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 19:09:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd63e2$abfec080$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: 09 April 1998 00:24 Subject: L43B2C > According to EBL 43.6[ii] the WBFLC has stated: "The reference in Law >43B2C to the penalty in Law 64 is interpreted to mean the _two trick_ >penalty in this law". > > So, I have a few questions: > >[1] Why is the two trick penalty? ###Edgar had been requested to have the committee rule on it. This ruling was decided by the committee at a meeting.### >[2] Why not just apply L64, which is clear as to the number of tricks? ### The ruling was handed down without further comment. I was at the meeting and my recollection is that (a) Edgar considered it desirable that the committee make a ruling: he did not consider the law clear enough otherwise; (b) he actually proposed what the ruling should be and there was no dissent. ### That much is official! #### >[3] This was written for the 1987 Laws. Does it apply now, since the > wording of L43B2C is unchanged? ###It looks to me that the law has changed sufficiently to call into question that the previous ruling still applies. The major step was to make a fresh section of what was previously 43B2(a); this was thought to be a better construction of the law, especially as it was desired to alter the possible consequences of the irregularity. 43B2(b) and (c) were retained in 43B2, but in what is now 43B2(b) there are two alterations - failure to comply with a penalty is not specified independently (see 61A) and words are added to the penalty provisions which appear to clarify the Director's action. One would think that the opportunity was there to say so if it were desired to maintain the previous ruling, such anyway is my personal opinion. Is there anything I should pursue with the WBFLC ?### #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 04:42:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 04:42:01 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA15006 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 04:41:52 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Thu, 09 Apr 98 14:42:00 EDT Received: from t6.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa12043; 9 Apr 98 14:18 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t6.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA25003 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:40:39 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199804091840.OAA25003@t6.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:40:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I would appreciate hearing what you think of the following ruling. > Yesterday at our local club my partner and I were defending against a > four-spade bid made by two silver life masters. I reneged and thus had > a penalty card on the table (a small club). When my partner next took > a trick, dummy said to his partner (who is also a director), "You know > you have options regarding their penalty card, don't you"? Since there > was a club singleton in the dummy, it was my opinion that dummy was > making sure that his partner noticed the penalty card in front of me. > (Surely a man who directs several games a week knows his options > regarding a penalty card!) Thus, I called the director and asked him if > the dummy was allowed to made such a statement. The director stated that > the dummy's job was to prevent an irregularity, and he admitted that it > was really stretching a point to call what dummy did "preventing an > irregularity," but he didn't think that there should be a penalty. (rest snipped) I concur with others--declarer was not going to make the irregularity (43a1b), so dummy should stay quiet. You were right in calling the director, since specifically 43a1c has been violated in that dummy has remarked on the play of the hand. I assume that director was called on the revoke, yes? Had I been called on the revoke, I would have stayed at the table until the penalty card had been disposed, just to make sure that everyone knew their rights. Because of this, it's hard to decide on how big of a PP I would assign-- in a perfect world, the director would have chimed in with the options for declarer before dummy would get a chance to say anything. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 05:01:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 05:01:58 +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 FAA15088 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 05:01:52 +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 PAA28476 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06101; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:01:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:01:52 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804091901.PAA06101@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > Because when one uses word "alternative" > - he simultaneously agrees that there are only two possibilities:)) I don't know why the smileys are there, but I don't believe the English word 'alternatives' implies that there are only two. I agree that the etymology would imply only two, and in fact my dictionary gives "one of two" as one of two meanings for 'alternative'. But the alternative (heh!) meaning is "one of two or more," and I think the plural form implies this is what is meant. Furthermore, the preposition 'among' definitely implies more than two; it would be 'between' if only two were meant. In bridge, I often find myself facing more than two alternatives that all seem logical at the time. :-( Is there really a translation problem here? I can well imagine that there might be. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 05:15:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 05:15:28 +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 FAA15159 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 05:15:21 +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 PAA24393 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:15:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:15:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804091915.PAA24901@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 27B is clear that an insufficient bid which may have been conventional or would be corrected to a conventional bid bars partner regardless of the correct. Should the spirit or letter of the Law be applied in the following situation? W N E 2NT P 2C 3C has the same meaning as 2C was intended to have. According to the letter of the law, West is barred if East bids 3C, but there was no damage here. Should the law be changed here? I would think it should be applied according to the book since it is in the book now. (The director at the club didn't check the book for the law, and both she and the NOS agreed that it would be unfair to force the pass. South then made the point moot by accepting the insufficient 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 Fri Apr 10 07:09:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:09:31 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15481 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:09:25 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23757 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804092109.OAA23757@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >2. From the point of AC's view. And here (at least forrmally) there are >unable to use LA definition:)) Because when one uses word "alternative" >- he simultaneously agrees that there are only two possibilities:)) Such >is meaning of the word. I disagree both on "linguistics" and on bridge laws. Law 16A talks about "alternative actions" and "suggested over another", rather than " *the* other" (which would imo imply 2 alternatives only). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 07:41:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:41:06 +1000 Received: from glinda.oz.net (glinda.oz.net [208.154.100.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15604 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:41:00 +1000 Received: from sense-sea-pm6-11.oz.net (sense-sea-pm6-11.oz.net [208.154.96.171]) by glinda.oz.net (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA23906 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804092140.OAA23906@glinda.oz.net> From: "Donald Mamula" Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 14:38:36 -0800 Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties Priority: normal In-reply-to: <352CE3E8.F7A83F4F@thebest.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 9 Apr 98 at 11:06, ann parker wrote about Dummy's Duties: > The director stated that the dummy's job was to prevent > an irregularity, and he admitted that it was really stretching a > point to call what dummy did "preventing an irregularity," but he > didn't think that there should be a penalty. Your small club, played due to a revoke, was a major penalty card. As such, this situation falls under Law 50D2, which states: " When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematurely, he is subject to penalty under Law 49.)" Having your partner lead without declarer exercising his options would be a violation of 50D2. Thus, dummy was trying to prevent the irregularity. This leads to a different question, under L42B2. There it states that dummy has this qualified right: "He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer". No mention is made of preventing an irregularity by defenders. My ruling would be that this is in a gray area of unspecified rights, and was in the spirit of an efficient disposition of the L50D2 situation without additional penalties. Further, I'd say to myself that he was covering my own lack of detail - for not remaining at the table until the penalty card was no longer in play. Other views welcome if I am judging this incorrectly. > Declarer chose to tell my partner not to lead a club and I picked > up my small club. As it turned out, we were not damaged by dummy's > remark because I had the ace of clubs! We would have been damaged > if declarer had demanded the lead of a club because I would not > have been able to take a trick with my Ace of Clubs. Not true. If, under L50D2A, declarer requires the lead of a club, the small club is no longer a penalty card, and is put back in your hand. You can then legally play the ace when it is your turn to play. If he did not require or forbid the lead of a that suit, then it would remain a penalty card. Don ****************************************************************** Donald Mamula Kirkland WA mamula@oz.net All opinions are those of the guest, and do not reflect those of station ownership, management, staff or advertisers. We will provide time for opposing viewpoints... ****************************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 09:11:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:11:39 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15860 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:11:33 +1000 Received: from default (cph7.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.7]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA28746 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:11:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804092311.BAA28746@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:12:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the Japanese case Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael > Jens & Bodil wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > > > > I think this is the most ethical manner of proceeding IMO. > > > > > > The fact that I now continue to give wrong explanation to opponents is > > > minor, I should think. They already have misinformation and we shall > > > face the TD or the firing squad on that one already. > > > > The PP would be to write out the text of L72B2 100 times. No fair > > cutting and pasting! > > > Intentionally breaking a Law - which one ? L75C. Probably also L72B4. > My partner misexplains my bidding and bids accordingly. > > Now what is his bidding supposed to mean ? > > If I explain it according to the system, then I am also giving > misinformation, since this is not what he in fact holds. I don't understand. You are not supposed to tell the opponents what your partner holds. You are supposed to tell them about your partnership agreements. Misinformation is what happens when you don't explain what you are supposed to explain. > And I also now wake him up to the misunderstanding. Probably. That can't be helped. We all send out UI all the time; here at least everyone has an easy time agreeing what UI there is. > If I explain the bidding according to my understanding of our system, > then I am also in breach of L75D2 : I may not indicate in any manner > that a mistake has been made ! Nice point. As a reward I will allow you to copy and paste. But I won't change my ruling. > Would you please tell me which of these Laws I shall knowingly break ? L75D2 would have to suffer, because the principle of full disclosure has higher priority. I don't want you to (call the director and then) explicitly point out the explanation you think is wrong until the appropriate time, but I will have to accept that you are forced by the circumstances to indicate that there seems to be a mistaken explanation somewhere. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 09:11:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:11:42 +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 JAA15864 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:11:36 +1000 Received: from default (cph7.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.7]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA28749 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:11:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804092311.BAA28749@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:12:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ann parker wrote: > I would appreciate hearing what you think of the following ruling. > Yesterday at our local club my partner and I were defending against a > four-spade bid made by two silver life masters. I reneged and thus had > a penalty card on the table (a small club). When my partner next took > a trick, dummy said to his partner (who is also a director), "You know > you have options regarding their penalty card, don't you"? There seem to be three possible reasons for this turn of events: 1. No director was called when the revoke occurred. In that case, the table seems to have agreed on a ruling, and dummy is apparently making sure that the agreed ruling is complete. If the "major penalty card" ruling had been suggested by the revoking side without hinting at the lead penalties, my punishment to dummy would be a warning: next time, call the director when there is a revoke. Same punishment to the defenders: You are not obliged to draw attention to your revoke, but once attention has been drawn, all four players are obliged to call the director. Next time, please do so. 2. The director was called, but had not explained the lead rules. In that case the director would be embarassed, and it would be human of the director to thank dummy for the help, to apologize to the players, to hope that no harm was done, and to say so. 3. The director was called and had also explained the lead rules. He had then left the table because of more important business elsewhere (such as getting back to play the board he was defending so brilliantly at his own table). Now I would find dummy out of order, fine him with a PP if it seems that he was trying to draw declarer's attention to the penalty card, but still allow declarer to exercise his legal rights. In theory L16 applies to dummy's remarks, but I would find it difficult to rule against declarer. L45F does not apply. (snip) > Was I wrong to have called him in the first place? There is apparently an irregularity, so you call the director. That is what the director is there for. I sincerely hope that "in the first place" should not be taken as an indication that no one called the director when the revoke was discovered originally. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 09:37:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:37:52 +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 JAA15927 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:37:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011396; 9 Apr 98 23:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:15:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties In-Reply-To: <352CE3E8.F7A83F4F@thebest.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ann parker wrote: >I would appreciate hearing what you think of the following ruling. >Yesterday at our local club my partner and I were defending against a >four-spade bid made by two silver life masters. I reneged and thus had >a penalty card on the table (a small club). When my partner next took >a trick, dummy said to his partner (who is also a director), "You know >you have options regarding their penalty card, don't you"? Why had the Director not already explained this? Why was the Director not still standing at the table? OK, dummy is bored with life, the universe and everything, and has decided that it is time he joined in the play. There is no case for this and I would sit on dummy. But why was the Director not present? > Since there >was a club singleton in the dummy, it was my opinion that dummy was >making sure that his partner noticed the penalty card in front of me. >(Surely a man who directs several games a week knows his options >regarding a penalty card!) Thus, I called the director and asked him if >the dummy was allowed to made such a statement. The director stated that >the dummy's job was to prevent an irregularity, and he admitted that it >was really stretching a point to call what dummy did "preventing an >irregularity," but he didn't think that there should be a penalty. >Declarer chose to tell my partner not to lead a club and I picked up my >small club. As it turned out, we were not damaged by dummy's remark >because I had the ace of clubs! We would have been damaged if declarer >had demanded the lead of a club because I would not have been able to >take a trick with my Ace of Clubs. What do you think of declarer's >ruling? Was I wrong to have called him in the first place? (If we had >been playing against novices, I wouldn't have.) Ann Parker You were not wrong to call the Director in the first place, but it appears that you did not call him i the first place! When there is an irregularity, call the Director and let him sort it out. The only real excuse for all this is if [a] you called the Director [b] he gave a ruling including a description of the penalty card [c] he had to leave the table _either_ because he was a playing Director _or_ because he was called elsewhere. If all this happened then you have my sympathy. If, as I suspect, the penalty card was put on the table without the Director being called, then both sides are offenders. If it was explained to me that Dummy had made the remark he had I would have let the hand be played out. If declarer had apparently gained from dummy's comment then I would probably have adjusted his score or fined him the equivalent, but I would have let you keep your score. If the Director was called and this remark was made later, then that is different, but it does not sound like that from your account. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 09:45:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:45:51 +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 JAA15967 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:45:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2011407; 9 Apr 98 23:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:01:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the Japanese case In-Reply-To: <352CDA78.BA261876@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Intentionally breaking a Law - which one ? > >My partner misexplains my bidding and bids accordingly. > >Now what is his bidding supposed to mean ? > >If I explain it according to the system, then I am also giving >misinformation, since this is not what he in fact holds. >And I also now wake him up to the misunderstanding. That is not your affair. You are required by Law to correctly inform your oppos. Do so, and leave the ethical ramifications to others. >If I explain the bidding according to my understanding of our system, >then I am also in breach of L75D2 : I may not indicate in any manner >that a mistake has been made ! You are not saying anything about partner's explanation. Of course, other people at the table may infer things from your explanation, but that is irrelevant: you are merely explaining his calls as you are required to. >Would you please tell me which of these Laws I shall knowingly break ? Neither. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 09:56:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:56:55 +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 JAA16012 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:56:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013254; 9 Apr 98 23:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:54:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <199804091915.PAA24901@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >Law 27B is clear that an insufficient bid which may have been >conventional or would be corrected to a conventional bid bars partner >regardless of the correct. Should the spirit or letter of the Law be >applied in the following situation? > >W N E >2NT P 2C > >3C has the same meaning as 2C was intended to have. According to the >letter of the law, West is barred if East bids 3C, but there was no >damage here. Should the law be changed here? > >I would think it should be applied according to the book since it is in >the book now. (The director at the club didn't check the book for the >law, and both she and the NOS agreed that it would be unfair to force >the pass. South then made the point moot by accepting the insufficient >bid.) Whether you like this Law or not [and I hate it] it is part of the Laws of the game. If the Director and the NOs agree that it would be unfair to follow the Laws then their recourse is to write to the WBFLC and tell them so. This is a completely standard ruling which screws bidding sequences up every day all over the world and Directors read it out, tell the players what to do, and says "I am sorry it is a bit harsh". The spirit of the Law does not come into it. Really. Not in completely standard book rulings. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 10:40:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:40:00 +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 KAA16152 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:39:53 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2472.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.114]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA10852 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:39:48 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 01:40:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6419$3ad77280$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: David Grabiner Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 1:36 AM Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Grabiner >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 8:53 PM >Subject: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention > > >> >>Law 27B is clear that an insufficient bid which may have been >>conventional or would be corrected to a conventional bid bars partner >>regardless of the correct. Should the spirit or letter of the Law be >>applied in the following situation? >I would say the letter for this reason:- >Assuming that the 2C bidder did not have a hand which fits a 2C bid >which may NOT have been conventional.e.g. precision 2C opener etc., but >we have to rule without looking at hands, so that the auction may >continue. >Thus we rule that the bid MAY have been conv. >> >>W N E >>2NT P 2C >> >>I would think it should be applied according to the book since it is in >>the book now. > > So do I > > (The director at the club didn't check the book for the >>law, and both she and the NOS agreed that it would be unfair to force >>the pass. South then made the point moot by accepting the insufficient >>bid.) >That is not what TDs are trained to do., but she made a ruling and that >ruling may be appealed. > >Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 10:53:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:53:09 +1000 Received: from fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp [164.71.1.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16209 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:53:01 +1000 Received: from fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.6W-MX980408-Fujitsu Mail Gateway) id JAA19291; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:53:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp by fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.6W-980405-Fujitsu Domain Mail Master) id JAA14561; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:52:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp (petern.msl.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp [164.71.137.30]) by mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp (8.6.9+2.4W/3.3W8) id JAA24025; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:56:43 +0900 Message-ID: <352D6D34.EBE06DEF@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:52:05 +0900 From: Peter Newman Organization: Fujitsu Japan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? References: <002701bd63d9$e0e37ce0$a32d63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: --various cases snipped-- >Without knowing what took place at the AC hearing, it is impossible to know >which of these cases was the actual one (or whether some other interpretation >was the truth of the matter). Without this knowledge, it is impossible to >decide on any kind of score adjustment, or indeed on whether North was guilty >of any wrongdoing. It is a capital mistake, as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, to >theorise without data. Not that this has prevented certain eminent contributors >from doing precisely that, but their arguments have been ingenious and the >debate a fascinating one. This is an excellent summary of the actual problem mailed to blml. It was a complicated and interesting bridge case and I hope the appeals committee had fun. One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common situations. Rule 1: If a revoke/insufficient bid/penalty card occurs CALL THE DIRECTOR Rule 2: .... If this could be kept to a shortish list then it could be posted on club walls etc. (I guess in ACBL land next to the ZT posters :-) ) I think there is a complete lack of knowledge at the player level of this kind of information. "Just follow the law book" isn't much use for the 99% of players who have no interest in reading it. And while I have my fingers on the keyboard - There seems to be many comments about the need for PPs for players like this N who (may) have committed an infraction. As DWS wrote, if N knew that 2NT was invitational, thought Pass was an LA and then chose to bid 3NT despite knowing the laws then this an ethics committee situation. I agree with this. [But in real life will any player admit all the above? - if they did I don't think they would be in this situation]. If I had the N hand and I thought 2NT was invitational and I thought that 75%+ (fill in the number of your choice based on region, day of week etc.) of players of my standard would bid 3NT isn't that my right (in fact ethical obligation)? Of course the director/AC may tell me I am wrong (many on this list have), I have no problem with that but is that really worthy of a PP? Peter Newman These comments are my own, and I am quite happy to deny having ever made them. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 11:05:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:05:27 +1000 Received: from smtp4.nwnexus.com (smtp4.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16269 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:05:21 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA22256; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:05:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara and Richard Odlin To: David Grabiner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <199804091915.PAA24901@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, David Grabiner wrote: > Law 27B is clear that an insufficient bid which may have been > conventional or would be corrected to a conventional bid bars partner > regardless of the correct. Should the spirit or letter of the Law be > applied in the following situation? > > W N E > 2NT P 2C > > 3C has the same meaning as 2C was intended to have. According to the > letter of the law, West is barred if East bids 3C, but there was no > damage here. Should the law be changed here? > I would think it should be applied according to the book since it is in > the book now. (The director at the club didn't check the book for the > law, and both she and the NOS agreed that it would be unfair to force > the pass. South then made the point moot by accepting the insufficient > bid.) The ACBL has made it clear to many of us that this Law has no effect whatsoever!! We had a similar situation in Reno, and the director simply ruled that the insufficient conventional bid was merely a "slip of the tongue", an inadvertent draw from the bidding box, and allowed a sufficient bid in the same denomination, even when attention was first drawn to it by the bidder's RHO. The question then becomes when does an insufficient conventional bid become insufficient? Probably NEVER in the ACBL!! Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 11:09:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:09:03 +1000 Received: from smtp4.nwnexus.com (smtp4.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16289 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:08:57 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA22404; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:08:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara and Richard Odlin To: Donald Mamula cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties In-Reply-To: <199804092140.OAA23906@glinda.oz.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another view is that a penalty card is not a penalty card unless it has been so designated by the director. The irregularity is that the director was not called in the first place! Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 11:56:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:56:07 +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 LAA16413 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:56:01 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020881; 10 Apr 98 1:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:48:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <352D6D34.EBE06DEF@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the >rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS >know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o >Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common >situations. >Rule 1: If a revoke/insufficient bid/penalty card occurs CALL THE >DIRECTOR >Rule 2: .... There is no Rule 2. >If this could be kept to a shortish list then it could be posted on club >walls etc. (I guess in ACBL land next to the ZT posters :-) ) I think >there is a complete lack of knowledge at the player level of this kind >of information. "Just follow the law book" isn't much use for the 99% of >players who have no interest in reading it. When I say follow the Law book I am talking to Directors not players. >And while I have my fingers on the keyboard - There seems to be many >comments about the need for PPs for players like this N who (may) have >committed an infraction. As DWS wrote, if N knew that 2NT was >invitational, thought Pass was an LA and then chose to bid 3NT despite >knowing the laws then this an ethics committee situation. I agree with >this. [But in real life will any player admit all the above? - if they >did I don't think they would be in this situation]. It is not a matter of "admitting". directors listen to the facts and make judgements. In the stated case it sounded to me as though a player who knew what he was up to was trying it on. That is what I would give a PP for. >If I had the N hand and I thought 2NT was invitational and I thought >that 75%+ (fill in the number of your choice based on region, day of >week etc.) of players of my standard would bid 3NT isn't that my right >(in fact ethical obligation)? Of course the director/AC may tell me I am >wrong (many on this list have), I have no problem with that but is that >really worthy of a PP? No, but I am quite sure that is not what happened. >These comments are my own, and I am quite happy to deny having ever made >them. Fair enuff! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 12:38:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 12:38:51 +1000 Received: from fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp [164.71.1.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16522 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 12:38:41 +1000 Received: from fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.6W-MX980408-Fujitsu Mail Gateway) id LAA07212; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:38:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp by fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.8+2.7Wbeta7/3.6W-980405-Fujitsu Domain Mail Master) id LAA03619; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:38:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp (petern.msl.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp [164.71.137.30]) by mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp (8.6.9+2.4W/3.3W8) id LAA25701; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:42:24 +0900 Message-ID: <352D85FA.29DFC56A@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:37:46 +0900 From: Peter Newman Organization: Fujitsu Japan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Peter Newman wrote: > > >One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the > >rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS > >know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o > >Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common > >situations. > >Rule 1: If a revoke/insufficient bid/penalty card occurs CALL THE > >DIRECTOR > >Rule 2: .... > > There is no Rule 2. I was thinking along the lines of: -If your partner misexplains your bid then you MUST bid (and alert - I am convinced of this now, sorry Herman) as per your system eg: (1C) 2NT* (P) 3H Partner alerts your 2NT as reds. Your system is minors. You MUST treat partners 3H as a forcing natural bid (or whatever your system is) NOT better Hearts than Diamonds. So with -,Qxx,AJTxx, QJxxx you must bid 4H (or 3S cuebid) NOT pass or 4C. -If your partner hesitates then...(someone must have a succint player friendly summary). [How many times have I heard club players say that they can use their PARTNERS hesitation AT THEIR OWN RISK] -If there is a hesitation at the table that you think may need to be agreed with your opponents you should.... (will vary by region I suppose) etc... Just my 2 yen worth. DWS also wrote: > When I say follow the Law book I am talking to Directors not players. How much responsibility does a player have to know the laws? Clearly, you don't need to know the options for an insufficient bid, knowing to call the director is sufficient. But what about: What you must do after a hesitation? Peter From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 17:14:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:14:44 +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 RAA17103 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:14:37 +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 AAA24544; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804100713.AAA24544@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jeff Goldsmith" , Subject: Re: Fixed Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:13:30 -0700 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: Jeff Goldsmith > > > Chyah says: > > > But the rule is generally that clubs are > > autonomous, meaning they can do almost > > anything they want. On the list of things > > they cannot forbid is psyching. > > Many do, nonetheless. I haven't run a > club in five years or so, but I never > saw any ACBL missive that forbade clubs from > outlawing psyching (other than the Laws, > of course). Part I of the ACBL's *Duplicate Decisions* publication, which guides Club Directors in the implementation of the Laws, reaffirms L40's words that players can psych, stating that "psychic bids are an integral part of bridge." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 17:30:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:30:41 +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 RAA17184 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:30:35 +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 AAA25732; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804100730.AAA25732@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Jan Kamras" Subject: Re: CC Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:28:40 -0700 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: Jan Kamras > > Based on how it is actually used in the US, the purpose of the CC seems twofold: > 1) To provide some text for the back of the private scoresheet, and > 2) To serve as a "coaster" for bidding-boxes, presumably to avoid them > scratching the (cheap, plastic-covered) table. > > And Alan (LeBendig), if the main purpose was to settle disputes in AC > meetings, why is it required: > a) to have TWO copies, and > b) that they are placed on the table in front of each opponent? > > One copy tucked away in the bag would suffice to serve your purpose, and as > a bonus free-up space for the other posters' drinks. > The last sentence tickled my funnybone, because that is exactly the situation I encountered today, playing in a San Diego regional against Bobby Goldman and an apparent pupil. The pupil opened 1NT and BG transferred her to a spade contract. Seeing no card but ours on the table, I asked to see theirs, and BG volunteered "15 to 17." I said, "That won't do, I want to look at the card," and the pupil pulled a barely legible card out of her purse. Apparently BG had none to show, but maybe there was one in his back pocket. The wave of the future? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 17:46:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:46:07 +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 RAA17247 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:46:00 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h19.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id LAA13624; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:45:59 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352E69FC.413E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:50:36 -0700 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: 3NT on UI? References: <199804091901.PAA06101@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) First of all I'd like to congratulate m-r Jan Peter Pals with an exelent topic for BLML - thank you, Jan:) Numerous posters prove it. Steve Willner wrote: > > I don't know why the smileys are there, but I don't believe the English > word 'alternatives' implies that there are only two. I agree that the > etymology would imply only two, and in fact my dictionary gives "one of > two" as one of two meanings for 'alternative'. But the alternative > (heh!) meaning is "one of two or more," and I think the plural form > implies this is what is meant. Furthermore, the preposition 'among' > definitely implies more than two; it would be 'between' if only two > were meant. > > In bridge, I often find myself facing more than two alternatives that > all seem logical at the time. :-( > > Is there really a translation problem here? I can well imagine that > there might be. I'm smiling, Steve, because discussion became funner and funner:) Just now - also. Was it the only your remark? - If yes, it is funny too:)) Because for my opinion (as AC-member, not as TD) there is almost no differences between Pass and 3NT - both bids are in favour of NS side. May be Pass makes this favour less noticable. The decision of principle is Double. It is the only normal bid (after invitation attempt of South). Against vulnerable opponents. With AQ10 in Heart - after Hearts rebid by opener. And only this bid makes consequence of UI in favour of EW-side. I guess it is obvious?:) Vitold P.S. "LA" - logical alternative means only two possibilities: - so by rules of English language (and not only by English) - and Steve proved it as well:) - as by rules of logics (as part of mathemathics) Whether we want to use words, changing their common-used meaning, - we should describe their new meanings. That's why old-fashioned Kaplan's term "free choice" is often more suitable when bridge cases are analysed. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 18:47:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:47:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA17357 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:47:17 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yNZSv-0003Sa-00; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:47:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 02:30:06 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Grabiner wrote: >> >>Law 27B is clear that an insufficient bid which may have been >>conventional or would be corrected to a conventional bid bars partner >>regardless of the correct. Should the spirit or letter of the Law be >>applied in the following situation? >> >>W N E >>2NT P 2C >> >>3C has the same meaning as 2C was intended to have. According to the >>letter of the law, West is barred if East bids 3C, but there was no >>damage here. Should the law be changed here? >> >>I would think it should be applied according to the book since it is in >>the book now. (The director at the club didn't check the book for the >>law, and both she and the NOS agreed that it would be unfair to force >>the pass. South then made the point moot by accepting the insufficient >>bid.) > > Whether you like this Law or not [and I hate it] it is part of the >Laws of the game. If the Director and the NOs agree that it would be >unfair to follow the Laws then their recourse is to write to the WBFLC >and tell them so. This is a completely standard ruling which screws >bidding sequences up every day all over the world and Directors read it >out, tell the players what to do, and says "I am sorry it is a bit >harsh". > > The spirit of the Law does not come into it. Really. Not in >completely standard book rulings. > > and we can be extremely unpopular as a result, but we still go on Directing. I made a player in a two card ending play the 9 under the 10 instead of the J over it last night because his partner might have been able to see the 9 when he was waving one card in each hand around. Cost me a drink :( -- 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 Apr 10 20:24:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 20:24:49 +1000 Received: from praseodumium (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA17563 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 20:24:43 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.174] by praseodumium with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yNayz-0005Vz-00; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:24:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bd646a$b585d5c0$ae3563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Alternatively (was: Re 3NT on UI?) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:23:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD6473.0FC30E60" 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_0008_01BD6473.0FC30E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There isn't really a problem here. If a player chooses action X, then it = may very well be that A is an alternative to X, and B is an alternative = to X, and so is C. What the Law says is that the player may not choose X = if there is an alternative over which X is suggested by virtue of UI. To = put this more simply: A,B,C and X are all possibilities; XA, XB and XC = are all pairs of alternatives. We can have archaic, and eat it too. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD6473.0FC30E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There isn't really a problem here. = If a player=20 chooses action X, then it may very well be that A is an alternative to = X, and B=20 is an alternative to X, and so is C. What the Law says is that the = player may=20 not choose X if there is an alternative over which X is suggested by = virtue of=20 UI. To put this more simply: A,B,C and X are all possibilities; XA, XB = and XC=20 are all pairs of alternatives. We can have archaic, and eat it = too.
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD6473.0FC30E60-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 22:30:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:30:01 +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 WAA17994 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:29:55 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h15.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id QAA02875; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:29:49 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352EAC7A.42F0@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:34:18 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alternatively (was: Re 3NT on UI?) References: <000b01bd646a$b585d5c0$ae3563c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Burn wrote: > > There isn't really a problem here. If a player chooses action X, then > it may very well be that A is an alternative to X, and B is an > alternative to X, and so is C. What the Law says is that the player > may not choose X if there is an alternative over which X is suggested > by virtue of UI. To put this more simply: A,B,C and X are all > possibilities; XA, XB and XC are all pairs of alternatives. We can > have archaic, and eat it too. > And we call them "options":)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 22:52:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:52:02 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA18173 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:51:56 +1000 Received: by gatekeeper.agro.nl id AA11574; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:51:59 +0200 Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01IVPI5ZB468001IHO@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:51:58 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:51:56 +0000 (MED) Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:51:56 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: laws 43/64 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-Id: <0456511410041998/A11309/EXPERT/11C453B33600*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential Ua-Content-Id: 11C453B33600 X400-Mts-Identifier: [;0456511410041998/A11309/EXPERT] Hop-Count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The revoke penalties are designed to take away a possible advantage received by the revoke in a mechanical way. No discussions, analyses, jus apply. But in law 43 the revoke does not become established in the old fashioned meaning: declarer has to follow suit after dummy's remark. So he can't win extra tricks by mixing up the cards he played. Furthermore it does't seem logical to apply the 'if he wins a trick with a card he could have played in the trick in which he revoked' sentence, since he played already a card which he could have played. That is why the question 'shall we make it one or two tricks?' arose. The reason to make it two tricks is obvious. If dummy had not asked and the revoke becomes established the two trick penalty applies. Should we reward dummy's behaviour by giving his side an extra trick? Ton Kooijman From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 10 23:03:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:03:32 +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 XAA18242 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:03:26 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic89.cais.com [207.226.56.89]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA09124 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:03:33 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980410090438.006be880@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 09:04:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: References: <199804080820.KAA09770@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:33 PM 4/8/98 +0100, David wrote: >JPP wrote: >> >>Dealer: W, EW vul, teams >> >> Q9 >> AQT >> AT83 >> KT95 >>A J876543 >>K87542 J63 >>K965 QJ >>A3 2 >> KT2 >> 9 >> 742 >> QJ8764 >> >>Bidding: >> >>West North East South >>1h 1NT* 2s 2NT >>3h 3NT end >> >>* 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). >> >>NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's >> >>Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT >>overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had >>overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended >>2NT as Lebensohl. >> >>The play: East leads h3 to king and ace, West takes the second club, >>plays a heart to 10 and jack and East clears the hearts. >>When North reels off the clubs, West parts with two hearts, enabling >>North to develop his ninth trick in spades. >> >>Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you >>that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? > > I expect I give him 2NT+1. More importantly, this is *extremely* >blatant use of UI so it is one of the *very* rare situations where I >would fine NS as well. A 10 imp fine should probably make sure he never >does this again. David seems to have overlooked the fact, given in the original, that 2NT after the 13-15 1NT opening bid that S mistook N's call for would have been Lebensohl. N, despite 15 HCP, has a good enough hand (all those 10s, lots of heart stops) to be viewed as a near-average 15-17 1NT overcall. Had 2NT been intended as invitational, David's view would be clearly correct. But 2NT intended as Lebensohl would suggest a bad hand, so 3NT here is counter-suggested. It looks to me like N was "bending over backwards" to be ethical, rather than, say, passing and later defending himself by saying "but I only had 15 HCP". 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 Apr 11 00:08:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:08:14 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18401 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:08:05 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15836 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:08:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <199804091915.PAA24901@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, David Grabiner wrote: > > Law 27B is clear that an insufficient bid which may have been > conventional or would be corrected to a conventional bid bars partner > regardless of the correct. Should the spirit or letter of the Law be > applied in the following situation? > > W N E > 2NT P 2C > > 3C has the same meaning as 2C was intended to have. According to the > letter of the law, West is barred if East bids 3C, but there was no > damage here. Should the law be changed here? In my opinion, yes. The interesting question is: should it be changed so that 2C and 3C have to have exactly the same meaning, or would you allow the correction without requiring exactly the same meaning? For instance, would you (assuming the law has been changed) allow Puppet Stayman in place of regular Stayman? Then what other situations would you allow it in? The obvious ones are transfers (2/3D=H, 2/3H=S). But what about a bid of spades that is conventional over 1NT and 2NT, but has different meanings? And what would you do if 1NT and 2NT have totally different meanings (1NT artificial and forcing, say)? I think the Director's ruling that Marv French reported is ingenious and probably "fair," but I do not think it is within the scope of the laws since the offender has given considerable pause for thought by now (or is offender assumed to cease thinking once the infraction has been pointed out?) > > I would think it should be applied according to the book since it is in > the book now. (The director at the club didn't check the book for the > law, and both she and the NOS agreed that it would be unfair to force > the pass. South then made the point moot by accepting the insufficient > bid.) > The non-offending side could ask the director to waive the penalty, which she may do under 81C(8) [1987 law book. I don't think this has changed, but I have no clue as to where I have hidden my 1997 book.] Should the Director point out this law under these circumstances? (I don't think so) I think South did the "right thing," but what should West do next? Bid as though East had bid 3C? Bid as though East had misheard or misread the 2NT and really thought partner had bid 1NT? Even though I think the Law should be changed, I don't have any good ideas as to how to change it. -- Richard Lighton | The critical period of matrimony is breakfast. (lighton@idt.net) | Wood-Ridge NJ | -- A. P. Herbert USA | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 00:11:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:11:01 +1000 Received: from netgates.co.uk (genesis.netgates.co.uk [193.9.120.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18744 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:10:48 +1000 Received: from mitl001a.netgates.co.uk (mitl001a.netgates.co.uk [194.105.65.226]) by netgates.co.uk (8.7.5/8.x.x) with SMTP id PAA13795 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:11:12 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:11:12 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199804101411.PAA13795@netgates.co.uk> X-Sender: mitl001b@mail.netgates.co.uk (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: Larry Bennett Subject: fielded or not Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx P P 1S X XX 1N P 3N end The td was going to rule this one amber but after consultation with the SO (club) ruled green but had a serious word with the player concerned. A straw poll of regular local county AC personnel ranged from red (I'd never get away with passing this), through, anyone could be messing around but they're not all third in hand at green so I'll make a forcing pass and if pard doesn't double thats up to him, to of course everyone knows the situation - you can't expect me to double surely? Opinions please. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 00:36:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:36:23 +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 AAA20807 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:36:16 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic89.cais.com [207.226.56.89]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA10755 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:36:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980410103729.006932d4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:37:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: References: <199804091915.PAA24901@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:05 PM 4/9/98 -0700, Barbara wrote: >We had a similar situation in Reno, and the director simply ruled that >the insufficient conventional bid was merely a "slip of the tongue", an >inadvertent draw from the bidding box, and allowed a sufficient bid in >the same denomination, even when attention was first drawn to it by the >bidder's RHO. Oddly enough, I had a similar ruling in Reno. Auction was 1NT-P-2S(me)-P-P-2C. I pointed out that 2C was insufficient and called for a TD. RHO (as so many people will in this situation) announced that she "had to" correct this to 3C and attempted to do so -- making no statement about having misbid, or mispulled, or anything to suggest that 2C was anything but a normal insufficient bid. The TD arrived. I reviewed the auction. TD (to RHO): "If you intended to bid 3C all along there is no penalty. Is that what happened?" RHO: "Oh, yes." TD: "No penalty, proceed," and leaves. It seemed at the time that the TD made no attempt to ascertain any facts, that his concern was to rule in the most expedient, least-hassle, fastest way possible and get on. As Rich suggests, if this was properly found to be a mis-pull, so would be any insufficient bid ever made, and the ACBL will have effectively done away with the complexities attendant on applying L27 in any situation. >From this and other anecdotes, I strongly suspect that this change in TD practice has come about due to yet another of the "secret missives" the ACBL frequently issues to their TDs without communicating them as well to their players. I mention this because I do not believe that the change in the nature of the rulings in such situations that has actually been brought about is what the ACBL intended, and they might want to clarify their actual intentions. Had 2C been ruled insufficient, I would have accepted it and bid 2H, resulting in a much better result for our side. I did not, however, pursue the issue at the time. When I remarked on this to my partner later, she said that I could have just bid 2H over 2C and let nature take its course (her thought was that the TD would then have been called, and would have found that the quickest and most expedient course was to let the auction stand at 2H). I thought at the time that that would be improper, but now, after R'ing TFLB, I'm not sure: L9A1: "[a] player *may* call attention to an irregularity..."; L9B1: "The Director must be summoned at once *when attention is drawn*... Would it have been ethical and proper for me to have bid 2H without (or prior to) calling the TD? 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 Apr 11 00:49:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:49:43 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20857 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:49:37 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA12251 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06758; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:49:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:49:40 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804101449.KAA06758@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Would it have been ethical and proper for me to have bid 2H without (or > prior to) calling the TD? I don't think so, but I do think it would be proper to ask the TD to consider L9B1c. I'm not sure how effective this request would be if made to a TD who makes no attempt to determine facts. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 00:58:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:58:49 +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 AAA20900 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:58:43 +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 KAA16500 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:58:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06767; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:58:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:58:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804101458.KAA06767@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: fielded or not X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Larry Bennett > Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) > x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx > P P 1S X > XX 1N P 3N > end Wouldn't double request, or at least suggest, a spade lead? And hasn't redouble already described the hand's strength? Are we beating this if partner has a normal, light opening? Does anybody play double in this sequence to mean "don't lead a spade?" In particular, do the pair in question play that? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 01:08:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:08:43 +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 BAA21065 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:08:33 +1000 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil by mx3.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 2.90g) id 00000359; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:02:02 -0400 From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: 3NT on UI? Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:01:51 -0400 Message-ID: <000501bd6491$97be2b60$1b0d9e83@hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980410090438.006be880@pop.cais.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Friday, April 10, 1998 9:05 AM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? > > > At 01:33 PM 4/8/98 +0100, David wrote: > > >JPP wrote: > >> > >>Dealer: W, EW vul, teams > >> > >> Q9 > >> AQT > >> AT83 > >> KT95 > >>A J876543 > >>K87542 J63 > >>K965 QJ > >>A3 2 > >> KT2 > >> 9 > >> 742 > >> QJ8764 > >> > >>Bidding: > >> > >>West North East South > >>1h 1NT* 2s 2NT > >>3h 3NT end > >> > >>* 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). > >> > >>NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's > >> > >>Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT > >>overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had > >>overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended > >>2NT as Lebensohl. > >> > >>The play: East leads h3 to king and ace, West takes the second club, > >>plays a heart to 10 and jack and East clears the hearts. > >>When North reels off the clubs, West parts with two hearts, enabling > >>North to develop his ninth trick in spades. > >> > >>Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you > >>that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? > > [snip] > > David seems to have overlooked the fact, given in the original, that 2NT > after the 13-15 1NT opening bid that S mistook N's call for would > have been > Lebensohl. Wouldn't it still have been Lebensohl after a 15 to 17 NT? We are still left with the absence of an alert for the 2NT. N, despite 15 HCP, has a good enough hand (all those 10s, lots > of heart stops) to be viewed as a near-average 15-17 1NT > overcall. Had 2NT > been intended as invitational, David's view would be clearly correct. Agreed. But > 2NT intended as Lebensohl would suggest a bad hand, so 3NT here is > counter-suggested. It looks to me like N was "bending over backwards" to > be ethical, rather than, say, passing and later defending himself > by saying > "but I only had 15 HCP". > But exactly what is a "bad hand"? Borderline hands that might well be treated as bad after a 13-15 NT may become too good to use Lebensohl after 15-17. Also bear in minds that S does not have a really bad hand. Pass was an option for S with complete junk. If S was using Lebensohl to play in a minor, S expected to have a reasonable shot at 3C (or D), making or down 1. And if S expected to have a reasonable shot for 3m opposite a 13-15 NT, that might be exactly the hand that would try for 3NT opposite a 15-17 NT. There is also the possibility that S was not intending to use Lebensohl as weak. The Lebensohl relay can be followed by a cue bid (unlikely here) or a 3N call showing or denying stoppers (an opponent could have psyched here). The systemic call by N after interference in a Lebensohl sequence is "pass" (or the occasional double, but not in this case when N has only 3 hearts and can't handle a run back to spades). The 2N bidder can then follow up with pass, cue bid, 3N, or 4m, depending on hand type that started the relay. Unfortunately, due to the UI, N was aware that S was going to misjudge the ranges he needed for most of these actions. The "extra values" some posters have attributed to the N hand due to the H position and good intermediates would also have the effect of making N leery of having S take a conservative action, catering to 13-14, or even poor 15 point hands. So, he took S off the hook with 3N. There was nothing ethical about that call. I'm with David Stevenson here. The 3NT call was a blatant use of UI. Hirsch > > 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 Apr 11 02:26:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:26:19 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21697 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:26:10 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA00454 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:23:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804101623.LAA00454@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: English Language Use To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:23:28 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I don't know why the smileys are there, but I don't believe the English > > word 'alternatives' implies that there are only two. I agree that the > > etymology would imply only two, and in fact my dictionary gives "one of > > two" as one of two meanings for 'alternative'. But the alternative > > (heh!) meaning is "one of two or more," and I think the plural form > > implies this is what is meant. Furthermore, the preposition 'among' > > definitely implies more than two; it would be 'between' if only two > > were meant. > > > > Vitold > > P.S. "LA" - logical alternative means only two possibilities: > - so by rules of English language (and not only by English) - and Steve > proved it as well:) > - as by rules of logics (as part of mathemathics) > Whether we want to use words, changing their common-used meaning, - we > should describe their new meanings. That's why old-fashioned Kaplan's > term "free choice" is often more suitable when bridge cases are > analysed. > 1) "Alternative" does _not_ mean only two possibilities. As Steve W. pointed out, that is _one_ definition of the word, but not the only one. 2) "Alternatives" is _in fact_ very commonly used in the US, at least [I can't speak for elsewhere] to offer more than two alternatives. Indeed, I have never once used that word and had the person I was talking to assume I meant 'only two'. 3) In any event, it is clear that that isn't what the word means in Bridge Law, which is all that matters here. Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 04:27:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 04:27:52 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22130 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 04:27:43 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp177.ac.net [205.138.55.86]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA02858 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804101827.OAA02858@primus.ac.net> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:27:37 -0400 From: Linda Weinstein <"lobo@ac.net"@ac.net> Reply-To: "lobo@ac.net"@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention References: <199804091915.PAA24901@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: > W N E > 2NT P 2C > > 3C has the same meaning as 2C was intended to have. According to the > letter of the law, West is barred if East bids 3C, but there was no > damage here. Should the law be changed here? > Not exactly.. if East thought the opening bid really was 1NT, a lot of people still play Stayman is invitational and shows 8 plus points. That would surely not be the case with 3C over 2NT. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 06:03:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 06:03:29 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22462 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 06:03:23 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24165 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804102003.NAA24165@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Law 27B is clear that an insufficient bid which may have been >conventional or would be corrected to a conventional bid bars partner >regardless of the correct. Should the spirit or letter of the Law be >applied in the following situation? > >W N E >2NT P 2C > >3C has the same meaning as 2C was intended to have. According to the >letter of the law, West is barred if East bids 3C, but there was no >damage here. If the text of the law is unambiguous as here, it must be applied, imo. >Should the law be changed here? Yes, I think it would make sense to add a clause that complements 27B1. It seems sensible that if it goes 2NT (P) 2H*, where 2H is "incontrovertibly" conventional, a correction to 3H* would be treated the same way as if 2H was "incontrovertibly" not conventional. The existing laws leaves an unneccesary gap here, in that it only covers calls that are either definitely natural, or where doubt exists. The NOS can be protected against UI (e.g. different strength-implications) created by the insufficient call based on 27B1b. One needs to add that the lowest sufficient bid must have the *same* conventional meaning as the insufficient bid, i.e. (2H) 2H* can fall under 27B1 if both (1H) 2H* and (2H) 3H* show "S + a mi), but under 27B2 if (2H) 3H* just asks for a stopper. To establish "incontrovertibility" (boy what a word - does it exist?) the CC of OS can be used. As with ME/MB controversies, any doubt to be resolved in favour of B2, ie against the OS. How abt that for an incentive to have CCs filled out as completely as possible? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 06:14:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 06:14:48 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22485 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 06:14:41 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26450 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804102014.NAA26450@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Auction was 1NT-P-2S(me)-P-P-2C. I pointed out that 2C was insufficient and called for >a TD. RHO (as so many people will in this situation) announced that she >"had to" correct this to 3C and attempted to do so -- making no statement >about having misbid, or mispulled, or anything to suggest that 2C was >anything but a normal insufficient bid. > >The TD arrived. I reviewed the auction. > >TD (to RHO): "If you intended to bid 3C all along there is no penalty. Is >that what happened?" > >RHO: "Oh, yes." Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "without pause for thought" doesn't it? >Would it have been ethical and proper for me to have bid 2H without (or >prior to) calling the TD? Ethical I don't know but "proper", or legal, I think yes, reading 27A From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 06:31:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 06:31:59 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA22553 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 06:31:52 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa25120; 10 Apr 98 13:31 PDT To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Apr 1998 10:37:29 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19980410103729.006932d4@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:31:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804101331.aa25120@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Oddly enough, I had a similar ruling in Reno. Auction was > 1NT-P-2S(me)-P-P-2C. I pointed out that 2C was insufficient and called for > a TD. RHO (as so many people will in this situation) announced that she > "had to" correct this to 3C and attempted to do so -- making no statement > about having misbid, or mispulled, or anything to suggest that 2C was > anything but a normal insufficient bid. > > The TD arrived. I reviewed the auction. > > TD (to RHO): "If you intended to bid 3C all along there is no penalty. Is > that what happened?" > > RHO: "Oh, yes." > > TD: "No penalty, proceed," and leaves. . . . > Would it have been ethical and proper for me to have bid 2H without (or > prior to) calling the TD? I agree with Steve that this would not have been proper. I would have spoken up before the director had left, however, asking is that really correct, and don't I have the right under the Laws to accept the insufficient bid, etc., and taken it from there. If the director then left without bothering to address my question, I guess I'd have to find a chief director or someone to complain to. We had an insufficient bid on the last day of the NAOP in Reno, and it was handled properly. Lefty made an insufficient bid, we called the director, the director told my partner he had the option to accept the insufficient bid, partner accepted the bid, and that was that. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 07:27:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 07:27:35 +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 HAA22752 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 07:27:27 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26f8.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.248]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA25073 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:27:29 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:07:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd64c4$9c9acc00$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 >Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? >-----Original Message----- >From: Everett Boyer >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 3:49 AM >Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? > >>JP wrote: >>> Dealer: W, EW vul, teams >>> >>> Q9 >>> AQT >>> AT83 >>> KT95 >>> A J876543 >>> K87542 J63 >>> K965 QJ >>> A3 2 >>> KT2 >>> 9 >>> 742 >>> QJ8764 >..." >> >>Anne wrote: >>> e.g. On the way to the club pard and I, who have always played >Ghestem >>> agree to play Michaels. We pencil it in on the cc. >>> The first two suited overcall, I forget and make a Ghestem cue bid >over >>> a 1H opening showing Spades and Clubs. Pard forgets and tells the >opps >>> that we are playing Ghestem. >>> [...] I think this is akin to Norths' action in the subject. >> >>Anne, this example leads to a good question, but it is markedly >different >>from the original case, in that you forgot Michaels. >>Please provide an example where you bid correctly but partner's >>incorrect explanation happens to fit your hand anyway. It wouldn't if I had bid correctly, but in my example we had both got it wrong and my hand was what the opps had been told to expect. Just like in the original thread. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 07:27:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 07:27:40 +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 HAA22753 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 07:27:28 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26f8.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.248]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA25070 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:27:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:04:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd64c4$423fffa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Newman > >>Hi all, >> >>As a bridge player (who has no cats - not allowed in apartments in >Japan!) this >>hand really intrigues me. >> >>. I have read Anne Jones' examples with great interest. If we both get >the >>system wrong at the same time then I can sympathise with not saying >anything that >>would just confuse the opponents. What should an ethical player do in >this >>situation? I am interested in the BLML comments here. My general >position is that >>if both players give the same explanation that matches the hands but is >in fact >>systemically incorrect then I would say nothing. Otherwise I would give >the >>correct system agreement..[if I psyche on a spade void and get to a 4-4 >heart fit >>(the card Gods have been very kind to me) then I would have absolutely >no problem >>in correcting prds explanation] What if you get to 3NT, you are declarer and there will be no question of pard having fielded. LHO is poised with a Spade to lead (surely they have this time a 6/5 fit) You say , because you have read Law 75D2, our actual agreement is 5card majors. Defender thinks and leads a Club. You wrap up 11 tricks. Is this how it's supposed to be. Back to the original thread.North was not quite as blatant as this, probably only wishing to observe Law75. However the effect may be the same moreso against good players granted. But as I said before even (some)LOLs can count! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 07:27:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 07:27:37 +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 HAA22754 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 07:27:29 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26f8.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.248]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA25067 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:27:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: fielded or not Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 22:00:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd64c3$a1d47e60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Larry Bennett To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 3:51 PM Subject: fielded or not >Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) > >x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx > > >P P 1S X > >XX 1N P 3N > >end > >Opinions please. The redouble has put the onus of action on the 1S opener. The fact that he has not taken action, is the use of a convention (forcing pass) to control the psyche. As your adviser noted, everyone knows that "something" has happened. But you should tell him that "3rd in hand at green" is not a valid reason to expect a light opening. If this comment is made I would say there was CPU. This I believe is Red. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 08:13:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:13:46 +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 IAA22960 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:13:40 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h143.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id CAA18318; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:13:23 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352F3548.859@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:18:00 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Grant C. Sterling" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English Language Use References: <199804101623.LAA00454@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I am not Englishh-language-speaker:) But I know common-users rules - one should not create new meaning if there is in use an old one Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > 1) "Alternative" does _not_ mean only two possibilities. As Steve > W. pointed out, that is _one_ definition of the word, but not the only > one. > 2) "Alternatives" is _in fact_ very commonly used in the US, at > least [I can't speak for elsewhere] to offer more than two alternatives. > Indeed, I have never once used that word and had the person I was talking > to assume I meant 'only two'. > 3) In any event, it is clear that that isn't what the word means > in Bridge Law, which is all that matters here. > When Lawmaker used term "logical alternative" he used it with full understanding (as every words in text, I hope). Why can anybody treat Laws wording strictly in one case - and freely - in another? The word "Logical" undelines (make more strengthen) two-possibilities-meaning for word "alternative". Because it is one of strict "alternative" definitions (in logics) - if A is alternative to X, and if B is alternative to X - then A is B. I beleive to our Lawmakers - and that's why I suggest that for bridge terms "free choice" was better. I agree that we should analise all possibilities - but let we call them "options" or "choice" - but not "LA". It is all I wanted to say:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 08:29:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:29:13 +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 IAA22999 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:29:07 +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 SAA29601 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07179; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:29:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:29:12 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804102229.SAA07179@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English Language Use X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > if A is alternative to X, and if B is alternative to X - then A is B. This would not be a normal inference in English. The word 'alternative' carries no such implication nowadays, and I'm surprised that anyone whose English is so good would read it that way. That is why I asked whether there is a translation problem. Is it the Russian translation of 'alternative' that carries such an implication? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 08:37:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:37:17 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA23028 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:37:11 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa03943; 10 Apr 98 15:36 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: English Language Use In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:18:00 PDT." <352F3548.859@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:36:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804101536.aa03943@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Hi all:) > > I am not Englishh-language-speaker:) Since I'm from America, there are those who would say I'm not an English-language speaker either. But I'll give it a try. > Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > > 1) "Alternative" does _not_ mean only two possibilities. As Steve > > W. pointed out, that is _one_ definition of the word, but not the only > > one. > > 2) "Alternatives" is _in fact_ very commonly used in the US, at > > least [I can't speak for elsewhere] to offer more than two alternatives. > > Indeed, I have never once used that word and had the person I was talking > > to assume I meant 'only two'. > > 3) In any event, it is clear that that isn't what the word means > > in Bridge Law, which is all that matters here. > > > > When Lawmaker used term "logical alternative" he used it with full > understanding (as every words in text, I hope). Why can anybody treat > Laws wording strictly in one case - and freely - in another? > The word "Logical" undelines (make more strengthen) > two-possibilities-meaning for word "alternative". No, that just isn't right. You're thinking that the word "logical" means that we're talking about mathematical logic here. But that's wrong. "Logical" has nothing to do with mathematical logic or the science of logic. Basically, it just means "reasonable". It means that the call is one that you decide on by thinking about it, not one that an irrational person would just come up with for no good reason. Something like that. Please trust us. We who speak English, plus us Americans, have a pretty good idea of what others who speak English mean. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 09:40:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 09:40:50 +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 JAA23159 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 09:40:38 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA05371 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:40:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca1-15.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.47) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005343; Fri Apr 10 18:39:52 1998 Message-ID: <352EADA5.7EB5@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:39:17 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix5.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English Language Use References: <199804102229.SAA07179@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > > if A is alternative to X, and if B is alternative to X - then A is B. So: If red is an alternative to blue, and green is an alternative to blue, then red is green. Huh? Perhaps we should strive to discuss issues without artificially reducing them to formulae which are capable of erroneous construction or mis-interpretation. Regarding the term "alternative": I find no support for the proposition that the concept is singular. That an alternative exists does not exclude the possibility of other alternatives. Only in binary combinations (on or off; pregnant or not; card played or card not played; etc.) can an alternative be singular. If the opponent in front of you bids 7NT, you are confronted with a binary situation (pass or double); few other bridge scenarios present such limited options. I am satisfied that the Logical Alternative test was meant to consider multiple actions. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 10:45:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:45:20 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23332 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:45:15 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA05590 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 17:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804110045.RAA05590@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: English and logic Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >When Lawmaker used term "logical alternative" he used it with full >understanding (as every words in text, I hope). Why can anybody treat >Laws wording strictly in one case - and freely - in another? >The word "Logical" undelines (make more strengthen) >two-possibilities-meaning for word "alternative". Because it is one of >strict "alternative" definitions (in logics) - if A is alternative to X, >and if B is alternative to X - then A is B Before dropping this subject let me just say that the reasoning is wrong even if "logical" in the bridge-laws was intended to refer to "scientific" logic. You are using your conclusion (ie that A = B) as an assumption to prove your conclusion. That's cheating in mathematics. What we know is that "A is not = X" and that "B is not = X". By no means does this mean that A = B! In fact it says *nothing* abt their relation to each other, only abt their relation to X. Now, I suggest we get back to Bridge-laws, b4 my lack of math skills are exposed further! Vitold - just pls trust us on this. The law uses alternative before the word "actions" ie a plural. That's the key. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 14:09:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:09:06 +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 OAA24222 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:08:58 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h36.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id IAA26983; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:08:56 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352F889E.385D@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:13:34 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English Language Use References: <199804102229.SAA07179@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > > if A is alternative to X, and if B is alternative to X - then A is B. > > This would not be a normal inference in English. The word > 'alternative' carries no such implication nowadays, and I'm surprised > that anyone whose English is so good would read it that way. That is > why I asked whether there is a translation problem. Is it the Russian > translation of 'alternative' that carries such an implication? But it is not Russian translation at all. It just one of definitions of "LA" in logics. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 14:11:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:11:59 +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 OAA24251 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:11:53 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h36.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id IAA27065; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:11:39 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <352F8942.5B7@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:16:18 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English Language Use References: <9804101536.aa03943@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I give up. You won - at that matter, I mean:)) Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Hi all:) > > > > I am not Englishh-language-speaker:) > > Since I'm from America, there are those who would say I'm not an > English-language speaker either. But I'll give it a try. > > > Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > > > > 1) "Alternative" does _not_ mean only two possibilities. As Steve > > > W. pointed out, that is _one_ definition of the word, but not the only > > > one. > > > 2) "Alternatives" is _in fact_ very commonly used in the US, at > > > least [I can't speak for elsewhere] to offer more than two alternatives. > > > Indeed, I have never once used that word and had the person I was talking > > > to assume I meant 'only two'. > > > 3) In any event, it is clear that that isn't what the word means > > > in Bridge Law, which is all that matters here. > > > > > > > When Lawmaker used term "logical alternative" he used it with full > > understanding (as every words in text, I hope). Why can anybody treat > > Laws wording strictly in one case - and freely - in another? > > The word "Logical" undelines (make more strengthen) > > two-possibilities-meaning for word "alternative". > > No, that just isn't right. > > You're thinking that the word "logical" means that we're talking about > mathematical logic here. > > But that's wrong. > > "Logical" has nothing to do with mathematical logic or the science of > logic. Basically, it just means "reasonable". It means that the call > is one that you decide on by thinking about it, not one that an > irrational person would just come up with for no good reason. > Something like that. > > Please trust us. We who speak English, plus us Americans, have a > pretty good idea of what others who speak English mean. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 16:24:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:24:58 +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 QAA24613 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:24:36 +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 KAA01502 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:23:58 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199804110623.KAA01502@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: English Language Use Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:23:25 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, I send this message only to Steve, I want all of you read this. Sergei. > Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > > > if A is alternative to X, and if B is alternative to X - then A is B. > > > > This would not be a normal inference in English. The word > > 'alternative' carries no such implication nowadays, and I'm surprised > > that anyone whose English is so good would read it that way. That is > > why I asked whether there is a translation problem. Is it the Russian > > translation of 'alternative' that carries such an implication? > > > In Russian we have word "Alternativa" (like in Latin). The meaning is > "another possibility". And it is only one alternative possibility in this > meaning. May be it is translational problem. > Our fomer president Mr.Gorbachex use this word in Russian in incorrect > meaning: "We don't have another alternative!" > In Russian it's not correct. I don't know what about English. > > Sergei Litvak, > Chief TD of RBL. > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 16:28:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:28:03 +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 QAA24639 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:27:57 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-4.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.170]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA03477 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <352F0DAD.FF8768E8@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 02:29:01 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Dummy Revoke. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Help!! At our local club, the director was called after a revoke by the dummy which had been established. He awarded 1 trick to the opponents. Several of us have tried to convince this director that the dummy cannot revoke. I know this is in the Law book tucked away in an unusual place. My law book is at the club and I would like to able to call this person and point out the law. Fortunately the ruling did not affect the standing on the board but all involved would like the answer for next time. Thanks, Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 16:53:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:53:22 +1000 Received: from cuda.jcu.edu.au (cuda.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA24704 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:53:18 +1000 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by cuda.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA28260 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:53:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by lionfish.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA10380 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:53:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: lionfish.jcu.edu.au: sci-lsk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:53:23 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy Revoke. In-Reply-To: <352F0DAD.FF8768E8@pinehurst.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Help!! At our local club, the director was called after a revoke by the > dummy which had been established. He awarded 1 trick to the opponents. > Several of us have tried to convince this director that the dummy cannot > revoke. I know this is in the Law book tucked away in an unusual > place. My law book is at the club and I would like to able to call this > person and point out the law. Fortunately the ruling did not affect the > standing on the board but all involved would like the answer for next > time. Thanks, Nancy Dummy can revoke, but there is no penalty assessed for the established revoke. The law you are searching for is 64B3. Of course the director can still award an adjusted score via Law 64C, if he considers the non-offenders have been damaged. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 19:11:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 19:11:41 +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 TAA24872 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 19:11:35 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2788.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.136]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA15914 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:11:37 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Dummy revoke Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:12:09 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6529$e7d67ce0$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: Anne Jones To: Nancy T Dressing Subject: Re: Dummy Revoke. Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 10:07 AM -----Original Message----- From: Nancy T Dressing To: bridge laws Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: Dummy Revoke. >Help!! At our local club, the director was called after a revoke by the >dummy which had been established. Dummy can revoke Nancy. Dummy did revoke. However, where you would expect it, lurking with the revoke laws, Laws 64B3 "No penalty assessed" "Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card." "If the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand." We remember however that equity shall be restored by, if necessary the awarding of an assigned adjusted score. Law 64C Have a good game. Anne. Have a good game. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 20:32:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:32:27 +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 UAA25009 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:32:21 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.238] by tungsten with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yNxa2-0003gl-00; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bd6534$f1994360$ee3563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dummy revoke Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:31:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Anne Jones >To: Nancy T Dressing >Subject: Re: Dummy Revoke. >Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 10:07 AM > >Dummy can revoke Nancy. Dummy did revoke. I trust you are not serious. Dummy cannot do anything, except play cards as instructed by declarer (who can revoke in failing to follow suit from dummy, but this is covered in the relevant Law). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 20:42:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:42:05 +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 UAA25046 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:41:59 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-78.uunet.be [194.7.9.78]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07864 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:42:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352DEC8B.1E6EF87D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:55:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the Japanese case X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Intentionally breaking a Law - which one ? > > > >My partner misexplains my bidding and bids accordingly. > > > >Now what is his bidding supposed to mean ? > > > >If I explain it according to the system, then I am also giving > >misinformation, since this is not what he in fact holds. > >And I also now wake him up to the misunderstanding. > > That is not your affair. You are required by Law to correctly inform > your oppos. Do so, and leave the ethical ramifications to others. > > >If I explain the bidding according to my understanding of our system, > >then I am also in breach of L75D2 : I may not indicate in any manner > >that a mistake has been made ! > > You are not saying anything about partner's explanation. Of course, > other people at the table may infer things from your explanation, but > that is irrelevant: you are merely explaining his calls as you are > required to. > Come on David, L75D2 includes "indicate in any manner". Explaining an answer as being different as the question clearly indicates to partner that you have a different opinion about the meaning of your own previous call. > >Would you please tell me which of these Laws I shall knowingly break ? > > Neither. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 20:42:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:42:14 +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 UAA25053 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:42:08 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-78.uunet.be [194.7.9.78]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA07872 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:42:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352E050A.214533FA@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:39:54 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <002701bd63d9$e0e37ce0$a32d63c3@david-burn> <352D0671.1588B7C0@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have said I would come back on this and I will. I have not found an all-encompassing good example, but this one is from real life (I think I have already told this one) partner me 2Cl 3H 4NT 5Cl 5H pass 2 Clubs is Gameforcing 3 Hearts is Albarran, showing two aces of the same colour, but partner explains it as long in hearts. 4NT is of course asking for Kings, but partner is obviously inquiring about aces. 5Cl shows zero kings, but partner iw now missing 2 Aces 5H is probably sign-off. I am still wondering if pass is a logical alternative, but I did it anyway, as the actively ethical thing to do. I made the contract (for an absolute bottom) because trumps were 4-4 with opponents. What should I have answered if they had asked me about 4NT ? -The De Wael school : "asking for aces". -The (present) majority : "asking for kings". Both answers are in breach of some Laws in the FLB. The first is in breach of L75C. According to L75C I should divulge everything I know, which would be something like : "According to what I think our system is, 3H already showed Aces, so 4NT is asking for Kings; however, partner has probably forgot that I have already shown my aces, so he's probably inquiring about Aces" That is in clear breach of L75D2. The second is in breach of L75D2. Trying to hide parts of the reply, in order to try and comply with L75D2 is in breach of L75C, so you cannot have it both ways. The question therefor remains : ** In a situation like this, a player is forced to break either L75D2 OR L75C - which shall he break ? ** My Point of View is this : - since L75C has already been broken (inadvertedly) by partner, it will not harm opponents much to break it again; of course AS will still be possible on the second infraction. - L75D2 has a much stronger wording in this case : "he (may not) indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has been made" as opposed to "he shall disclose" . - Who am I to say that my opinion about the system is the correct one ? It may turn out that the TD will choose to believe that partner's first explanation was the correct one, and that indeed 4NT shall ask for aces. By stubbornly continuing to stick to my opinion, I may well give a wrong explanation about the second call ! Turn it around : suppose I realise after hearing partner's explanation that I got it wrong. Should I now not explain 4NT as Aces - all the while showing my Kings of course ! And then what if I'm not certain ? Should I now say - I don't know, because I'm not sure about the meaning of 3H. Surely not. One very strong argument is that I should not suppose I am the only actively ethical player at the table. Partner, even when hearing my explanation, should do the actively ethical thing and bid 5H anyway. But this is not very easy to do. Suppose my actual partner (who had no UI) had chosen 5NT in stead of 5H. Suppose hearts had been 5-3. Since partner has no UI, there should be no AS. But suppose I had followed the majority school and partner had again chosen 5NT. Would you not feel compelled to change to 5H-1 ? Or take the original 3NT bidder. Suppose he is an actively ethical player. What should his thought process be ? A) he should correctly infer from the explanation (13-15) that partner has not seen the opening. We are told this, but he doesn't necessarily know this at the time) B) he should therefor know that 2NT is intended as Lebensohl C) he should conclude that pass is the suggested action over 3NT (that is my opinion, which conflicts with David's, so what should this poor fellow do ?) D) he should try and establish what his logical alternatives are, etc. All this has raised arguments among some of the top directors in the world, and you expect an actively ethical player to consider all this ? That is why if at all possible, you should avoid giving UI to partner. IMO even if this means breaking some other Law in the book. I think the Lawbook actually supports this general opinion, even if in this particular case it is not covered. In many places in the Laws there are rules which actively prohibit players from handing out information that is UI to partner. Example : when hearing a wrong explanation, dummy and declarer are required to inform opponents about this before the lead, but defenders are actually prohibited from informing declarer, because it would give UI to partner ! IMO (notice the lack of H - I am pretty certain of this) : when two Laws conflict, the one which prohibits UI should come before the one which insures correct information to opponents. Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 22:24:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:24:22 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA25251 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:24:15 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Sat, 11 Apr 98 08:24:26 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa10003; 11 Apr 98 8:02 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA04696; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:24:10 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199804111224.IAA04696@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties To: Donald Mamula Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 08:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199804092140.OAA23906@glinda.oz.net> from "Donald Mamula" at Apr 9, 98 02:38:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Don Mamula: > > Having your partner lead without declarer exercising his > options would be a violation of 50D2. Thus, dummy was trying to > prevent the irregularity. > > This leads to a different question, under L42B2. There it states > that dummy has this qualified right: "He may try to prevent any > irregularity by declarer". No mention is made of preventing an > irregularity by defenders. > > My ruling would be that this is in a gray area of unspecified > rights, and was in the spirit of an efficient disposition of the > L50D2 situation without additional penalties. Further, I'd say to > myself that he was covering my own lack of detail - for not > remaining at the table until the penalty card was no longer in play. > > Other views welcome if I am judging this incorrectly. > L43A1B--Dummy can't draw attention to irregularities during play. The way I would read this, in combination with L42B2, is as follows: *Dummy can prevent irregularity by declarer. *Dummy can't say anything about irregularity committed by defenders until after 13th trick. *If dummy can't say anything about said irregularities, then dummy shouldn't be able to prevent them either. Also note L42B1--declarer can ask about declarer's pitch, but not defenders. With this in mind, I wouldn't allow dummy to make the remark. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 11 22:49:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:49:30 +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 WAA25322 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:49:24 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-240.uunet.be [194.7.13.240]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10535 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:49:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <352F4F40.C99D6A01@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:08:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: fielded or not X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804101411.PAA13795@netgates.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Larry Bennett wrote: > > Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) > > x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx > > P P 1S X > > XX 1N P 3N > > end > > The td was going to rule this one amber but after consultation with the SO > (club) ruled green but had a serious word with the player concerned. > A straw poll of regular local county AC personnel ranged from red (I'd never > get away with passing this), through, anyone could be messing around but > they're not all third in hand at green so I'll make a forcing pass and if > pard doesn't double thats up to him, to of course everyone knows the > situation - you can't expect me to double surely? > > Opinions please. Was that partner me ? I managed to make two psychic calls of this nature (third hand - opening on 3 points) in the same tournament last saturday ! OK, so the psych is fielded. You know partner is apt to open on a 3-count in third hand. This is AI to you (and should be communicated to opps). They bid on til 3NT. You thik this might well be a situation where the particular psyching tendencies of your partner have come to light. I don't think passing this hand is against any rule, except an illegal one which bans psyching. >From the bidding you can deduce that either they are crazy and will fail and the double is not needed (and partner can give it anyway) - or partner was crazy and psyched. I do not think this is illegal use of conventional methods to discover the psych. You know I feel strongly about this. I know your opinions. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 00:12:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:12:25 +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 AAA26475 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:12:06 +1000 Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA17806 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:11:59 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:11:59 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <352f7435.1166367@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <002701bd63d9$e0e37ce0$a32d63c3@david-burn> <352D0671.1588B7C0@village.uunet.be> <352E050A.214533FA@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <352E050A.214533FA@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:39:54 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >What should I have answered if they had asked me about 4NT ? > >-The De Wael school : "asking for aces". >-The (present) majority : "asking for kings". > >Both answers are in breach of some Laws in the FLB. > >The first is in breach of L75C. Yes. >According to L75C I should divulge everything I know, which would be >something like : >"According to what I think our system is, 3H already showed Aces, so 4NT >is asking for Kings; however, partner has probably forgot that I have >already shown my aces, so he's probably inquiring about Aces" A perfect explanation. >That is in clear breach of L75D2. Yes. However, it is generally accepted that your duty to inform the opponents takes precedence over your duty to not give partner UI. The UI is partner's problem, and that is the price your partner must pay for having forgotten his system. If you do not answer according to your agreements, you are making it the opponents' problem, which is much worse. >My Point of View is this : >- since L75C has already been broken (inadvertedly) by partner, it will >not harm opponents much to break it again; of course AS will still be >possible on the second infraction. If you choose the "De Wael" answer, the opponents may believe that 5C shows 0 aces. They have a right to know that it indicates the number of kings, not aces. As I see it, you recommend lying to the opponents about your system in order to protect your partner from UI, and I find that quite wrong. >- Who am I to say that my opinion about the system is the correct one ? >It may turn out that the TD will choose to believe that partner's first >explanation was the correct one, and that indeed 4NT shall ask for aces. >By stubbornly continuing to stick to my opinion, I may well give a wrong >explanation about the second call ! You have a duty to explain your agreements as best you can - if it later turns out that you were wrong, the TD will handle it. >Turn it around : suppose I realise after hearing partner's explanation >that I got it wrong. Should I now not explain 4NT as Aces - all the >while showing my Kings of course ! Yes, of course. Explain your partnership agreements - that is what your opponents are entitled to. In this case you will even protect partner from UI by following L75C, so there is no problem. >And then what if I'm not certain ? Should I now say - I don't know, >because I'm not sure about the meaning of 3H. Surely not. If you really cannot decide what you believe your system is, explain that to your opponents, and explain both possible meanings. If you believe you have no agreement as to which of the two possible meanings is correct, explain that. >I think the Lawbook actually supports this general opinion, even if in >this particular case it is not covered. I agree that the law book does not say that L75D2 is less important than L75C. But is seems obvious to me that it should be, and I believe it is generally accepted that it is. >IMO (notice the lack of H - I am pretty certain of this) : when two Laws >conflict, the one which prohibits UI should come before the one which >insures correct information to opponents. This is a perfect summary of our difference of opinion - I happen to be pretty certain of the opposite point of view. >Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! Sorry - not me. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 02:53:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 02:53:19 +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 CAA28761 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 02:53:13 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client252f.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.47]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA22198 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:53:14 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: fielded or not Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:53:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd656a$67059600$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: Re: fielded or not >Larry Bennett wrote: >> >> Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) >> >> x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx >> >> P P 1S X >> >> XX 1N P 3N > Herman de Wael wrote >I managed to make two psychic calls of this nature (third hand - opening >on 3 points) in the same tournament last saturday ! >OK, so the psych is fielded. OK, so I know how to fine you.Painfully. >You know partner is apt to open on a 3-count in third hand. This is AI >to you (and should be communicated to opps). Is this Licenced? If so its' use is not psychic., and providing that you follow the rules of full disclosure there will be no problem. If not its' use is the illegal use of an unlicenced convention and OK, I know how to fine that also - Very Painfully. Either way Herman you are not going to win. First of all YOU said you psyched, and then you said that this was by partnership agreement. Oh Dear. Anne "We are not deceived. We deceive ourselves" Goethe. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 06:12:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 06:12:41 +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 GAA29218 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 06:12:33 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA24102; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 15:12:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.215) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024072; Sat Apr 11 15:12:01 1998 Received: by 215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6564.3F5964C0@215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:09:47 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6564.3F5964C0@215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: BLML , "'Anne Jones'" Subject: RE: fielded or not Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:09:40 -0400 Encoding: 138 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne you are sounding sadly like the ACBL on this one. Just because partner once psyched in this situation, you seem to believe that the partnership has forever forfeited its Law 40A rights to do so again. This touches a nerve for me and many players who would like bridge to remain a battle of wits. If both you and (at least one of the) opponents (the one or ones who is not psyching himself) are well aware of the possibility that partner's opening may have been light to psychic, who is deceived? There are 52 cards in the deck...not 52 HCP. The oppos are either convinced that you and/or pard are lying, in which case you don't have to bid on because they have not been hurt, or they are trying to psych you with THEIR bidding. The Law 40B prohibition against a CPU only applies when the opponents may NOT "reasonably be expected to understand its meaning." They seem to understand quite well what is going on (or may be operating in cahoots themselves) so there seems no violation by your side at this point even if bridge judgement and/or prior experience indicates that it may be pard who is operating. So far there has been no harm, no foul. I presume you have no agreement that partner always or most of the time opens light third seat at favourable vulnerability--that is what green means, isn't is?--he could actually have his bid and open. Why should you endanger partnership trust by taking away his option at this juncture? You have already full described your hand as lacking spade support and containing 10+ HCP. HE, not you, is in balance seat. I fail to see how any action OTHER than pass could be a logical alternative here, or could possibly enhance a partnership relationship. If pard has his bid, he will whack the oppos and you will whack anything they run to. If he does not, there appears to be no damage. They found their game, they appear to have no slam. It is certainly AI to him that HE has psyched, and HE has the right to pass. But that would not be the major reason for you to pass (see above) so this is NOT a psychic control in my view. There seem to be two views on psychs. One holds that they are irritating, destructive, bad for the game, cause tooth decay and are akin to a nihilistic plot. They should be stomped out and eradicated from the face of the earth, and their perpetrators hounded, eviscerated, and maligned. :-)) In other words, some people don't like them. They actively seek ways to attach penalties to psyching, even when no UNFAIR advantage has been taken. Others believe that psychs are an invigorating part of bridge, a tactical weapon that makes the game more exciting, and very much worthy of preservation. They do NOT want to use them unethically...but they do want to be free of the unnatural constraints that have been put upon creative bidding in recent years. Certain situations call for a psych at irregular intervals just as certain situations call for a false card or a preempt. If opponents are made aware that a psych is a possibility (checking frequent psychs on a convention card should be sufficient warning) there should be no wide ranging ban. And the definition of psychic control should not be artificially extended to encompass bids such as the pass in this situation that are not primarily designed to field psychs. To say that a light open not vul against vul in third seat is an unlicenced convention is rather absurd. That partner on occasion (one time in 50 or even one time in 25) may take a shot and bid on garbage in that setting is NOT IMO a CPU. (I suppose one could eschew bridge and take up anagrams as a pursuit) Whyever do you wish to punish painfully? This bid IS allowed under 40A, and is not barred under 40B no matter what the Absolutely Crazy Bidding Lawyers or the Exasperating Bullies from London may say. RTFLB. (That is the FRIENDLY law book, isn't it?) I shall now step down, leave Hyde Park to the other pontificators, and await the inevitable flames. :-) (NOTE:I shall be on holiday the next 72 hours and offline...I'm not really in hiding.) It has always surprised me that the folks on our side of the pond took a less liberal view on 40A than on yours...after all, we are the revolutionaries who were willing to forego good tea over a little matter of principal. Personal liberty that does not descend to licence should extend to the bridge table. The participants on this thread seem to indicate that the negative treatment of the psyche may be as endemic in the EBU as here in the states. The only "sane" :-) views seem to be coming from the continent. -- Craig Senior "Save 40A...the next endangered species." ---------- From: Anne Jones[SMTP:eajewm@globalnet.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 1998 12:53 PM To: BLML Subject: Re: fielded or not -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: Re: fielded or not >Larry Bennett wrote: >> >> Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) >> >> x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx >> >> P P 1S X >> >> XX 1N P 3N > Herman de Wael wrote >I managed to make two psychic calls of this nature (third hand - opening >on 3 points) in the same tournament last saturday ! >OK, so the psych is fielded. OK, so I know how to fine you.Painfully. >You know partner is apt to open on a 3-count in third hand. This is AI >to you (and should be communicated to opps). Is this Licenced? If so its' use is not psychic., and providing that you follow the rules of full disclosure there will be no problem. If not its' use is the illegal use of an unlicenced convention and OK, I know how to fine that also - Very Painfully. Either way Herman you are not going to win. First of all YOU said you psyched, and then you said that this was by partnership agreement. Oh Dear. Anne "We are not deceived. We deceive ourselves" Goethe. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 06:25:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 06:25:15 +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 GAA29274 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 06:25:10 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 21:25:14 +0100 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 VAA28470 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 21:23:33 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: fielded or not In-Reply-To: <01bd656a$67059600$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:21:41 +0100 (BST) 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 Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:53:50 +0100 Anne Jones wrote: > >Larry Bennett wrote: > >> > >> Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) > >> > >> x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx > >> > >> P P 1S X > >> > >> XX 1N P 3N > > > Herman de Wael wrote > > >I managed to make two psychic calls of this nature (third hand - > opening > >on 3 points) in the same tournament last saturday ! > >OK, so the psych is fielded. > > OK, so I know how to fine you.Painfully. I suspect you're using the word "fielded" in a slightly different sense from Herman, that Herman just means "chose an action that catered for the possibility that partner had psyched", and that you mean "illegally chose an ...". Of course, there is no law against (Herman's kind of) "fielding" per se; the only legal reason for penalizing it is that it often provides evidence of a CPU. In this particular situation, *everybody*, when this auction is described to them, assumes that their totally anonymous partner has psyched. Since I fail to see how you can have a CPU with a partner if you don't even know who that partner is, this unanimity seems to show that "fielding" this particular psyche provides no evidence whatsoever of a CPU. Jeremy. [P.S. Welcome to the information superhighway, Larry!] ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 07:19:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 07:19:14 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29407 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 07:19:08 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA10708; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:18:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.215) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010702; Sat Apr 11 16:18:18 1998 Received: by 215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD656D.808B5EE0@215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:16:01 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD656D.808B5EE0@215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:16:00 -0400 Encoding: 95 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why would it not be? You have the right to accept the insufficient bid...you know your option under the laws and choose to exercise it. I know David S. will probably insist that you should ALWAYS call the director in the case of any irregularity, and I generally agree with his sentiment. But it looks as though in this situation the director is overwhelmingly likely to get it wrong! I don't very much care for the bid box ruling that allows a penalty-free change of call AFTER enough pause has taken place to suggest that (shudder) thought may have occured (and at the bridge table, yet.) This whole issue should be addressed and clarified directly in the next revision of the laws. It seems silly that a mispull is treated more liberally than a misspeak. Yes, you can hear yourself misspeak...but if you look at what you are doing you can see yourself mispull. It is not too much to ask of a player to LOOK at the bid card he has set upon the table at the same time his opponents and partner see it and promptly speak up if he has inadvertantly placed the wrong card there. If he is too inattentive to his own bidding to do this, he deserves to suffer whatever penalties Law 27 (and for regular offenders Law 90) may demand. If the only way in which you can protect your rights is to act swiftly in accordance with the Laws, I do not feel you have violated either your legal or ethical responsibility. It is not necessarilty unsporting to profit from an irregularity...and it may be quite unfair to your partner/teammates NOT to take proper action to achieve your optimum result. I view this as a similar case to selecting your best option in a penalty card situation. Sometimes this gains a trick...that certainly is no reason to eschew it. Here you gain a tempo or a shade of meaning: you are lawfully and rightfully entitled to it. Craig Senior ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 1998 10:37 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention At 06:05 PM 4/9/98 -0700, Barbara wrote: >We had a similar situation in Reno, and the director simply ruled that >the insufficient conventional bid was merely a "slip of the tongue", an >inadvertent draw from the bidding box, and allowed a sufficient bid in >the same denomination, even when attention was first drawn to it by the >bidder's RHO. Oddly enough, I had a similar ruling in Reno. Auction was 1NT-P-2S(me)-P-P-2C. I pointed out that 2C was insufficient and called for a TD. RHO (as so many people will in this situation) announced that she "had to" correct this to 3C and attempted to do so -- making no statement about having misbid, or mispulled, or anything to suggest that 2C was anything but a normal insufficient bid. The TD arrived. I reviewed the auction. TD (to RHO): "If you intended to bid 3C all along there is no penalty. Is that what happened?" RHO: "Oh, yes." TD: "No penalty, proceed," and leaves. It seemed at the time that the TD made no attempt to ascertain any facts, that his concern was to rule in the most expedient, least-hassle, fastest way possible and get on. As Rich suggests, if this was properly found to be a mis-pull, so would be any insufficient bid ever made, and the ACBL will have effectively done away with the complexities attendant on applying L27 in any situation. >From this and other anecdotes, I strongly suspect that this change in TD practice has come about due to yet another of the "secret missives" the ACBL frequently issues to their TDs without communicating them as well to their players. I mention this because I do not believe that the change in the nature of the rulings in such situations that has actually been brought about is what the ACBL intended, and they might want to clarify their actual intentions. Had 2C been ruled insufficient, I would have accepted it and bid 2H, resulting in a much better result for our side. I did not, however, pursue the issue at the time. When I remarked on this to my partner later, she said that I could have just bid 2H over 2C and let nature take its course (her thought was that the TD would then have been called, and would have found that the quickest and most expedient course was to let the auction stand at 2H). I thought at the time that that would be improper, but now, after R'ing TFLB, I'm not sure: L9A1: "[a] player *may* call attention to an irregularity..."; L9B1: "The Director must be summoned at once *when attention is drawn*... Would it have been ethical and proper for me to have bid 2H without (or prior to) calling the TD? 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 Apr 12 07:27:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 07:27:40 +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 HAA29425 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 07:27:33 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client270d.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.13]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA14394 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:27:36 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: fielded or not Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:28:09 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6590$bcbde720$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior To: BLML ; 'Anne Jones' Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 9:12 PM Subject: RE: fielded or not > Anne you are sounding sadly like the ACBL on this one. I am not expressing a disapproving opinion on psychic bidding. Law 40A permits any intentionally misleading call. > I presume you have no agreement that partner always or most of the >time opens light third seat at favourable vulnerability--that is what green >means, isn't is?--he could actually have his bid and open. No, I do not have such an agreement. Sitting in the North seat for a 26 board session my partner is in third seat at favourable vulnerability only twice. Herman said he psyched in this position twice in one session. This cannot be a bid which has the same element of surprise for his partner, as for the opposition. endanger partnership trust by taking away his option at this juncture? You >have already full described your hand as lacking spade support and >containing 10+ HCP. HE, not you, is in balance seat. I fail to see how any >action OTHER than pass could be a logical alternative here, or could >possibly enhance a partnership relationship. If pard has his bid, he will >whack the oppos and you will whack anything they run to. If he does not, >there appears to be no damage. >so this is NOT a psychic control in my view. I would say that he HAS used your forcing pass to control his psyche. > There seem to be two views on psychs. One holds that they are >irritating, destructive, bad for the game, cause tooth decay and are akin >to a nihilistic plot. They should be stomped out and eradicated from the >face of the earth, and their perpetrators hounded, eviscerated, and >maligned. :-)) In other words, some people don't like them. They actively >seek ways to attach penalties to psyching, even when no UNFAIR advantage >has been taken. I do not belong to this school > Others believe that psychs are an invigorating part of bridge, a >tactical weapon that makes the game more exciting, and very much worthy of >preservation. They do NOT want to use them unethically... ??NO?? Unless you are using WBF CCs ( which may not be used in General Licence in the UK) you may not declare a style of psychic bidding) > To say that a light open not vul against vul in third seat is an >unlicenced convention is rather absurd. See Orange Book page 24 #13.3 It does not say that 3rd seat at green is an exception. YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN AGREEMENT. Which you have convinced me that do have. That partner on occasion (one time >in 50 or even one time in 25) may take a shot and bid on garbage in that >setting is NOT IMO a CPU. (I suppose one could eschew bridge and take up >anagrams as a pursuit) One must do what one must do. Whyever do you wish to punish painfully? This bid IS >allowed under 40A, and is not barred under 40B no matter what the >Absolutely Crazy Bidding Lawyers or the Exasperating Bullies from London >may say. RTFLB. >(That is the FRIENDLY law book, isn't it?) Yes it is Friendly while still being fabulous. But Friendliness is Law shaped! The opening bid is not the problem as long as it is truly psychic.(get more innovative) It is the action of the partnership subsequently which must stand up to inspection. Cheers Anne >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 2:23 PM >Subject: Re: fielded or not > > >>Larry Bennett wrote: >>> >>> Dlr; you Vul; Them (Pairs) >>> >>> x,Axx,AJ9xx,Jxxx >>> >>> P P 1S X >>> >>> XX 1N P 3N >> >Herman de Wael wrote > >>I managed to make two psychic calls of this nature (third hand - >opening >>on 3 points) in the same tournament last saturday ! >>OK, so the psych is fielded. > >OK, so I know how to fine you.Painfully. > >>You know partner is apt to open on a 3-count in third hand. This is AI >>to you (and should be communicated to opps). > >Is this Licenced? If so its' use is not psychic., and providing that >you follow the rules of full disclosure there will be no problem. > If not its' use is the illegal use of an unlicenced convention and OK, >I know how to fine that also - Very Painfully. > >Either way Herman you are not going to win. First of all YOU said you >psyched, and then you said that this was by partnership agreement. Oh >Dear. > >Anne > >"We are not deceived. We deceive ourselves" Goethe. > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 07:49:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 07:49:20 +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 HAA29461 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 07:49:14 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client25c2.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.194]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA16576 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:49:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: fielded or not Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 22:49:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6593$bbf5fbe0$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 to apologise for referring Craig to the Orange Book Until the last para I assumed he was UK, and then I had forgotten that I had written it. It was his derogatory comment about ACBL that threw me. Has the man no loyalty? Or is he a UK ex pat. No that's not right he's rude about the EBU as well:-)) Anne -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior To: BLML ; 'Anne Jones' Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 9:50 PM Subject: RE: fielded or not > Anne you are sounding sadly like the ACBL on this one. Just because From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 09:57:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 09:57:03 +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 JAA29632 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 09:56:58 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2731.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.49]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA24357 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:57:01 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Easter Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:57:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd65a5$98c1f860$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 all BLML posters In EBUland everyone that's anyone, is involved with Easter Guardian and those that are not, will not admit it. In Wales everyone is involved with being Christian ( well that's not strictly true either) but almost. I suspect that people will be posting soon checking on the patency of BLML. Don't worry. All will be back to normal by about Thursday. If I have survived the slings and arrows of psychic fortune, I will look foreward to the return of the heathens. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 10:02:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 10:02:55 +1000 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA29657 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 10:02:49 +1000 Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id SVMUa04943 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:01:56 -0500 (EDT) From: R Craig H Message-ID: <4d66494.3530048e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 20:01:56 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Observations on Cats 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 "Managing senior programmers is like herding cats." - Dave Platt "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -Unknown "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this." - Anonymous "Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get eight cats to pull a sled through snow." - Jeff Valdez "In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats." - English proverb "As every cat owner knows, nobody owns a cat." - Ellen Perry Berkeley "One cat just leads to another." - Ernest Hemingway "Dogs come when they're called; cats take a message and get back to you later." - Mary Bly "Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia." - Joseph Wood Krutch "People that hate cats, will come back as mice in their next life."- Faith Resnick "There are many intelligent species in the universe. They are all owned by cats." - Anonymous "I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior." - Hippolyte Taine "No heaven will not ever be Heaven be; Unless my cats are there to welcome me." - Unknown "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."- Albert Schweitzer "The cat has too much spirit to have no heart." - Ernest Menaul "Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God." "Time spent with cats is never wasted." - Colette "Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil, and cruel. True, and they have many other fine qualities as well." - Missy Dizick "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends with strangecats." - Colonial American proverb "Cats seem to go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for what you want." -Joseph Wood Krutch "I got rid of my husband. The cat was allergic" "My husband said it was him or the cat ... I miss him sometimes." "Cats aren't clean, they're just covered with cat spit."  From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 17:19:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA00797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 17:19:41 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA00792 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 17:19:35 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id CAA23095 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 02:19:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from lbx-ca8-15.ix.netcom.com(204.31.251.79) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023092; Sun Apr 12 02:18:49 1998 Message-ID: <35306A8E.551A1C6@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 00:17:35 -0700 From: "Richard L. Hull" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Claim without line of play Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am a novice director and a fairly recent subscriber to BLML. Last week there was a discussion about a player that said the the rest of the cards in both dummy and his hand were high but that he had revoked and the director should be called. Everyone seemed to agree that there should be a two trick penalty because of the claim. My position is that it should only be a one trick penalty. The director was called about the revoke. Once the director was called the player should have been told that if he takes a trick with a diamond there would be a two trick penalty. Once he has this information, which is authorized, It would be unreasonalbe for him to win a trick with a diamond if he were able to win the rest of the tricks without playing a diamond. When a person makes a claim without stating a line of play, he can't be made to make an irrational play. Since the declairer called the director about the revoke and was advised of his rights, it would be irrational for declairer to win a trick with a diamond. Richard Hull P.S. I have three cats: Endora, a 16 year old calico; Putty Tat, a 14 year old calico; and Bill Bailey, a 10 year old Scottish Fold. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 19:45:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 19:45:26 +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 TAA01009 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 19:45:19 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-205.uunet.be [194.7.9.205]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA01711 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:45:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35308918.7B33AF7F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:27:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: fielded or not X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd656a$67059600$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > > Herman de Wael wrote > > >I managed to make two psychic calls of this nature (third hand - > opening > >on 3 points) in the same tournament last saturday ! > >OK, so the psych is fielded. > > OK, so I know how to fine you.Painfully. > Auw. > >You know partner is apt to open on a 3-count in third hand. This is AI > >to you (and should be communicated to opps). > > Is this Licenced? If so its' use is not psychic., and providing that > you follow the rules of full disclosure there will be no problem. > If not its' use is the illegal use of an unlicenced convention and OK, > I know how to fine that also - Very Painfully. > Auw - Auw > Either way Herman you are not going to win. First of all YOU said you > psyched, and then you said that this was by partnership agreement. Oh > Dear. > I have already once commented on this. I see no contradiction where you see one. My partnership agreement is : no partner, I shall never do that again. I just can't help myself. Our partnership understanding is : 'oh well, there he goes again'. Partner does not cater for the psych and I'm still waiting for one to bounce back to me at game level doubled. Partnership agreements can be regulated. Partnership understandings must be communicated. I feel that the use of two different words in the Laws and Regulations must mean something. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 12 19:45:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 19:45:30 +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 TAA01015 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 19:45:24 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-205.uunet.be [194.7.9.205]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA01720 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:45:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35308AAA.E90813DB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:34:34 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: fielded or not X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd6590$bcbde720$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > No, I do not have such an agreement. Sitting in the North seat for a > 26 board session my partner is in third seat at favourable vulnerability > only > twice. Herman said he psyched in this position twice in one session. > This cannot > be a bid which has the same element of surprise for his partner, as for > the > opposition. > I must confess that the second psyche was vul against non-vul. I went down three for 300, still a top ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 13 01:06:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:06:41 +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 BAA04191 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:06:31 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-247.uunet.be [194.7.9.247]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA07609 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 17:06:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3530D6FD.4AF740AD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 17:00:13 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: BLML statistics X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Statistics of posters to BLML between Christmas and Easter. There are currently 223 e-mail addresses connected to BLML. That means the 21 people have said goodbye since december (unless they got a new address that I have not been able to accord to a previous one) In their place have come 39 new members. For 154 members I have a country, there are a further 38 .com, 20 .net, 6 .edu and 3 .org addresses. 78 members are from zone 1 (Europe) - GB 22; DE, NL 9; DK 7; RU 6; BE, IL 5; CH, FR, TR 2; CZ, ES, GL, HR, IT, LT, NO, PT, SE 1 50 members are from zone 2 (ACBL) - US 40; CA 10 23 from zone 7 (Pacific) AU 14; NZ 9 2 from zone 4 (Africa & Middle East) - ZA 1; IN 1 1 from zone 6 (Far East) : JP 1 We have no members yet in zones 3 (South America) or 5 (Carribean) 111 readers have graced us with a contribution. (by volume - if not quality / between brackets their place on the list last time around) David Stevenson 218 (1) (including Nanki Poo 5 and Quango 2) Herman De Wael 91 (3) Steve Willner 88 (5) Mike Dennis 72 (8) Labeo 69 (8) John (MadDog) Probst 63 (4) Grattan Endicott 56 (6) Eric Landau 53 (7) Anne Jones 53 Adam Beneschan 44 (11) David Martin 40 (17) Jens Brix Christiansen 38 (20) Craig Senior 38 (34) Robin Barker 33 (23) Stephen Barnfield 32 (8) Vitold Brushtunov 32 Marv French 31 (14) Dany Haimovici 28 (2) Jeff Goldsmith 28 (31) David Grabiner 27 (13) Mark Abraham 18 Hirsch Davis 17 (60) Richard Lighton 16 (40) Jesper Dybdal 15 (15) Henk Uijterwaal 15 (15) Karen Allison 14 (47) Tim West-Meads 13 (12) David Burn 12 (18) Nancy Dressing 12 (42) Tony Edwards 12 (60) Evert Angad-Gaur 11 (34) Martin Kretschmar 11 Ed Sheldon 10 (34) Grant Sterling 10 (47) John Kuchenbrod 10 (70) Chyah E Burghard 9 (30) Richard Willey 9 (42) John Nichols 9 Roger Pewick 8 (31) Laval Dubreuil 8 (47) Sergei Litvak 7 (25) Everett Boyer 7 (27) Jan Kamras 7 Dick Wagman 7 Alan LeBendig 6 (24) Tony Musgrove 6 (34) Laurie Kelso 6 Markus Buchhorn 6 Julie Atkinson 6 Gordon Bower 5 (27) Reg Busch 5 (40) Jon Brissman 5 (47) R Craig 5 (60) Mike Amos 4 (34) Linda Weinstein 4 (34) Con Holzscherer 4 (42) Bill Segraves 4 (53) Jeremy Rickard 4 (60) Eitan Levy 4 (60) Bruce Small 4 (60) Larry Bennett 4 Jan Peter Pals 4 Jay Apfelbaum 4 Christian Farwig 3 (25) Irv Kostal 3 (31) Paul Barden 3 (53) Brian Baresch 3 (53) Rich Odlin 3 (53) Patrick Carter 3 (53) Mike Fairbrother 3 (70) Jens Ulrik Fougt 3 Anton Witzen 3 Ercan Kuru 3 Jim Boyce 3 Peter Newman 3 Simon Edler 3 Wayne Burrows 3 Ken Richardson 3 Andre Pion 3 Tim Goodwin 2 (18) Jac Fuchs 2 (42) Ann Parker 2 (47) David Blizzard 2 (60) David Metcalf 2 (60) Vytautas Rekus 2 (70) Ton Kooijman 2 (70) Mike Kopera 2 (70) John Mayne 2 (70) Ralf Teichmann 2 Ron Johnson 2 Donald Mamula 2 Leslie West 2 Alexey Gerasimov 1 (20) Jean-Pierre Rocafort 1 (47) Norbert Fornoville 1 (70) Niels Pedersen 1 (70) Barry Wolk 1 (70) Curt Hastings 1 (70) Jan Boets 1 Jan Volhejn 1 Thomas 1 Louis Arnon 1 Don Kersey 1 Michael Albert 1 Ilan Shezifi 1 Richard Hull 1 John Strauch 1 Jerry Sund 1 Eric Favager 1 Vladimir Machat 1 Dave Kent 1 I leave the catistics to Quango except to say that there are two cat-allergics. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 13 01:55:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:55:58 +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 BAA04639 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:55:51 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-73.access.net.il [192.116.204.73]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA02866; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 18:55:53 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3530E49B.FB88C526@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 18:58:19 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Newman CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? References: <002701bd63d9$e0e37ce0$a32d63c3@david-burn> <352D6D34.EBE06DEF@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Paul Newman ..... First : I am not sure I understood ( probably hard to believe) that in Japan it is forbidden to let cats live in your flat ?!?!?!? Second : The FLB ( Fabulous Laws Book)itself is not a perfect result of what the lawmakers attempted to publish .. Bridge is a very complex and multi-disciplinary game and the book is the best they could give birth at that date. An attempt to publish a book for players is worthless , even worse - a confusing redundant paper. What we do in Israel (^trying^ to do is a better wording) is to tell players that they should summon the TD every time they deem/seem/think/etc./etc. an irregularity occurred . Some clubs publish - on their notice board - that people should call and play in a monotone tempo (this issue belongs to the "legend" of calling or playing , changing the denomination of calls or cards played , before "breathing" or thinking .....). Third : I don't think that a total breach of laws or very unethical events occurred in the cases described in this thread . By law 75C ( and law 40 ) you must disclose all the information available to the partnership AS DECIDED AND KNOWN (usually on the CC) By law 75D2 - ONLY WHEN : a) the auction finished ....................and b) your side becomes declarer ....................and c) one of the partners gave a different .................... explanation from the decided/agreeded/known the other partner must ask the NO not to lead , call the TD and explain to NO which explanation was not according to the decided/agreeded/etc. It happens , actually very seldom , even to good pairs having a misunderstanding which sometimes brings them to a top and other times to ...... hell. This is bridge . The issues Jan and you wrote about are IMHO this kind of genre. Dany P.M. - sorry dear Peter (not Paul ) I am the clown or the actor.... Peter Newman wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > --various cases snipped-- > >Without knowing what took place at the AC hearing, it is impossible to > know >which of these cases was the actual one (or whether some other > interpretation >was the truth of the matter). Without this knowledge, it > is impossible to >decide on any kind of score adjustment, or indeed on > whether North was guilty >of any wrongdoing. It is a capital mistake, as > Sherlock Holmes pointed out, to >theorise without data. Not that this > has prevented certain eminent contributors >from doing precisely that, > but their arguments have been ingenious and the >debate a fascinating > one. > > This is an excellent summary of the actual problem mailed to blml. It > was a complicated and interesting bridge case and I hope the appeals > committee had fun. > > One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the > rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS > know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o > Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common > situations. > > Peter Newman > > These comments are my own, and I am quite happy to deny having ever made > them. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 13 01:57:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:57:09 +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 BAA04654 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 01:57:02 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-73.access.net.il [192.116.204.73]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA03202; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 18:57:05 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3530E4E2.3035C0A1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 18:59:30 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School References: <002701bd63d9$e0e37ce0$a32d63c3@david-burn> <352D0671.1588B7C0@village.uunet.be> <352E050A.214533FA@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman I don't think you should breach any law... you must tell opponents E X A C T L Y what your partnership agreed (written or not on the CC). N O T H I N G else ... If they ask about an action you didn't discuss (and accordingly not agreed) you must tell them ..."we didn't discuss that " and if the question was after the auction ended , IMHO you should tell them .."I answered as it was a xxxxxxxxx question "....... Law 75C was very happy ::>>> When the auction ended , and only when your side became declarer, you must call the TD and tell the defenders , before the OL , what was wrong in the partner's explanation BY THE AGREEMENT.. now law 75D2 is also very happy... I suggest this will be Herman's school.... Dany When the Herman De Wael wrote: > > I have said I would come back on this and I will. > > I have not found an all-encompassing good example, but this one is from > real life (I think I have already told this one) > > partner me > 2Cl 3H > 4NT 5Cl > 5H pass > > 2 Clubs is Gameforcing > 3 Hearts is Albarran, showing two aces of the same colour, but partner > explains it as long in hearts. > 4NT is of course asking for Kings, but partner is obviously inquiring > about aces. > 5Cl shows zero kings, but partner iw now missing 2 Aces > 5H is probably sign-off. > I am still wondering if pass is a logical alternative, but I did it > anyway, as the actively ethical thing to do. > > I made the contract (for an absolute bottom) because trumps were 4-4 > with opponents. > > What should I have answered if they had asked me about 4NT ? > > -The De Wael school : "asking for aces". > -The (present) majority : "asking for kings". > > Both answers are in breach of some Laws in the FLB. > > The first is in breach of L75C. > According to L75C I should divulge everything I know, which would be > something like : > "According to what I think our system is, 3H already showed Aces, so 4NT > is asking for Kings; however, partner has probably forgot that I have > already shown my aces, so he's probably inquiring about Aces" > That is in clear breach of L75D2. > > The second is in breach of L75D2. Trying to hide parts of the reply, in > order to try and comply with L75D2 is in breach of L75C, so you cannot > have it both ways. > > The question therefor remains : > ** In a situation like this, a player is forced to break either L75D2 OR > L75C - which shall he break ? ** > > My Point of View is this : > - since L75C has already been broken (inadvertedly) by partner, it will > not harm opponents much to break it again; of course AS will still be > possible on the second infraction. > - L75D2 has a much stronger wording in this case : "he (may not) > indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has been made" as opposed to "he > shall disclose" . > - Who am I to say that my opinion about the system is the correct one ? > It may turn out that the TD will choose to believe that partner's first > explanation was the correct one, and that indeed 4NT shall ask for aces. > By stubbornly continuing to stick to my opinion, I may well give a wrong > explanation about the second call ! > > Turn it around : suppose I realise after hearing partner's explanation > that I got it wrong. Should I now not explain 4NT as Aces - all the > while showing my Kings of course ! > And then what if I'm not certain ? Should I now say - I don't know, > because I'm not sure about the meaning of 3H. Surely not. > > One very strong argument is that I should not suppose I am the only > actively ethical player at the table. Partner, even when hearing my > explanation, should do the actively ethical thing and bid 5H anyway. > > But this is not very easy to do. > Suppose my actual partner (who had no UI) had chosen 5NT in stead of 5H. > Suppose hearts had been 5-3. > Since partner has no UI, there should be no AS. > But suppose I had followed the majority school and partner had again > chosen 5NT. Would you not feel compelled to change to 5H-1 ? > > Or take the original 3NT bidder. Suppose he is an actively ethical > player. What should his thought process be ? > A) he should correctly infer from the explanation (13-15) that partner > has not seen the opening. We are told this, but he doesn't necessarily > know this at the time) > B) he should therefor know that 2NT is intended as Lebensohl > C) he should conclude that pass is the suggested action over 3NT (that > is my opinion, which conflicts with David's, so what should this poor > fellow do ?) > D) he should try and establish what his logical alternatives are, etc. > All this has raised arguments among some of the top directors in the > world, and you expect an actively ethical player to consider all this ? > > That is why if at all possible, you should avoid giving UI to partner. > IMO even if this means breaking some other Law in the book. > > I think the Lawbook actually supports this general opinion, even if in > this particular case it is not covered. > > In many places in the Laws there are rules which actively prohibit > players from handing out information that is UI to partner. > Example : when hearing a wrong explanation, dummy and declarer are > required to inform opponents about this before the lead, but defenders > are actually prohibited from informing declarer, because it would give > UI to partner ! > > IMO (notice the lack of H - I am pretty certain of this) : when two Laws > conflict, the one which prohibits UI should come before the one which > insures correct information to opponents. > > Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 13 04:25:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:25:41 +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 EAA05365 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:25:33 +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 OAA13923 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 14:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA08377; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 14:25:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 14:25:35 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804121825.OAA08377@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: fielded or not Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > I would say that he HAS used your forcing pass to control his psyche. I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. What would you like the player to do if not to pass? But what I really don't understand is how the pass can be construed as conventional. It does not promise extra values (L31D, is it? Something like that anyway.), and it gives no message other than willingness to play in the last denomination named. Of course the _redouble_ was conventional, but that's no longer at issue. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 13 08:31:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:31:46 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA06255 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:31:40 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yOVHm-0005PP-00; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 23:31:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:11:27 +0100 To: Craig Senior Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: Labeo Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <01BD6152.75EFBC20@197.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01BD6152.75EFBC20@197.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net>, Craig Senior writes > I have to explain that I'm acting as agent for the cat. :) >-- *As a cat's-paw in fact* -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 13 23:00:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 23:00:31 +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 XAA07936 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 23:00:24 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic210.cais.com [207.226.56.210]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA03499 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 13:00:32 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980413090120.006c0f84@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 09:01:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: fielded or not In-Reply-To: <01bd64c3$a1d47e60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:00 PM 4/10/98 +0100, Anne wrote: >The redouble has put the onus of action on the 1S opener. The fact that >he has not taken action, is the use of a convention (forcing pass) to >control the psyche. The forcing pass is not a convention, nor, even, a partnership agreement. It is the consequence not of agreement, but of ineluctable bridge logic: When the bidding has revealed that the opponents don't have sufficient assets to make a contract at the current level of the auction (or, at matchpoints, for the field to bid it, even if possibly makeable), logic requires that they not be allowed to play in an undoubled contract; this puts an onus on the player in pass-out seat to take some action other than pass. This, IMO, is an "inference[] drawn from [] general knowledge and experience". When I first started playing, one of my mentors taught me that a jump shift by a passed hand requires a hand that has been "promoted" to opening-bid strength by the auction so far. Even as a raw novice (from my "general knowledge and experience", such as it was), I could work out for myself that that meant that the bid required some fit for partner's opening-bid suit. But the world is full of bridge players who bid solely by rule and rote, to whom the logic behind common practices is irrelevant if not incomprehensible. To these folks, the logic above is transmuted into "rules" that have to be explained and agreed, and so, for them, the practices above become the "forcing pass convention" and "jump shift by passed hand shows fit convention". A "convention", in these folks' lexicon, is a bidding rule to be memorized. I do not expect our regulatory authorities to be unsophisticated enough about ordinary bridge logic to fall into this kind of error. Granting that there is surely some "grey area", I contend that there must be some distinction between prospective partners' discussions of general bridge logic and theory and the formulation of "partnership agreements". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 00:59:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:59:07 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA10538 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:59:00 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA17403 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 09:56:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804131456.JAA17403@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 09:56:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Second : The FLB ( Fabulous Laws Book)itself is not a perfect > result of what the lawmakers attempted to publish .. Bridge is a very > complex and multi-disciplinary game and the book is the best > they could give birth at that date. An attempt to publish a book > for players is worthless , even worse - a confusing redundant paper. I strongly disagree with this claim. Just because the FLB is an imperfect rendering of the intent of the creators, why should that make any book/chart/pamplet for players redundant? Obviously, any such book is _by intention_ redundant in one sense--it is intended to explain the laws and their consequences, not replace them. But it is surely not redundant in another sense, because the players haven't read the FLB, or perhaps have read it and don't remember it, or didn't understand it. {I am not, of course, talking about _all_ players here.} In addition, there are numerous points where the FLB has been _interpreted_ in certain ways that might not be obvious on a cursory reading. I think a booklet outlining the responsibilities of players [reminding them they're supposed to have CCs at the table so they won't leave coffee rings, etc.] and explaining various commonly-misapplied laws and common rulings might be very helpful. In addition, some players feel taken-advantage-of when another pair [especially a much more experienced pair] calls the director and receives a favorable ruling on a matter which is not commonly disputed at rubber bridge or local clubs. Having a readable pamplet available to explain such ruling might make them feel less taken, and might even allow them to avoid such problems in advance. > What we do in Israel (^trying^ to do is a better wording) is to tell > players that they should summon the TD every time > they deem/seem/think/etc./etc. an irregularity occurred . Some clubs And certainly that is an admirable thing. But not all TDs give correct rulings, and many TDs do not give _complete_ rulings {they do not explain all the consequences of their ruling, or players' ethical responsibilities, etc.}. And many players 'automatically' correct an insufficient bid at the next level in the same denomination, etc., without realizing that this is not always correct [or required]. Telling them to always call the director first may help with this problem--but a booklet on player's responsibilities might help, too. > Dany > > > One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the > > rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS > > know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o > > Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common > > situations. > > > > Peter Newman In addition, I wonder if it might not be a good idea for the Laws Commission to provide an official gloss to accompany each new edition of the laws. Such a gloss could include the reasons for any changes in the Laws, as well as an explanation of how they understand the application of the laws. It seems to me that such a gloss would be preferable to either sending out the laws and allowing them to be interpreted quite differently from region to region, or else requiring repeated questions on this List of the form "What were you thinking when you decided to do X" and replies from Grattan [etc.] of the form "Well I consulted my notes and here's what was being thought". I have no problem with cases where the WBFLC _intentionally_ allows for varied interpretations of a law, but I see no positive value in having unintended controversies which could have easily been prevented with a clear description of the intention of the lawmakers. [FWIW, Plato recommends this proceedure for _all_ lawmaking--accompanying the actual text of the law with a description of how and why the law was made.] Sincerely, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 03:12:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:12:41 +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 DAA11439 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:12:34 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yOmkf-0007OLC; Mon, 13 Apr 98 12:10 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 12:12:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: fielded or not Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199804101411.PAA13795@netgates.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:11 PM 4/10/98 , Larry Bennett wrote: > >The td was going to rule this one amber but after consultation with the SO >(club) ruled green but had a serious word with the player concerned. >A straw poll of regular local county AC personnel ranged from red (I'd never >get away with passing this), through, anyone could be messing around but >they're not all third in hand at green so I'll make a forcing pass and if >pard doesn't double thats up to him, to of course everyone knows the >situation - you can't expect me to double surely? I am not familiar with the use of the terms amber, red, and green. Could someone explain? Thanks John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 05:37:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 05:37:32 +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 FAA11973 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 05:37:26 +1000 Received: from default (client84d7.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.215]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA10609; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: BLML statistics Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:34:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6713$3be5d700$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: 12 April 1998 16:37 Subject: BLML statistics > \x/ \x/ \x/ > >I leave the catistics to Quango except to say that there are two >cat-allergics. > #### The thought is enough to induce cataplexy #### G #### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 06:21:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 06:21:59 +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 GAA12138 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 06:21:51 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.91] by rhenium with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yOpje-00034y-00; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:21:47 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bd6719$a16472c0$5b2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: BLML statistics Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:20:40 +0100 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 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: 12 April 1998 16:37 >Subject: BLML statistics > >> > \x/ \x/ \x/ >> >>I leave the catistics to Quango except to say that there are two >>cat-allergics. Well, three, actually. >> > >#### The thought is enough to induce cataplexy #### G #### Catatonia in my case, but nobody would notice. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 07:11:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:11:05 +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 HAA12266 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:10:59 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h56.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.49) id BAA19581; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 01:11:02 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35331B2F.4E47@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 01:15:43 -0700 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 fielded or not? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="FIELD.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="FIELD.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Let us agree that bridge is "mental" game. And that "thinking has a great future":) 1 Spade - 12+ points, Double, then 3 NT - 17+ points Redouble (after Pass) - 10-11 points 1 NT (at free position) - 7-9 points, Spade stopper Then - 46+ points... Craig Senior wrote: "If both you and (at least one of the) opponents (the one or ones who is not psyching himself) are well aware of the possibility that partner's opening may have been light to psychic, who is deceived? There are 52 cards in the deck...not 52 HCP. The oppos are either convinced that you and/or pard are lying, in which case you don't have to bid on because they have not been hurt, or they are trying to psyche you with THEIR bidding." I do not agree with Craig only in 1 point - chances 5:1 that it was opener who psyched the hand. And everybody at the table did know (or suspect) it. Because Redouble as psyche-bid is too danger and rather frivolous call:) Moreover, if anybody did not redouble (for example, I prefer pass for showing 0-6 or 10-11 points, and partner of course warns opponents) - he would recognise that opener psyched. And what? Let we remind example from E.Kaplan book: your hand looks like AKxx - KQx - KJx - QJx, your partner opened 3 NT - gambling with full minor suit. Opponent asked you about meaning of the bid - and you should answer: FULL minor, gambling. No word about possibilities of psyche - it might create UI about your hand... Because information based on you hand is AI for you personally, not for your opps. not for your partner... At discussed case after your Redouble (showed your hand to opponent) - everybody may construct opener's hand. But if you would pass and opps would bid 3 NT - it would be only you who might construct partner's hand (on base of your hand). And that information is absolutely legal. And nobody is able to make you double opponents... Eric Landau wrote: "Granting that there is surely some "grey area", I contend that there must be some distinction between prospective partners' discussions of general bridge logic and theory and the formulation of "partnership agreements"." Let us play bridge as logic card game:) And certainly it would be better if you (and your partner) warn opponent (before round stars) that you psyche rare, never or often. But even using word "never" does not oblige you not to psyche. It is Bridge. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 07:53:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:53:08 +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 HAA12410 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:52:52 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-69.access.net.il [192.116.204.69]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA15105; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:52:23 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <353289AA.C85DC026@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:54:50 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: BLML statistics References: <000801bd6719$a16472c0$5b2e63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear and respectable Gentleman ............. I accept and respect the fact some people don't like cats or are allergic to this genius specimens . But from this point .... up to ....plexy , .......phobia, Cata......... , and especially is a very long way. Anyway , I"ll will never argue anymore pro or contra CATS.. and I"ll like very much to enrich our bridge controversies. The most CAT oriented TD in the Galaxy Dany David Burn wrote: > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Herman De Wael > >To: Bridge Laws > >Date: 12 April 1998 16:37 > >Subject: BLML statistics > > > >> > > \x/ \x/ \x/ > >> > >>I leave the catistics to Quango except to say that there are two > >>cat-allergics. > > Well, three, actually. > > >> > > > >#### The thought is enough to induce cataplexy #### G #### > > Catatonia in my case, but nobody would notice. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 10:16:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:16:38 +1000 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12754 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:16:32 +1000 Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id DIRIa02393 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:16:02 -0500 (EDT) From: R Craig H Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 20:16:02 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Observations on Cats 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 "Managing senior programmers is like herding cats." - Dave Platt "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast." -Unknown "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this." - Anonymous "Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get eight cats to pull a sled through snow." - Jeff Valdez "In a cat's eye, all things belong to cats." - English proverb "As every cat owner knows, nobody owns a cat." - Ellen Perry Berkeley "One cat just leads to another." - Ernest Hemingway "Dogs come when they're called; cats take a message and get back to you later." - Mary Bly "Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia." - Joseph Wood Krutch "People that hate cats, will come back as mice in their next life."- Faith Resnick "There are many intelligent species in the universe. They are all owned by cats." - Anonymous "I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior." - Hippolyte Taine "No heaven will not ever be Heaven be; Unless my cats are there to welcome me." - Unknown "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."- Albert Schweitzer "The cat has too much spirit to have no heart." - Ernest Menaul "Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God." "Time spent with cats is never wasted." - Colette "Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil, and cruel. True, and they have many other fine qualities as well." - Missy Dizick "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends with strangecats." - Colonial American proverb "Cats seem to go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for what you want." -Joseph Wood Krutch "I got rid of my husband. The cat was allergic" "My husband said it was him or the cat ... I miss him sometimes." "Cats aren't clean, they're just covered with cat spit."  From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 14 22:36:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:36:56 +1000 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA14672 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:36:49 +1000 Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id OYDDa02269; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:35:37 -0500 (EDT) From: KRAllison Message-ID: <566ab397.3533581b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:35:37 EDT To: dhh@internet-zahav.net, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Nanki Poo 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 Happy Birthday to all BLML cats without official birthdays!! Stanley, the street kitten (now two years old) and Blanche and Stella share the frequent complaint of adopted kitties that they have no official birthdays. I think perhaps all cat owners should treat some nice spring day (April Fool's day comes to mind for some quirky reason) as "Official Cats' Birthday," since there is surely a great birthing of kittens in the spring. I'm doing just that, now that I think of it :-) Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 01:44:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:44:47 +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 BAA17653 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:44:38 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yP7r9-0007OPC; Tue, 14 Apr 98 10:42 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:44:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: The truth about Cats (and dogs) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is reported that the following edition of the Book of Genesis was discovered in the Dead Seal Scrolls. If authentic, it would shed light on the question, "Where do pets come from?" And Adam said, "Lord, when I was in the garden, you walked with me everyday. Now I do not see you anymore. I am lonesome here and it is difficult for me to remember how much you love me." And God said, "No problem! I will create a companion for you that will be with you forever and who will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you will know I love you, even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish and childish and unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourself." And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam. And it was a good animal. And God was pleased. And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and he wagged his tail. And Adam said, "But Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and all the good names are taken and I cannot think of a name for this new animal." And God said, "No problem! Because I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call him DOG." And Dog lived with Adam and was a companion to him and loved him. And Adam was comforted. And God was pleased. And Dog was content and wagged his tail. After a while, it came to pass that Adam's guardian angel came to the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam has become filled with pride. He struts and preens like a peacock and he believes he is worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught him that he is loved, but no one has taught him humility." And the Lord said, "No problem! I will create for him a companion who will be with him forever and who will see him as he is. The companion will remind him of his limitations, so he will know that he is not always worthy of adoration." And God created CAT (Companion for Adam's Teaching) to be a companion to Adam. And Cat would not obey Adam. And when Adam gazed into Cat's eyes, he was reminded that he was not the supreme being. And Adam learned humility. And God was pleased. And Adam was greatly improved. And Cat did not care one way or the other. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 02:40:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:40:30 +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 CAA18053 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:40:20 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12745; 14 Apr 98 9:39 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Nanki Poo In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 14 Apr 1998 08:35:37 PDT." <566ab397.3533581b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:39:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804140939.aa12745@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Happy Birthday to all BLML cats without official birthdays!! > > Stanley, the street kitten (now two years old) and Blanche and Stella share > the frequent complaint of adopted kitties that they have no official > birthdays. I think perhaps all cat owners should treat some nice spring day > (April Fool's day comes to mind for some quirky reason) as "Official Cats' > Birthday," since there is surely a great birthing of kittens in the spring. > > I'm doing just that, now that I think of it :-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For clarification, you're doing just what---treating April Fool's day as your cats' birthdays, or birthing kittens? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 04:08:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:08:21 +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 EAA18608 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:08:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013073; 14 Apr 98 18:02 GMT Message-ID: <2NEKRXAqn5M1Ew6B@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:16:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980410103729.006932d4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:05 PM 4/9/98 -0700, Barbara wrote: > >>We had a similar situation in Reno, and the director simply ruled that >>the insufficient conventional bid was merely a "slip of the tongue", an >>inadvertent draw from the bidding box, and allowed a sufficient bid in >>the same denomination, even when attention was first drawn to it by the >>bidder's RHO. > >Oddly enough, I had a similar ruling in Reno. Auction was >1NT-P-2S(me)-P-P-2C. I pointed out that 2C was insufficient and called for >a TD. RHO (as so many people will in this situation) announced that she >"had to" correct this to 3C and attempted to do so -- making no statement >about having misbid, or mispulled, or anything to suggest that 2C was >anything but a normal insufficient bid. > >The TD arrived. I reviewed the auction. > >TD (to RHO): "If you intended to bid 3C all along there is no penalty. Is >that what happened?" > >RHO: "Oh, yes." > >TD: "No penalty, proceed," and leaves. > >It seemed at the time that the TD made no attempt to ascertain any facts, >that his concern was to rule in the most expedient, least-hassle, fastest >way possible and get on. As Rich suggests, if this was properly found to >be a mis-pull, so would be any insufficient bid ever made, and the ACBL >will have effectively done away with the complexities attendant on applying >L27 in any situation. > >From this and other anecdotes, I strongly suspect that this change in TD >practice has come about due to yet another of the "secret missives" the >ACBL frequently issues to their TDs without communicating them as well to >their players. I mention this because I do not believe that the change in >the nature of the rulings in such situations that has actually been brought >about is what the ACBL intended, and they might want to clarify their >actual intentions. > >Had 2C been ruled insufficient, I would have accepted it and bid 2H, >resulting in a much better result for our side. I did not, however, pursue >the issue at the time. When I remarked on this to my partner later, she >said that I could have just bid 2H over 2C and let nature take its course >(her thought was that the TD would then have been called, and would have >found that the quickest and most expedient course was to let the auction >stand at 2H). I thought at the time that that would be improper, but now, >after R'ing TFLB, I'm not sure: L9A1: "[a] player *may* call attention to >an irregularity..."; L9B1: "The Director must be summoned at once *when >attention is drawn*... > >Would it have been ethical and proper for me to have bid 2H without (or >prior to) calling the TD? I don't really know, but if you need to do this to get a proper ruling then things have come to pretty pass. You *must* make a formal complaint if Directors at this level are ignoring the Laws of the game. Quote: LAW 9 - PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity 1. Summoning the Director (c) Retention of Rights Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. LAW 10 - ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY C. Choice after Irregularity 1. Explanation of Options When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 04:10:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:10:39 +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 EAA18627 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:10:32 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013071; 14 Apr 98 18:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:02:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980410090438.006be880@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:33 PM 4/8/98 +0100, David wrote: > >>JPP wrote: >>> >>>Dealer: W, EW vul, teams >>> >>> Q9 >>> AQT >>> AT83 >>> KT95 >>>A J876543 >>>K87542 J63 >>>K965 QJ >>>A3 2 >>> KT2 >>> 9 >>> 742 >>> QJ8764 >>> >>>Bidding: >>> >>>West North East South >>>1h 1NT* 2s 2NT >>>3h 3NT end >>> >>>* 1NT alerted by South as 13-15 (Precision). >>> >>>NS: experienced players, EW: LOL's >>> >>>Before East makes the opening lead North explains that their 1NT >>>overcalls are not 13-15, but 15-17. It appears that South had >>>overlooked the 1h opening, assumed a 1NT opener by North and intended >>>2NT as Lebensohl. >>> >>>The play: East leads h3 to king and ace, West takes the second club, >>>plays a heart to 10 and jack and East clears the hearts. >>>When North reels off the clubs, West parts with two hearts, enabling >>>North to develop his ninth trick in spades. >>> >>>Questions: Is North allowed to bid 3NT? (of course he will tell you >>>that he has a maximum 15 HCP). If not, what about the adjusted score? >> >> I expect I give him 2NT+1. More importantly, this is *extremely* >>blatant use of UI so it is one of the *very* rare situations where I >>would fine NS as well. A 10 imp fine should probably make sure he never >>does this again. > >David seems to have overlooked the fact, given in the original, that 2NT >after the 13-15 1NT opening bid that S mistook N's call for would have been >Lebensohl. N, despite 15 HCP, has a good enough hand (all those 10s, lots >of heart stops) to be viewed as a near-average 15-17 1NT overcall. Had 2NT >been intended as invitational, David's view would be clearly correct. But >2NT intended as Lebensohl would suggest a bad hand, so 3NT here is >counter-suggested. It looks to me like N was "bending over backwards" to >be ethical, rather than, say, passing and later defending himself by saying >"but I only had 15 HCP". I do not see this. If I were a cheat [sometimes I think this approach is a good one when considering use of UI, what would such a player do deliberately] then knowing that my partner has enough to bid at all [no- one is making him - he could just pass] and that I have *more* than partner expects means that I might bid game. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 04:10:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:10:48 +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 EAA18635 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:10:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013072; 14 Apr 98 18:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:58:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? In-Reply-To: <352D85FA.29DFC56A@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Peter Newman wrote: >> >> >One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the >> >rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS >> >know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o >> >Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common >> >situations. >> >Rule 1: If a revoke/insufficient bid/penalty card occurs CALL THE >> >DIRECTOR >> >Rule 2: .... >> >> There is no Rule 2. > >I was thinking along the lines of: > >-If your partner misexplains your bid then you MUST bid (and alert - I am >convinced of this now, sorry Herman) as per your system >eg: >(1C) 2NT* (P) 3H >Partner alerts your 2NT as reds. Your system is minors. You MUST treat >partners 3H as a forcing natural bid (or whatever your system is) NOT better >Hearts than Diamonds. So with -,Qxx,AJTxx, QJxxx you must bid 4H (or 3S >cuebid) NOT pass or 4C. > >-If your partner hesitates then...(someone must have a succint player >friendly summary). >[How many times have I heard club players say that they can use their >PARTNERS hesitation AT THEIR OWN RISK] >-If there is a hesitation at the table that you think may need to be agreed >with your opponents you should.... >(will vary by region I suppose) > >etc... > >Just my 2 yen worth. > >DWS also wrote: >> When I say follow the Law book I am talking to Directors not players. >How much responsibility does a player have to know the laws? Clearly, you >don't need to know the options for an insufficient bid, knowing to call the >director is sufficient. But what about: What you must do after a hesitation? On consideration, you may easily be right. But it is very difficult to know quite what to say. There is an interesting set of comments on ethical matters [aimed at players] on ACBL District 16's web site [I cannot remember the address offhand, but there are links from other main sites, mine, ACBL, CBF and so on.] It is very difficult to educate players, and there are dangers. Still, some sort of simple digest of what they should do seems reasonable. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 04:17:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:17:53 +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 EAA18719 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:17:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013070; 14 Apr 98 18:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:53:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School In-Reply-To: <352f7435.1166367@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:39:54 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>What should I have answered if they had asked me about 4NT ? >> >>-The De Wael school : "asking for aces". >>-The (present) majority : "asking for kings". >> >>Both answers are in breach of some Laws in the FLB. >> >>The first is in breach of L75C. > >Yes. > >>According to L75C I should divulge everything I know, which would be >>something like : >>"According to what I think our system is, 3H already showed Aces, so 4NT >>is asking for Kings; however, partner has probably forgot that I have >>already shown my aces, so he's probably inquiring about Aces" > >A perfect explanation. Doesn't sound perfect to me: it sounds like a deliberate attempt to be in breach of L75D2. You have answered the question of what 3H is. Why? Just to break the Law - I cannot think of any other reason. Why not just say that 4NT asks for kings? >>That is in clear breach of L75D2. > >Yes. However, it is generally accepted that your duty to inform >the opponents takes precedence over your duty to not give partner >UI. The UI is partner's problem, and that is the price your >partner must pay for having forgotten his system. If you do not >answer according to your agreements, you are making it the >opponents' problem, which is much worse. In my view the correct answer is not a breach of L75D2. Your partner explains the meaning of 3H incorrectly: L75D2 bars you from correcting this in any way. ***BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT YOU SHOULD LIE ABOUT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BID***. So your breach of L75D2 was only because you decided to do so. L75D2 makes no reference whatever to asking questions wrongly about a different bid, and I challenge you to show me the wording that says so. >>My Point of View is this : >>- since L75C has already been broken (inadvertedly) by partner, it will >>not harm opponents much to break it again; of course AS will still be >>possible on the second infraction. > >If you choose the "De Wael" answer, the opponents may believe >that 5C shows 0 aces. They have a right to know that it >indicates the number of kings, not aces. > >As I see it, you recommend lying to the opponents about your >system in order to protect your partner from UI, and I find that >quite wrong. > >>- Who am I to say that my opinion about the system is the correct one ? >>It may turn out that the TD will choose to believe that partner's first >>explanation was the correct one, and that indeed 4NT shall ask for aces. >>By stubbornly continuing to stick to my opinion, I may well give a wrong >>explanation about the second call ! > >You have a duty to explain your agreements as best you can - if >it later turns out that you were wrong, the TD will handle it. > >>Turn it around : suppose I realise after hearing partner's explanation >>that I got it wrong. Should I now not explain 4NT as Aces - all the >>while showing my Kings of course ! > >Yes, of course. Explain your partnership agreements - that is >what your opponents are entitled to. In this case you will even >protect partner from UI by following L75C, so there is no >problem. > >>And then what if I'm not certain ? Should I now say - I don't know, >>because I'm not sure about the meaning of 3H. Surely not. This is all specious nonsense. You explain the meaning of your partner's calls correctly by your system as far as you are able. To do otherwise is illegal and unhelpful. Leave the Director to sort out partner's problems if he has got things wrong: don't cloud the issue. I know you have given an example where it *might* make it better if you lie - but it might make it worse. Players are not responsible to try and sort out problems created by partner: they are responsible for making sure that they don't misinform the opponents. I would love to see how you handle it when your lies turn out to disadvantage the opponents not benefit them. If by not giving partner UI by lying you now get the oppos to misdefend by giving them deliberate MI! I think you will not find the Director sympathetic when you have cost them a trick by lying to the opponents - and you try and claim the lie was for their benefit! >>IMO (notice the lack of H - I am pretty certain of this) : when two Laws >>conflict, the one which prohibits UI should come before the one which >>insures correct information to opponents. > >This is a perfect summary of our difference of opinion - I happen >to be pretty certain of the opposite point of view. ... while I am sure there is no conflict between the two Laws: they refer to different calls. >>Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! > >Sorry - not me. ... nor me. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 04:29:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:29:11 +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 EAA18765 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:29:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA12943; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 13:28:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 140.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.17.140) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012884; Tue Apr 14 13:28:10 1998 Received: by 140.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD67B1.228D4D80@140.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net>; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:25:12 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD67B1.228D4D80@140.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: BLML , "'Anne Jones'" Subject: RE: fielded or not Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:25:05 -0400 Encoding: 63 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Anne Jones[SMTP:eajewm@globalnet.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 1998 5:49 PM To: BLML Subject: Re: fielded or not I have to apologise for referring Craig to the Orange Book Until the last para I assumed he was UK, (CRAIG) Thank you for the backhanded compliment...it's nice to know that my language passes muster and that we colonials are not alone in our insularity. :-)) By the by, is the Orange Book a publicly available document? Is it available on a web site? It seems to do a fine job of stating the EBU position in no uncertain terms, whether or not one agrees with it. I suspect many of us should like to read it. (ANNE) and then I had forgotten that I had written it. It was his derogatory comment about ACBL that threw me. Has the man no loyalty? (CRAIG) My loyalty is to the game, not the regulators who would take the spice out of it. The ACBL does many fine things, but their attempt to over-regulate bidding is an irritant. How can the game develop if we do not allow innovation? How can it be a real contest if we continuously seek to hamstring the creative? Lies are NOT truth, freedom is NOT slavery. And if some animals are to be more equal than others, let it be based on merit rather than pork. (Do you have the meaning of pork, as in pork barrel? Or have I pigged up the play on words?) (ANNE) Or is he a UK ex pat. No that's not right he's rude about the EBU as well:-)) (CRAIG) That's me...just a rude colonial (if unabashedly Anglophilic) whose roots span the channel. One question in closing, as this seems to be unclear to others on list as well. Do I have white-green-amber-red right below? NOT-VUL vs NOT-VUL (U.S. white vs. white) WHITE NOT-VUL vs VUL (U.S. white vs. red) GREEN VUL vs VUL (U.S. red vs. red) AMBER VUL vs NOT-VUL (U.S. red vs. white) RED Do I have it or have I misread earlier posts? Thanks, Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 04:30:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:30:21 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA18791 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:30:09 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yPATD-0001Vq-00; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:30:14 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <23X5CVTG>; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:30:02 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:30:00 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: ###### MEGA SNIP ####### > >>Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! > > > >Sorry - not me. > > ... nor me. > > ###### Anybody fancy another walk? ######## > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 04:46:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:46:56 +1000 Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18897 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 04:46:49 +1000 Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id QITUa26229; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:45:46 -0400 (EDT) From: KRAllison Message-ID: <47d1e2f4.3533aedb@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:45:46 EDT To: adam@flash.irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Nanki Poo 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 Adam asks: << For clarification, you're doing just what---treating April Fool's day as your cats' birthdays, or birthing kittens? -- Adam >> I'm treating April Fool's Day as my cats' official birthday!! Karen (I don't believe in breeding adopted cats, since there are so many unwanted cats already -- when I get the caternal urge, I adopt one ). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 06:13:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:13:46 +1000 Received: from legend.sat.txdirect.net (root@legend.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19178 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:13:40 +1000 Received: from biigal2 (anas-06-11.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.69.85]) by legend.sat.txdirect.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA23373; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:13:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3533C33E.650E@txdirect.net> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:12:46 -0500 From: "Albert \"biig-Al\" Lochli" Reply-To: biigal@txdirect.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David its at: http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm Gil Pellitier has one also - linked to the D-16 one. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli - POBox 15701 San Antonio TX 78212-8901 phone 210-829-4274 District 16 Internet Coordinator http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 06:21:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:21:20 +1000 Received: from legend.sat.txdirect.net (root@legend.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19232 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:21:14 +1000 Received: from biigal2 (anas-06-11.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.69.85]) by legend.sat.txdirect.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA25161; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:20:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3533C4F7.5CE8@txdirect.net> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:20:07 -0500 From: "Albert \"biig-Al\" Lochli" Reply-To: biigal@txdirect.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Peter Newman wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Peter Newman wrote: > >> > >> >One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the > >> >rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS > >> >know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o > >> >Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common > >> >situations. > > >DWS also wrote: > >> When I say follow the Law book I am talking to Directors not players. > >How much responsibility does a player have to know the laws? Clearly, you > >don't need to know the options for an insufficient bid, knowing to call the > >director is sufficient. But what about: What you must do after a hesitation? > > On consideration, you may easily be right. But it is very difficult > to know quite what to say. There is an interesting set of comments on > ethical matters [aimed at players] on ACBL District 16's web site [I > cannot remember the address offhand, but there are links from other main > sites, mine, ACBL, CBF and so on.] > > It is very difficult to educate players, and there are dangers. > Still, some sort of simple digest of what they should do seems > reasonable. The Direct Url is: http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm The page may need some revision or updating - suggestions are welcomed. One - always call the director in any case of irregularity and not make ones own rulings should seriously be considered to be added. The page has had 1,759 accesses. The counter was reset in December 1997. BiigAl, Al Lochli - POBox 15701 San Antonio TX 78212-8901 phone 210-829-4274 District 16 Internet Coordinator http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 06:54:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:54:12 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA19348 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:54:00 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yPCiT-00062h-00; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:54:06 +0100 Message-ID: <7R5fIWAlu8M1EwL3@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:48:37 +0100 To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Martin writes >DWS wrote: > > ###### MEGA SNIP ####### > >> >>Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! >> > >> >Sorry - not me. >> >> ... nor me. >> >> ###### Anybody fancy another walk? ######## Nice out today isn't it. Funny, I can see everyone strolling except De Wael -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 07:16:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:16:34 +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 HAA19418 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:16:20 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-179.access.net.il [192.116.198.179]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA19755; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:12:29 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3533D1C9.7150C280@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:14:49 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KRAllison CC: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nanki Poo References: <566ab397.3533581b@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think Spring is the best time to announce for the CIB = Cats' Internatiomal Birthday I got the agreement from CIA , they will not fell hurt. I suggest to decide it will be one day after the WID (woman's international day) as much as I rember March 6 ?? Happy birthday to all cats in the world and very happy birthday to C-BLML . Shobo , Rosario, Shemaya, Josepha , Hershey , Spoty KRAllison wrote: > > Happy Birthday to all BLML cats without official birthdays!! > > Stanley, the street kitten (now two years old) and Blanche and Stella share > the frequent complaint of adopted kitties that they have no official > birthdays. I think perhaps all cat owners should treat some nice spring day > (April Fool's day comes to mind for some quirky reason) as "Official Cats' > Birthday," since there is surely a great birthing of kittens in the spring. > > I'm doing just that, now that I think of it :-) > > Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 07:52:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:52:33 +1000 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA19541 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:52:28 +1000 Received: from [139.80.48.84] (ou048084.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.84]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA15102 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:52:36 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:53:17 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael H. Albert" Subject: Alcatraz variation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (In memory of Icky Picky, RIP. He used to console me after bad sessions and celebrate with me after good ones.) The following situation arose, in all innocence, at the club last week. Apologies if it's old hat. I'm declarer in a spade contract, RHO is a long time stalwart of the club whose eyesight is unfortunately failing quickly. LHO leads a low club and the following dummy appears: 3 J8765 AT A9854 (for the terminally curious, I had KJT9876/432/Q/J3 and had bid a non-constructive 2s over partner's tartan 2h opening.) Though the contract is a good one, particularly as it seems the opps have 3n on, I spent quite a long time considering my line of play. Before I had managed to call for the cA from dummy, RHO plays a spade. Now I must confess we didn't call a director at this point (playing director, three of us at table direct occasionally, we all knew the spade is a penalty card and must be played etc etc). So I called for a low club from dummy, RHO ruffed, and I followed low. Only now did LHO inquire (still ok here in NZ -- at least I think so) "no clubs partner". Consternation! "A club, what do you mean a club?" (I did say her eyesight is failing.) NOW we call a director. She ruled the spade a penalty card AND let me change my play from dummy to trick 1. On RTFLB later it seemed to me that the latter part of the ruling was incorrect. Comments? Summary: East plays prematurely to a trick, after her partner has led but before dummy has played. She fails to follow suit. Dummy plays a card and before the revoke is established east discovers that she can follow suit after all. May declarer change the card played from dummy? (Of course in any case there's scope for an "equity" adjustment.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 Wed Apr 15 08:38:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:38:13 +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 IAA19697 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:38:10 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA14017; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:33:45 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980415083347.00962a80@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:33:48 +1000 To: KRAllison , dhh@internet-zahav.net, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Nanki Poo Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen wrote: > I think perhaps all cat owners should treat some nice spring day >(April Fool's day comes to mind for some quirky reason) I'm sorry - since when is April Fool's Day in spring ? It's autumn - can't you see ?? Cheers, Southern-Hemisphere-Markus P.S. BTW - Can I suggest 24th of April for BLML Cats ? That is BLML's own birthday.... 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 Wed Apr 15 12:06:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:06:40 +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 MAA20245 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:06:34 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002697; 15 Apr 98 2:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:02:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: fielded or not In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: >I am not familiar with the use of the terms amber, red, and green. Could >someone explain? In the EBU or the WBU psyches are classified dependent on partner's actions. The following is from the 1998 Orange book [to be published in July and to be generally operative from 1st September]. 5B Fielding. 5B1 The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively: that is to say your intent will not be taken into account. 5B2 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted [for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs]. This is classified as a Red psyche. 5B3 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to deserve an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then this is very likely to be evidence of an unauthorised understanding. 5B4 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche. 5B5 A TD may use evidence from a partnership's action on two or more boards to determine whether it has an unauthorised understanding. If so, the score on all such boards will be adjusted, as long as it is practical to do so. In other words, two or more Amber psyches changes them all to Red. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 12:06:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:06:36 +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 MAA20239 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:06:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2002685; 15 Apr 98 2:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:01:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: fielded or not In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980413090120.006c0f84@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >The forcing pass is not a convention, nor, even, a partnership agreement. >It is the consequence not of agreement, but of ineluctable bridge logic: If there is one thing that is certain in this life, it is that what I believe is certain because of logic, the next person disagrees! >When I first started playing, one of my mentors taught me that a jump shift >by a passed hand requires a hand that has been "promoted" to opening-bid >strength by the auction so far. Even as a raw novice (from my "general >knowledge and experience", such as it was), I could work out for myself >that that meant that the bid required some fit for partner's opening-bid suit. Is that where that fallacy came from? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 12:06:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:06:29 +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 MAA20232 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:06:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2002681; 15 Apr 98 2:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:01:31 +0100 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 Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Nikita, Sigma, Shadow Wally Farley Andrew, Panda, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Motley Crew Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Joseph, Hershey, Spotty Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Depo, Bridget Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey 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 Wed Apr 15 12:07:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:07:25 +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 MAA20277 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:07:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2002683; 15 Apr 98 2:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:02:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: fielded or not In-Reply-To: <01BD67B1.228D4D80@140.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >One question in closing, as this seems to be unclear to others on list as >well. Do I have white-green-amber-red right below? > > >NOT-VUL vs NOT-VUL (U.S. white vs. white) >WHITE > >NOT-VUL vs VUL (U.S. white vs. red) >GREEN > >VUL vs VUL (U.S. red vs. red) >AMBER > >VUL vs NOT-VUL (U.S. red vs. white) >RED Correct. A very useful notation. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 12:09:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:09:50 +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 MAA20295 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:09:44 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002688; 15 Apr 98 2:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:58:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <01BD656D.808B5EE0@215.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Why would it not be? You have the right to accept the insufficient >bid...you know your option under the laws and choose to exercise it. I know >David S. will probably insist that you should ALWAYS call the director in >the case of any irregularity, and I generally agree with his sentiment. But >it looks as though in this situation the director is overwhelmingly likely >to get it wrong! I don't very much care for the bid box ruling that allows >a penalty-free change of call AFTER enough pause has taken place to suggest >that (shudder) thought may have occured (and at the bridge table, yet.) >This whole issue should be addressed and clarified directly in the next >revision of the laws. It seems silly that a mispull is treated more >liberally than a misspeak. Yes, you can hear yourself misspeak...but if you >look at what you are doing you can see yourself mispull. It is not too much >to ask of a player to LOOK at the bid card he has set upon the table at the >same time his opponents and partner see it and promptly speak up if he has >inadvertantly placed the wrong card there. If he is too inattentive to his >own bidding to do this, he deserves to suffer whatever penalties Law 27 >(and for regular offenders Law 90) may demand. If the only way in which you >can protect your rights is to act swiftly in accordance with the Laws, I do >not feel you have violated either your legal or ethical responsibility. It >is not necessarilty unsporting to profit from an irregularity...and it may >be quite unfair to your partner/teammates NOT to take proper action to >achieve your optimum result. I view this as a similar case to selecting >your best option in a penalty card situation. Sometimes this gains a >trick...that certainly is no reason to eschew it. Here you gain a tempo or >a shade of meaning: you are lawfully and rightfully entitled to it. Hold it a mo! You have the Law wrong here. Case one. A player makes an insufficient bid because he misspulls or misspeaks. If he attempts to correct it in time then it may be changed to what he intended. The next player has no right whatever to accept the first call: it was not an insufficient bid: it was a mechanical error changed in time. Case two. A player makes an insufficient bid. _Either_ it is the call he intended to make _or_ it is a mechanical error which he did not attempt to correct _or_ it is a mechanical error which he did attempt to correct but not in time [very unlikely]. Then the Director reads out L27, which includes your right to accept the insufficient bid. If you do not call the Director but accept the bid in Case One then you have certainly been unethical [**]. You have gained from their ignorance, and it should be ruled back under L72B1. If you do not call the Director in Case Two it may not matter very much. However if there is any doubt about whether it was a correctable mechanical error then again you are denying the oppos their rights, and it is unethical [**]. [**] If you did not know this was the Law then your actions were improper but not unethical. Incidentally this is meant as an impersonal "you"! If you call the Director and he rules it as a mechanical error then you had no right to accept the original bid. Of course, in the Reno example it appears that the Director misapplied L25A. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 12:11:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:11:27 +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 MAA20312 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:11:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002919; 15 Apr 98 2:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:07:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <199804102003.NAA24165@mh2.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Yes, I think it would make sense to add a clause that complements 27B1. >It seems sensible that if it goes 2NT (P) 2H*, where 2H is >"incontrovertibly" conventional, a correction to 3H* would be treated the >same way as if 2H was "incontrovertibly" not conventional. The existing laws >leaves an unneccesary gap here, in that it only covers calls that are either >definitely natural, or where doubt exists. No, there is no gap: it deals with a bid which is definitely not conventional, and it deals with any other case: that covers everything. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 12:11:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:11:46 +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 MAA20327 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:11:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002892; 15 Apr 98 2:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:07:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim without line of play In-Reply-To: <35306A8E.551A1C6@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard L. Hull wrote: > I am a novice director and a fairly recent subscriber to BLML. Nice to see you. > Last >week there was a discussion about a player that said the the rest of the >cards in both dummy and his hand were high but that he had revoked and >the director should be called. Everyone seemed to agree that there >should be a two trick penalty because of the claim. > My position is that it should only be a one trick penalty. The >director was called about the revoke. Once the director was called the >player should have been told that if he takes a trick with a diamond >there would be a two trick penalty. Once he has this information, which >is authorized, It would be unreasonalbe for him to win a trick with a >diamond if he were able to win the rest of the tricks without playing a >diamond. When a person makes a claim without stating a line of play, he >can't be made to make an irrational play. > Since the declairer called the director about the revoke and was >advised of his rights, it would be irrational for declairer to win a >trick with a diamond. I agree with this: didn't I agree last week? Anyway, it sounds right! >P.S. I have three cats: Endora, a 16 year old calico; Putty Tat, a 14 >year old calico; and Bill Bailey, a 10 year old Scottish Fold. I think it is time for a new list of BLML cats! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 12:25:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:25:59 +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 MAA20356 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:25:53 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002918; 15 Apr 98 2:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 03:02:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >I'm declarer in a spade contract, RHO is a long time stalwart of the club >whose eyesight is unfortunately failing quickly. LHO leads a low club and >the following dummy appears: > >3 J8765 AT A9854 > >(for the terminally curious, I had KJT9876/432/Q/J3 and had bid a >non-constructive 2s over partner's tartan 2h opening.) > >Though the contract is a good one, particularly as it seems the opps have >3n on, I spent quite a long time considering my line of play. Before I had >managed to call for the cA from dummy, RHO plays a spade. > >Now I must confess we didn't call a director at this point (playing >director, three of us at table direct occasionally, we all knew the spade >is a penalty card and must be played etc etc). So I called for a low club >from dummy, RHO ruffed, and I followed low. I think the reason for not calling for the Director stinks. Call the Director, please. It does not matter whether it is a playing Director. I just leads to injustice otherwise. >Only now did LHO inquire (still ok here in NZ -- at least I think so) "no >clubs partner". Consternation! "A club, what do you mean a club?" (I did >say her eyesight is failing.) I don't mind not calling the Director if you intend to waive penalties. I would have let her take the spade back without penalty. It really is not very nice to take advantage of failing eyesight. >NOW we call a director. She ruled the spade a penalty card AND let me >change my play from dummy to trick 1. On RTFLB later it seemed to me that >the latter part of the ruling was incorrect. Comments? What Law did the Director quote to allow the club ace to be withdrawn? 7 >Summary: > >East plays prematurely to a trick, after her partner has led but before >dummy has played. She fails to follow suit. Dummy plays a card and before >the revoke is established east discovers that she can follow suit after >all. May declarer change the card played from dummy? Not unless the Director can provide a Law number. >(Of course in any case there's scope for an "equity" adjustment.) Not to mention a humanity adjustment. This one *really* leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 13:07:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:07:22 +1000 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA20457 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:07:18 +1000 Received: from [139.80.48.84] (ou048084.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.84]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29698 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:07:23 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:08:05 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael H. Albert" Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Michael Albert wrote: > >>I'm declarer in a spade contract, RHO is a long time stalwart of the club >>whose eyesight is unfortunately failing quickly. LHO leads a low club and >>the following dummy appears: >> >>3 J8765 AT A9854 >> >>(for the terminally curious, I had KJT9876/432/Q/J3 and had bid a >>non-constructive 2s over partner's tartan 2h opening.) >> >>Though the contract is a good one, particularly as it seems the opps have >>3n on, I spent quite a long time considering my line of play. Before I had >>managed to call for the cA from dummy, RHO plays a spade. >> >>Now I must confess we didn't call a director at this point (playing >>director, three of us at table direct occasionally, we all knew the spade >>is a penalty card and must be played etc etc). So I called for a low club >>from dummy, RHO ruffed, and I followed low. > The inestimable DS replied: > I think the reason for not calling for the Director stinks. > > Call the Director, please. It does not matter whether it is a >playing Director. I just leads to injustice otherwise. > >>Only now did LHO inquire (still ok here in NZ -- at least I think so) "no >>clubs partner". Consternation! "A club, what do you mean a club?" (I did >>say her eyesight is failing.) > > I don't mind not calling the Director if you intend to waive >penalties. I would have let her take the spade back without penalty. >It really is not very nice to take advantage of failing eyesight. > I must defend myself! (And apologize for being unclear in the posting.) It was not my intention to, nor did I, take advantage of RHO's failing eyesight. A club was led, and before I could call a card from dummy, RHO played a spade (trumps). Suppose we had called the director at that point. The correct ruling would be that the spade was a penalty card, to be played at the first legal opportunity (with lead penalties etc if partner was on lead.) Perhaps the best thing to do would have been for me to inquire (before calling a card from dummy?) whether RHO had any clubs. In my mental fog which passes for concentration when forced to be declarer, I didn't think of that one. Knowing that, and agreeing to it, I played a low club from dummy. RHO still played her spade, and only later (but before the revoke was established) discovered that the suit led was in fact clubs. Director now allowed me to change my play from dummy (IMHSO* incorrectly) to trick 1 and directed that the spade remain as a penalty card (as it turned out an immaterial one.) I think director was incorrect, but you can see (though I tried to make it clear I did not wish to imply) that there is scope for Alcatraz-coup like behaviour by RHO. * IMH Subsequent O. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 Wed Apr 15 13:59:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:59:00 +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 NAA20592 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:58:54 +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 UAA03347; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804150358.UAA03347@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:55:25 -0700 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 (snip) > > You *must* make a formal complaint if Directors at this level are > ignoring the Laws of the game. Does anyone know how to make a formal complaint vs ACBL TDs? I have a backlog of complaints, but don't know how to submit them. There are all sorts of official forms and procedures for dealing with errant players, but no guidance whatsoever when it comes to TDs. After the experience I had when going "through channels" in regard to ACBL TDs' failure to enforce ACBL regulations concerning CCs and other matters ("Well, Marv, there are lots of regulations in this world that aren't enforced"), I am hesitant to try that route again. Example from the recent regional in San Diego: Vulnerability: E-W Dealer: N S- Q9843 H- 97 D- Q4 C- KQJ7 S- A65 S- KJ7 H- QJ8 H- K42 D- A632 D- JT9 C- 854 C- AT62 S- T2 H- AT653 D- K875 C- 93 West North East South - P P 1H P 1S P P P I was East, playing with old friend Joe Marchesi, against two experienced N-S players. Joe and I were having a great game (we won the event), hence the conservatism. When Joe saw the dummy, he asked if the opening was systemic. West, a highly ethical type, said yes, and they had forgotten to pre-Alert the practice as the TD had instructed them to do. So we called the TD, and he of course said play on, we'll see what happens. What happened was that I misdefended and permitted 1S to make, while it was pretty clear that we could make some notrumps our way. Joe maintained to the TD that he would have reopened with 1NT if he had been Alerted or pre-Alerted as to the light opening possiblity. When the TD returned and ascertained the result, he first muttered something about how we could have protected ourselves, then took me aside and spoke as follows: "Marv, I have a tournament director problem here. I let this pair bid this way in my club, so I don't want to penalize them. I'm going to give you avg+ and let the result stand for them." That gave us 7.2 out of 12, and 12 out of 12 for them. Now, if this TD permits systemic 7 HCP openings in his club, he is permitting something that is not legal in franchised games per ACBL regulations, which require 8 HCP for natural openings of one in a suit. For this pair to be awarded a cold top, when they have used an illegal opening that was not pre-Alerted as instructed, is outrageous. However, there is no "Tournament Director Report" to supplement the Player Report, so how does one bring attention to such incompetence? What would the correct TD ruling be? My inclination (I'm not a TD) would be to give the offending side a zero (procedural penalty) and the NO side the most favorable result that was likely (+120?), which may have been better or worse than avg+. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 16:01:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:01:33 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20840 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:01:27 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yPLGI-0003bs-00; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:01:35 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <23X5CVT2>; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:42:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: fielded or not Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:42:59 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: ###### SNIP ####### > One question in closing, as this seems to be unclear to others on list > as > well. Do I have white-green-amber-red right below? > > > NOT-VUL vs NOT-VUL (U.S. white vs. white) > WHITE > > NOT-VUL vs VUL (U.S. white vs. red) > GREEN > > VUL vs VUL (U.S. red vs. red) > AMBER > > VUL vs NOT-VUL (U.S. red vs. white) > RED > > Do I have it or have I misread earlier posts? > > > ############ Yes and yes! The above vulnerability status is widely > used in the UK, however, the EBU also has a traffic light system of > classifying psyches and misbids. Green means no evidence of fielding > at all. Amber means some evidence of fielding but not enough to > warrent a score adjustment on its own and Red......... Well you > guessed it, enough to justify an immediate score adjustment and fine. > Also, two or more Ambers in the same session turns them all to Red > with consequent adjustments and penalties. ############# From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 16:23:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:23:33 +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 QAA20879 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:23:27 +1000 Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id GRZa018925; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:05:14 -0400 (EDT) From: KRAllison Message-ID: <44153efe.35344e1c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:05:14 EDT To: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, dhh@internet-zahav.net, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Nanki Poo 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 Markus writes: << P.S. BTW - Can I suggest 24th of April for BLML Cats ? That is BLML's own birthday.... >> Done! I accept on behalf of my hitherto birthdayless kitties, Stella, Stanley and Blanche :-) Well, of course, there needs to be a plebiscite, doesn't there? Hmm.. a plebiscite on the webiscite??? (ducking and running) Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 21:29:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:29:31 +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 VAA21591 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:29:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2009170; 15 Apr 98 11:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:15:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L12C2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When awarding an assigned score instead of the score obtained at the table after an irregularity, it has been argued here that it is illegal to award an artificial score. In other words, if you think that your loss of 400 is because your opponents made an illegal call after UI, then if the Director accepts your case he should award you -150, or +50, or something like that, and not A+/A-. In fact various authorities round the world do award A+/A-. The ACBL goes a step further. They have a habit of awarding -150 or A+, whichever is the greater, and other rulings of this type. If the above is illegal then this is more so ! I thought it was time that we found out from the ACBL whether they thought these practices were legal or whether they did them anyway. The ACBL have given me permission to post the following official reply: ************************************************************************ It is ACBL's interpretation that the last sentence of 12 C 2 permits the director and committee to award an A+ (a specified number of matchpoints) or to limit an adjustment to no greater than a specified number of matchpoints (again, A+) and does not require the scores to balance --- in other words to award a split-score. The Law does not prohibit a director from waiting until results are known (though this is not encouraged) before deciding upon a total-point score or a number of matchpoints (A+); therefore, the phrasing of the adjustment as the greater of +460 or A+ should be acceptable. While ACBL directors are encouraged to adjust a score by assigning a total-point score whenever reasonably possible, ACBL's interpretation is that Law 12 C 2 authorizes a split-score. While it may or may not be good judgment (as Edgar used to say about many director and/or committee decisions), ACBL does consider it legal. Further this differs from the adjustment in 12 C 3, as each side is awarded a specific score (-450, A+/A-, or some number of matchpoints) presumably as the most favorable result likely or the most unfavorable result at all probable rather than a mixture. *********************************************************************** -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 21:46:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:46:04 +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 VAA21638 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:45:57 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-135.uunet.be [194.7.14.135]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08979 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:46:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3534955F.16EF256@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:09:19 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I do not see this. If I were a cheat [sometimes I think this approach > is a good one when considering use of UI, what would such a player do > deliberately] then knowing that my partner has enough to bid at all [no- > one is making him - he could just pass] and that I have *more* than > partner expects means that I might bid game. > You know this is the wrong approach David. The correct question is, if I were an activly ethical player, what would I do ? If both questions turn up the same answer, then your approach is manifestly the wrong one ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 21:46:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:46:08 +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 VAA21646 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:46:01 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-135.uunet.be [194.7.14.135]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08983 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:46:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <353497B5.4DAD1683@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:19:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >>According to L75C I should divulge everything I know, which would be > >>something like : > >>"According to what I think our system is, 3H already showed Aces, so 4NT > >>is asking for Kings; however, partner has probably forgot that I have > >>already shown my aces, so he's probably inquiring about Aces" > > > >A perfect explanation. > > Doesn't sound perfect to me: it sounds like a deliberate attempt to be > in breach of L75D2. You have answered the question of what 3H is. Why? > Just to break the Law - I cannot think of any other reason. Why not > just say that 4NT asks for kings? > Because that would be not telling everything. So in breach of L75C. And saying "asking for Kings" is exactly the same thing : partner will deduce (or if he won't, TD will assume he was able to deduce = exactly the same thing) that he misexplained 3H. > >>That is in clear breach of L75D2. > > > >Yes. However, it is generally accepted that your duty to inform > >the opponents takes precedence over your duty to not give partner > >UI. The UI is partner's problem, and that is the price your > >partner must pay for having forgotten his system. If you do not > >answer according to your agreements, you are making it the > >opponents' problem, which is much worse. > > In my view the correct answer is not a breach of L75D2. Your partner > explains the meaning of 3H incorrectly: L75D2 bars you from correcting > this in any way. ***BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT YOU SHOULD LIE ABOUT A > COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BID***. So your breach of L75D2 was only because > you decided to do so. > > L75D2 makes no reference whatever to asking questions wrongly about a > different bid, and I challenge you to show me the wording that says so. > How about : "... nor may he indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has been made ..." In any manner must IMO include : hesitation, saying "huh", laughing, sighing, downright correcting, throwing the cards at partner, AND misexplaining (or correctly explaining) the next bid. This seems very clear to me. > > This is all specious nonsense. You explain the meaning of your > partner's calls correctly by your system as far as you are able. To do > otherwise is illegal and unhelpful. Leave the Director to sort out > partner's problems if he has got things wrong: don't cloud the issue. > > I know you have given an example where it *might* make it better if > you lie - but it might make it worse. Players are not responsible to > try and sort out problems created by partner: they are responsible for > making sure that they don't misinform the opponents. > > I would love to see how you handle it when your lies turn out to > disadvantage the opponents not benefit them. If by not giving partner > UI by lying you now get the oppos to misdefend by giving them > deliberate MI! I think you will not find the Director sympathetic when > you have cost them a trick by lying to the opponents - and you try and > claim the lie was for their benefit! > I am not saying that my misexplanation should go unpunished if it damages the opponents ! I am only saying that I should not be required to make things even worse for my own side by creating additional UI to partner, when the situation has forced me to break one law or another, but I cannot follow both. > >>IMO (notice the lack of H - I am pretty certain of this) : when two Laws > >>conflict, the one which prohibits UI should come before the one which > >>insures correct information to opponents. > > > >This is a perfect summary of our difference of opinion - I happen > >to be pretty certain of the opposite point of view. > > ... while I am sure there is no conflict between the two Laws: they > refer to different calls. > No they don't. By explaining the second call you indicate in some manner that the first call was wrongly explained. Please at least accept this even if you do not accept my choice as to which law to break. > >>Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! > > > >Sorry - not me. > > ... nor me. > Any others ? Please do not feel intimidated to contradict DS. He has been known to be wrong. If indeed very rarely. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 23:22:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:22:51 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21962 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:22:44 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA25309 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:22:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <199804150358.UAA03347@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > (snip) > > > > You *must* make a formal complaint if Directors at this level are > > ignoring the Laws of the game. > > Does anyone know how to make a formal complaint vs ACBL TDs? I have a > backlog of complaints, but don't know how to submit them. There are > all sorts of official forms and procedures for dealing with errant > players, but no guidance whatsoever when it comes to TDs. After the > experience I had when going "through channels" in regard to ACBL TDs' > failure to enforce ACBL regulations concerning CCs and other matters > ("Well, Marv, there are lots of regulations in this world that aren't > enforced"), I am hesitant to try that route again. > I would try a letter to Gary Blaiss, copy to your District Director and to the CEO. But you have probably tried all that. -- Richard Lighton Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 15 23:52:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:52:07 +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 XAA22100 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:51:09 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:51:03 +0100 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 OAA18662 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:50:30 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School In-Reply-To: <353497B5.4DAD1683@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:48:40 +0100 (BST) 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 Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:19:17 +0200 Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > L75D2 makes no reference whatever to asking questions wrongly about a > > different bid, and I challenge you to show me the wording that says so. > > > > How about : "... nor may he indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has > been made ..." > In any manner must IMO include : hesitation, saying "huh", laughing, > sighing, downright correcting, throwing the cards at partner, AND > misexplaining (or correctly explaining) the next bid. > > >>IMO (notice the lack of H - I am pretty certain of this) : when two Laws > > >>conflict, the one which prohibits UI should come before the one which > > >>insures correct information to opponents. > > > > > >This is a perfect summary of our difference of opinion - I happen > > >to be pretty certain of the opposite point of view. > > > > ... while I am sure there is no conflict between the two Laws: they > > refer to different calls. > > > > No they don't. By explaining the second call you indicate in some > manner that the first call was wrongly explained. > Please at least accept this even if you do not accept my choice as to > which law to break. > > > >>Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! > > > > > >Sorry - not me. > > > > ... nor me. > > > > Any others ? > > Please do not feel intimidated to contradict DS. > > He has been known to be wrong. If indeed very rarely. Well, I disagree with David's argument, but only in that I don't understand at all his point that the two Laws "refer to different calls" -- L75D2 forbids you to correct partner's mistaken explanation before the final pass, so I don't see why it's relevant that you're explaining (before the final pass) a different call. However, although I understand Herman's point of view, I think he's interpreting "indicate in any manner" too inclusively. I presume this phrase in L52D2 was intended to prohibit "hesitation, saying "huh", laughing, sighing, downright correcting, throwing the cards at partner", etc., but not to prohibit you from making bids or required explanations that happen to indicate partner's mistake. OK, I know the Law says "any"; maybe it shouldn't. But suppose I hold Qxx AKQ AKQJ AKQ and open a strong artificial 2D, misexplained by partner as a weak two in diamonds; then partner responds 2S, thinking it's a signoff but systemically promising a spade suit with two of the top 3 honours. If I rebid 7NT, this "indicates in some manner" that partner misexplained 2D. Do you think L75D2 forbids me to rebid 7NT, Herman? Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 00:00:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 00:00:05 +1000 Received: from mh1.omnitel.net (mail@mh1.omnitel.net [205.244.196.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22169 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 23:59:50 +1000 Received: from perkunas.omnitel.net [205.244.196.2] (root) by mh1.omnitel.net with esmtp; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:02:39 +0200 Received: from res (sl-205-244-196-238.dial.omnitel.net [205.244.196.238]) by perkunas.omnitel.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA33530 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:00:18 +0200 Received: by res with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6887.BCA14080@res>; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:01:23 +-300 Message-ID: <01BD6887.BCA14080@res> From: Vytautas Rekus To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: FW: BLML statistics Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:01:21 +-300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems, I'll join you soon as fourth one... Rgds, Vytas ---------- From: David Burn[SMTP:Dburn@btinternet.com] Sent: pirmadienis, Balandis 13, 1998 11:20 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: BLML statistics > >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: 12 April 1998 16:37 >Subject: BLML statistics > >> > \x/ \x/ \x/ >> >>I leave the catistics to Quango except to say that there are two >>cat-allergics. Well, three, actually. >> > >#### The thought is enough to induce cataplexy #### G #### Catatonia in my case, but nobody would notice. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 01:36:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:36:37 +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 BAA24965 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:36:29 +1000 Received: from cph46.ppp.dknet.dk (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA26427 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:36:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:36:32 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3535d056.2384859@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:53:59 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:39:54 +0200, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >>>According to L75C I should divulge everything I know, which would be >>>something like : >>>"According to what I think our system is, 3H already showed Aces, so = 4NT >>>is asking for Kings; however, partner has probably forgot that I have >>>already shown my aces, so he's probably inquiring about Aces" >> >>A perfect explanation. > > Doesn't sound perfect to me: it sounds like a deliberate attempt to be >in breach of L75D2. You have answered the question of what 3H is. Why? >Just to break the Law - I cannot think of any other reason. Why not >just say that 4NT asks for kings? Just saying that would be correct, but not as helpful to the opponents as I would like to be. It seems to me that the principle of full disclosure means that you should explain every aspect of your system agreements that could help the opponents to understand what is going on. The fact that 4NT would have asked for aces if 3H was natural is such an aspect of the system agreements. Even though only partner's incorrect explanation has made it a _relevant_ aspect of the system agreements, I clearly prefer the complete explanation; particularly so when partner cannot avoid detecting his misbid anyway. "4NT asks for kings" gives partner exactly as much UI as Herman's full explanation. It just gives less information to the opponents, who may not even realize that UI has been passed to partner. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 01:50:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:50:43 +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 BAA25020 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:50:36 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ERG00466PCATI@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:50:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA08082; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:50:04 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:50:03 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? In-reply-to: ; from "Michael H. Albert" at Apr 15, 98 9:53 am To: malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz (Michael H. Albert) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ERG00467PCATI@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The following situation arose, in all innocence, at the club last week. > Apologies if it's old hat. > > I'm declarer in a spade contract, RHO is a long time stalwart of the club > whose eyesight is unfortunately failing quickly. LHO leads a low club and > the following dummy appears: > > 3 J8765 AT A9854 > > (for the terminally curious, I had KJT9876/432/Q/J3 and had bid a > non-constructive 2s over partner's tartan 2h opening.) > > Though the contract is a good one, particularly as it seems the opps have > 3n on, I spent quite a long time considering my line of play. Before I had > managed to call for the cA from dummy, RHO plays a spade. > > Now I must confess we didn't call a director at this point (playing > director, three of us at table direct occasionally, we all knew the spade > is a penalty card and must be played etc etc). So I called for a low club > from dummy, RHO ruffed, and I followed low. --------------------------------------------------- I am sorry, as TD you know that you must call a TD. ---------------------------------------------------> > Only now did LHO inquire (still ok here in NZ -- at least I think so) "no > clubs partner". Consternation! "A club, what do you mean a club?" (I did > say her eyesight is failing.) > -------------------------------------------------- Not allowed to ask that too. -------------------------------------------------- > NOW we call a director. She ruled the spade a penalty card AND let me > change my play from dummy to trick 1. On RTFLB later it seemed to me that > the latter part of the ruling was incorrect. Comments? > --------------------------------------------------- Why let dummy take back the small club ? You did'nt call the TD(law 11A). Perhaps it's better to let the small club be played. The declarer did that! >From that point (offence of law 61B) the TD (was called) and he/she can handle this by law 63B. The spade of East is a penalty card. Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 02:11:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:11:41 +1000 Received: from clmout3.prodigy.com (clmout3-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25273 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:11:33 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout3.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA28720 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:09:48 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA05644 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:10:36 -0400 Message-Id: <199804151610.MAA05644@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:10:36, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are a couple of ways to make formal complaints about ACBL directors. They all start with get the name of the director and any other director you might talk to. If you are at a sectional or regional and the director in question is not the head director of the tournament, go to the head director and voice your complaint. If you are at a national, there is always a director in charge of an event. Speak to that director first. In Reno, it appeared to me that all directors were handling the complaint methods very well. If you tell the director you were not satisfied with a ruling, they will usually point out the director you should go talk to with no hard feelings whatsoever. You will not be the first person that day to not like a ruling. You may also send Email to Tournaments@acbl.org This will lead you to someone who is in charge of all directors and you will receive a reply. In the event you do not receive a reply or want to find out if your email was lost, you can always write to me and I will call. One piece of advice. Write you email on your notepad. Go to sleep, get up, read it to yourself before sending it and then send it. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 02:19:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:19:09 +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 CAA25300 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:19:03 +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 MAA16865 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10819; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:19:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:19:18 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804151619.MAA10819@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Michael Albert wrote: > >East plays prematurely to a trick, after her partner has led but before > >dummy has played. She fails to follow suit. Dummy plays a card and before > >the revoke is established east discovers that she can follow suit after > >all. May declarer change the card played from dummy? > From: David Stevenson > Not unless the Director can provide a Law number. L64C1 looks good to me. L47D might do also. The point is that North's card was played after East's, and thus North's play is correctable. Had East played in proper sequence, North's play would not be changeable. Even if for some reason you don't let North's play change, you are always going to restore equity under L72B1. East must not be allowed to gain from the premature play. It's simpler just to allow North's card to be changed, and I believe it's correct. I agree with David that "correct the revoke, no penalty" would have done best. Why didn't West ask about a possible revoke as soon as East played? Surely West knows about East's eyesight problem? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 02:38:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:38:41 +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 CAA25364 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:38:34 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA02767; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804151638.MAA28079@yunt.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, 15 Apr 1998 12:15:31 +0100) Subject: Re: L12C2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 02:49:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:49:28 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25414 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:49:09 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Wed, 15 Apr 98 12:49:18 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa15850; 15 Apr 98 12:28 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA05563; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:49:40 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199804151649.MAA05563@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? To: "E.Angad-Gaur" Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Cc: malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <0ERG00467PCATI@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> from "E.Angad-Gaur" at Apr 15, 98 05:50:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (discussing a non-established revoke by RHO) > > Only now did LHO inquire (still ok here in NZ -- at least I think so) "no > > clubs partner". Consternation! "A club, what do you mean a club?" (I did > > say her eyesight is failing.) > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Not allowed to ask that too. > -------------------------------------------------- The Laws as first passed may prohibit this practice, but SO's may elect to allow the practice. The ACBL has done so, and the original author believes that New Zealand's SO allows it as well. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 02:52:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:52:54 +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 CAA25470 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:52:48 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA02978; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:52:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804151652.MAA28579@yunt.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, 15 Apr 1998 12:15:31 +0100) Subject: Re: L12C2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > When awarding an assigned score instead of the score obtained at the > table after an irregularity, it has been argued here that it is illegal > to award an artificial score. In other words, if you think that your > loss of 400 is because your opponents made an illegal call after UI, > then if the Director accepts your case he should award you -150, or +50, > or something like that, and not A+/A-. In fact various authorities > round the world do award A+/A-. It often seems to be done when there is no way to determine a reasonable adjusted score. In this case, it is reasonable (although there is the Law issue). However, it is also done when there is a way to determine a reasonable adjusted score but the Director doesn't want to do it, and this should be strongly discouraged. For example, in the above situation, suppose that the opponents played in 3NT with UI rather than in 4S, and it's not clear how the play in 4S would have gone. The contract can be adjusted to 4S, and if it was likely that 4S would have either made four or gone down one, then you should be +50, not A+. I can see a case for A+/A- when there are many possible results. If a failure to alert fouls up what should be a competitive part-score auction, allowing N-S to play in 2H uncontested for +110 when they could be in 3H down one doubled or undoubled for -50 or -100, defending 2S doubled or undoubled for +100, +50, -530, or -140, or pushing the opponents to 3S doubled for +300 or +100, then it is certainly probable that E-W were damaged, but it could be difficult to pick the most favorable likely alternative. > The ACBL goes a step further. They have a habit of awarding -150 or > A+, whichever is the greater, and other rulings of this type. If the > above is illegal then this is more so ! This is proper in the specific case in which it is trying to avoid lowering the non-offenders' score or raising the offenders' score. If N-S use UI to get to 2NT for +150 and an average-plus ruling is necessary, E-W are entitled to at least the -150 they earned at the table, which could be better than average-plus if most E-W pairs are getting doubled too high or most N-S pairs are making the game. Otherwise, I can't see a Law 12C3 basis for such a score, as it isn't restoring equity. If *this* E-W pair was headed for -100 without the UI, they should get the score for -100, whether it is better or worse than average-plus. -- 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 Apr 16 03:14:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 03:14:07 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25619 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 03:13:55 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17763 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:11:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804151711.MAA17763@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:11:06 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >>"According to what I think our system is, 3H already showed Aces, so 4NT > > >>is asking for Kings; however, partner has probably forgot that I have > > >>already shown my aces, so he's probably inquiring about Aces" > > > > > >A perfect explanation. > > > > Doesn't sound perfect to me: it sounds like a deliberate attempt to be > > in breach of L75D2. You have answered the question of what 3H is. Why? > > Just to break the Law - I cannot think of any other reason. Why not > > just say that 4NT asks for kings? > > > > Because that would be not telling everything. So in breach of L75C. L75C does not say that you have to tell everything about a call. "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." From your partnership agreements the call asks for kings, and that is what the law tells you to reveal. I suppose if partner frequently forgets this bid you could argue that "partnership experience" says he's asking for aces (again), and give your fuller explanation. :) But otherwise your interpretation that he has forgotten his bid arises from either general bridge knowledge or UI--neither of which L75C directs you to reveal. > And saying "asking for Kings" is exactly the same thing : partner will > deduce (or if he won't, TD will assume he was able to deduce = exactly > the same thing) that he misexplained 3H. It is exactly the same thing _from the point of view of the possible penalties to your side_. But so what? Sometimes behaving ethically requires you to act in such a way that you will later be penalized. [As, for example, when acting ethically requires you to reveal a misexplanation that opponents might not have become aware of.] > > In my view the correct answer is not a breach of L75D2. Your partner > > explains the meaning of 3H incorrectly: L75D2 bars you from correcting > > this in any way. ***BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT YOU SHOULD LIE ABOUT A > > COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BID***. So your breach of L75D2 was only because > > you decided to do so. > > > > L75D2 makes no reference whatever to asking questions wrongly about a > > different bid, and I challenge you to show me the wording that says so. > > How about : "... nor may he indicate IN ANY MANNER that a mistake has > been made ..." > In any manner must IMO include : hesitation, saying "huh", laughing, > sighing, downright correcting, throwing the cards at partner, AND > misexplaining (or correctly explaining) the next bid. > > This seems very clear to me. Not to me. As has been pointed out, merely by making proper bids you may very well wake partner up. Or by alerting alertable calls. Or by giving a correct review of an auction when asked. I do not think L75D2 was intended to prohibit players from bidding, alerting, reviewing, or explaining correctly. Indeed, when you tell your partner the number of kings you hold [when he thinks he's asking for aces] that may very well wake him up, if he discovers 6 aces in the deck! > I am only saying that I should not be required to make things even worse > for my own side by creating additional UI to partner, when the situation > has forced me to break one law or another, but I cannot follow both. When given a choice between explicitly violating a law and violating another law only under an obviously minority reading of an ambiguous clause, I would prefer to violate the latter [even if I thought my reading of it was the correct one. :)] > > ... while I am sure there is no conflict between the two Laws: they > > refer to different calls. > > No they don't. By explaining the second call you indicate in some > manner that the first call was wrongly explained. > Please at least accept this even if you do not accept my choice as to > which law to break. DS can speak for himself, of course, but _I_ don't agree. To say this would require us to interpret "in any manner" in such a way that _anything_ you do might count--as long as partner could, if he is awake and thinking, infer from it that he misexplained. I don't interpret those words in that way. > > >>Please tell me the De Wael School has some followers ! > > > > > Any others ? Not me, either. > Please do not feel intimidated to contradict DS. I have contradicted him in the past. Not this time. > He has been known to be wrong. If indeed very rarely. Me, too, unfortunately. :) > Herman DE WAEL Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 05:14:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA26149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:14:34 +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 FAA26144 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:14:20 +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 PAA27553 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10997; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:14:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:14:36 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804151914.PAA10997@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: John A Kuchenbrod [defender asking about partner's revoke] > The Laws as first passed may prohibit this practice, but SO's may > elect to allow the practice. The ACBL has done so, and the original > author believes that New Zealand's SO allows it as well. This is actually a Zonal option (L61B) with no provision for delegating to NCBO's or SO's. I'm not sure what would happen if a SO took a position opposing that of the Zonal Authority. The ACBL, as Zonal Authority, allows defenders to ask. This decision is effective throughout North America, and in theory, no club in the zone can overturn it. Most other ZA's prohibit asking, but I have heard that NZ/Australia is an exception. Anybody care to comment on the status there? > From: "Marvin L. French" > Now, if this TD permits systemic 7 HCP openings in his club, he is > permitting something that is not legal in franchised games per ACBL > regulations, which require 8 HCP for natural openings of one in a > suit. In contrast, regulation of conventions is in the hands of the SO (L40D). Weak initial actions are up to the ZA, but ZA's are given explicit authority to delegate. As I understand it, the ACBL as ZA has delegated such authority to its clubs, so the club is within its rights to permit any opening bids (or other light initial actions) it likes. Agreeing to open one-bids with less than 8 HCP is prohibited in ACBL tournaments, however. > What would the correct TD ruling be? My inclination (I'm not a TD) > would be to give the offending side a zero (procedural penalty) and > the NO side the most favorable result that was likely (+120?), which > may have been better or worse than avg+. You shouldn't confuse PP's with score adjustment. If the pair have been told to alert this bid and they don't do it, they should get a PP regardless of score adjustment. The penalty could range from 1/4 to 1 board, depending on how recently and emphatically they have been told to alert. I suppose it could even be a mere warning if they were told some months ago and forgot just this once. At a regional tournament, I believe their opening conflicts with the above-mentioned ACBL regulation. Yep, here it is, right on the GCC under disallowed: "Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP." (I abhor this regulation, but if it's on the books, it should be enforced.) So there's an automatic ruling against the perpetrators, the worst score at all probable for their side. Under L12C2, the NOS gets the best score likely had the infraction not occurred _provided_ that they didn't do themselves in with an egregious error. I'm not going to analyze the hands to see what the scores should be, but there's a reasonable chance they won't balance. One example might be -300 for OS (in 2Hx) and +120 for NOS (in 1NT). As I say, you would have to analyze the hands to figure out the proper scores. If the 1H bid were not illegal per se, then the issue would be damage from the failure to alert. It's a standard misinformation ruling. Basically, you ask whether the NOS could have done better if they had been alerted and also whether the failure to beat 1S was an egregious error. Even if it was, you will adjust the score for the OS. In this case, it's not obvious to me that the damage comes from the failure to alert; it seems more likely to be from the 1H bid itself. If that's so -- and my analysis is very cursory at best -- there would be no score adjustment in a club where the 1H bid is legal. As I said above, there still would be a PP. The actual TD ruling seems bizarre. In effect, he is ruling that the damage is his own (the TD's) fault. Even with that, it seems odd. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 06:33:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:33:53 +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 GAA26457 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:33:43 +1000 Received: from default (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA12080 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:33:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804152033.WAA12080@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:34:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: 7 HCP opener (was: Conventional insufficient ...) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > Vulnerability: E-W > Dealer: N > > S- Q9843 > H- 97 > D- Q4 > C- KQJ7 > > S- A65 S- KJ7 > H- QJ8 H- K42 > D- A632 D- JT9 > C- 854 C- AT62 > > S- T2 > H- AT653 > D- K875 > C- 93 > > West North East South > - P P 1H > P 1S P P > P > > I was East, playing with old friend Joe Marchesi, against two > experienced N-S players. Joe and I were having a great game (we won > the event), hence the conservatism. I'll say. My partner is never going to believe that my hand looked like a 12-14 1NT opener. But those are our not so conservative methods; they should not influence the ruling. And who am I to argue with success. > When Joe saw the dummy, he asked > if the opening was systemic. West, a highly ethical type, said yes, > and they had forgotten to pre-Alert the practice as the TD had > instructed them to do. So we called the TD, and he of course said > play on, we'll see what happens. What happened was that I misdefended > and permitted 1S to make, while it was pretty clear that we could > make some notrumps our way. Joe maintained to the TD that he would > have reopened with 1NT if he had been Alerted or pre-Alerted as to > the light opening possiblity. I might be reluctant to accept that this damage was caused, since it is difficult to see how Joe's hand improves if three of the outstanding points might be moving from S to N. But I will admit that there is a possibility, so let us rule that there was damage. > When the TD returned and ascertained the result, he first muttered > something about how we could have protected ourselves, then took me > aside and spoke as follows: "Marv, I have a tournament director > problem here. I let this pair bid this way in my club, so I don't > want to penalize them. I'm going to give you avg+ and let the result > stand for them." That gave us 7.2 out of 12, and 12 out of 12 for > them. > > Now, if this TD permits systemic 7 HCP openings in his club, he is > permitting something that is not legal in franchised games per ACBL > regulations, which require 8 HCP for natural openings of one in a > suit. I would expect that club to be authorized, as an autonomous SO, to regulate systems differently from the ACBL default, especially if they are allowing more methods. Why should you want to get involved in the regulations enforced at a club where you don't play? Let me accept for the moment that in ACBL events, there is no latitude for distributional evaluation when applying the 8HCP rule, so that it is incontrovertibly against regulations to have agreements to open 1H on the hand shown. To emphasize that point, I assume that a systemic opening of 1H on -, AT9653, QJT87, 43 would also be outlawed. > For this pair to be awarded a cold top, when they have used an > illegal opening that was not pre-Alerted as instructed, is > outrageous. I agree that the ruling is wrong. The opening was made in good faith, since there seems to be an earlier directive from the director that this opening is legal, but requires a pre-alert. Hence the infraction seems to be forgetting a pre-alert. It is a mistake that the adjustment does not take away the perpetrators' good result. But it is impossible to penalize your opponents for playing an illegal method when they have the director's word that it is legal. > However, there is no "Tournament Director Report" to > supplement the Player Report, so how does one bring attention to such > incompetence? In Denmark, the normal recourse is to appeal the ruling. The problem with complaints that don't follow the appeals process is that too few of the parties get to tell their version of the story. Believe me, directors' mistakes stand out clearly when they get documented on an appeals form. In this case, if I were answering the complaint, I would like to have the director's version of his reasoning behind his ruling, and the version he wrote down when filing the appeal would be so much more valuable than the version he remembers when he knows that a complaint has been raised. > What would the correct TD ruling be? Assuming that we find as a fact that the perpetrators did genuinely forget to pre-alert, I would not fine them, just adjust the score. Much as I don't usually advocate it, I would be going for A+/A-, because it really is too difficult to determine what might have happened. But that is just my opinion. That does not make my ruling correct. Without knowing more facts, this ruling is quite difficult. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 07:14:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 07:14:03 +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 HAA26616 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 07:13:53 +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 OAA15132 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804152113.OAA15132@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L12C2 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 14:11:27 -0700 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 David Stevenson wrote: > When awarding an assigned score instead of the score obtained at the > table after an irregularity, it has been argued here that it is illegal > to award an artificial score. In other words, if you think that your > loss of 400 is because your opponents made an illegal call after UI, > then if the Director accepts your case he should award you -150, or +50, > or something like that, and not A+/A-. In fact various authorities > round the world do award A+/A-. > > The ACBL goes a step further. They have a habit of awarding -150 or > A+, whichever is the greater, and other rulings of this type. If the > above is illegal then this is more so ! I thought it was time that > we found out from the ACBL whether they thought these practices were > legal or whether they did them anyway. > > The ACBL have given me permission to post the following official > reply: Who replied? If this reply did not come from the Laws Comission of the ACBL, and I don't mean from the ACBL employee who screens questions directed at that body, then I don't regard it as "official." Or rather, it may be the official policy of the ACBL TD organization, but it is certainly not an authoritative interpretation of L12C2. The TD branch of the ACBL is not "The ACBL," which more properly refers to the Board of Directors or Laws Commission when the subject is one of policy, regulations, or law. The BoD dictates policy and the regulations to implement policy, while the LC is responsible for the Laws. Interpretations of policy and laws by anyone else are opinion only, not substantive, not "official." > > ************************************************************************ > It is ACBL's interpretation that the last sentence of 12 C 2 permits the > director and committee to award an A+ (a specified number of > matchpoints) or to limit an adjustment to no greater than a specified > number of matchpoints (again, A+) and does not require the scores to > balance --- in other words to award a split-score. The last sentence of L12C2 is subordinate to the first sentence, which says that an assigned score must represent "the most favorable result that was likely" for the non-offending side, and "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for the offending side. Avg+ or avg- are very unlikely to meet the criteria for "likely" and "probable," which are different. (one chance in three for the former, one chance in six for the latter, according to the Laws Commission). Suggesting that an artificial score qualifies as a form of legal assigned score is quite a stretch. The last sentence of L12C2 merely means that you can assign a matchpoint score instead of a total-point score if the matchpoint scores are already calculated. For convenience, here is the wording: "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance, and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing." Although L12C2 does not require the scores to balance, and in fact usually requires that they not balance, it is very rare that a TD or AC doesn't assign a balanced result, ignoring the "likely-probable" criteria. Most TDs seem to be under the impression that a non-offender must get at least 60%, and a non-offender at most 40%, of the points on a board. Hence the "+620 or avg+, whichever is better" sort of ruling, even when an assigned score is easy to determine. However, it is entirely in order for a non-offender to get 40% and an offender 60%, if that would be the matchpoint result for a proper assigned score. I recently received a 60% adjusted score when it was quite clear that I would have scored much less than that if the infraction had not occurred (on a nearly flat board). Evidently the provisions of L12C1 in regard to artificial scores, which do mandate the 40-60 ratio for most artficially adjusted scores, are being mistakenly applied to L12C2. RFM! > The Law does not > prohibit a director from waiting until results are known (though this is not > encouraged) before deciding upon a total-point score or a number of > matchpoints (A+); therefore, the phrasing of the adjustment as the > greater of +460 or A+ should be acceptable. > I would think that waiting until results are known could be helpful to a TD in determining the likelihood of various results, and should be encouraged. Players are less likely to be upset with a ruling if the TD can point to other results that confirm his decision. While it is true that TDs sometimes give too much weight to those results (the skill of the players involved must be considered), they can be helpful. If no one in the room finds a squeeze for an overtrick, that may be evidence that an assigned score which assumes the squeeze is not appropriate. If the TD doesn['t feel that he needs that help, he can assign a score based on his opinion or that of his peers. There is no need to resort to an artificial score option. > While ACBL directors are encouraged to adjust a score by assigning a > total-point score whenever reasonably possible, ACBL's interpretation is > that Law 12 C 2 authorizes a split-score. >From what I have seen throughout ACBL-land, TDs prefer *artificial scores* "whenever reasonably possible." Saves time and effort. > > While it may or may not be good judgment (as Edgar used to say about > many director and/or committee decisions), ACBL does consider it legal. Considering something legal does not make it legal. Many consider that asking questions for partner's benefit is legal, but it's not (L73) > > Further this differs from the adjustment in 12 C 3, as each side is > awarded a specific score (-450, A+/A-, or some number of > matchpoints) presumably as the most favorable result likely or the most > unfavorable result at all probable rather than a mixture. Yes, it differs from L12C3, but that does not make it legal. > ********************************************************** > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 11:36:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:36:42 +1000 Received: from d2.ikos.com ([149.172.200.202]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA27340 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:36:34 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA03932; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:35:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199804160135.SAA03932@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Forgot alert => forgot methods? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > Most TDs seem to be under the impression that a non-offender must get > at least 60%, and a non-offender at most 40%, of the points on a board. > Hence the "+620 or avg+, whichever is better" sort of ruling, even when > an assigned score is easy to determine. Perhaps you'll be gratified to hear that in Reno the one assigned-score ruling I was involved in (as the offender) didn't go that way at all. (Apologies to anyone who has already considered this case. Hands omitted--I think they're irrelevant to my question.) An opponent stepped into my weak notrump auction with a weak DONT double. I forgot to alert my pard's forcing pass (oops), leading to 1100 for us (which was matched at one other table). The director assigned a score for a result she considered the worst likely and the worst at all probable--1NTX+3--which was still worth 11 of 12 for us. I think she considered avg-/avg+ and rejected it. She was apparently content from the evidence of the actual auction and defense that we would double the opponents and collect a telephone number wherever they might run. (RHO said she wouldn't have run if she'd known 1NTpass was forcing. Pard's pass shows either a hand willing to let me play 1NT REdoubled, or a runout hand with either spades and diamonds or hearts and clubs.) Any comments on her reasoning that since I forgot to alert the pass, then there was some likelihood that I'd forget to redouble? Someone suggested to me that she was wrong to infer from my failure to alert that I might have forgotten my methods entirely. (Naturally, though, it wasn't worth appealing for a half a matchpoint.) But it seems like the same kind of inference taken in many alert-UI cases. I'd like someone to show the distinction, if there is one. Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 13:30:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:30:08 +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 NAA27619 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:30:01 +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 UAA13817 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804160329.UAA13817@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: L12C2 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:28:00 -0700 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 David Grabiner wrote: ---------- > > I can see a case for A+/A- when there are many possible results. If a > failure to alert fouls up what should be a competitive part-score > auction, allowing N-S to play in 2H uncontested for +110 when they could > be in 3H down one doubled or undoubled for -50 or -100, defending 2S > doubled or undoubled for +100, +50, -530, or -140, or pushing the > opponents to 3S doubled for +300 or +100, then it is certainly probable > that E-W were damaged, but it could be difficult to pick the most > favorable likely alternative. > Difficulty doesn't matter. In the absence of L12C3, you have to pick one. It is not expected that the choice be mathematically precise, only that it be reasonable. A TD would do well to defer this decision to an AC, and if the AC consists of three persons, they vote. If there's a majority vote, that's it. If not, the middle result is assigned. Or, the TD could get a couple of other TDs and use the same procedure. David Stevenson wrote: > > The ACBL goes a step further. They have a habit of awarding -150 or > > A+, whichever is the greater, and other rulings of this type. If the > > above is illegal then this is more so ! and David Grabiner replied: > > This is proper in the specific case in which it is trying to avoid > lowering the non-offenders' score or raising the offenders' score. You don't try to "avoid" anything. You assign the most favorable result that was likely for the non-offenders, and the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for the offenders, and that's it. The non-offenders might get 20%, the offenders 80%. This is not about sin and virtue, which are supposedly punished and rewarded by Another Person. Any procedural penalty (PP) that might be in order, as when someone uses an illegal convention, should be applied after the effects of an assigned score have been incorporated into the results. For instance, you might assign a score that results in the offending side's getting 3 matchpoints out of 12. Then, when the scores are out, you might cross out the 3, replace it with a zero, and subtract 3 from the pair's total matchpoint score. You don't want the PP to affect the score of other pairs. > If N-S use UI to get to 2NT for +150 and an average-plus ruling is > necessary, E-W are entitled to at least the -150 they earned at the > table, which could be better than average-plus if most E-W pairs are > getting doubled too high or most N-S pairs are making the game. > Why would avg+ be necessary? You give N-S the most unfavorable result that was at all probable if the UI had not occurred. E-W are not "entitled" to anything except the most favorable result that was likely if the UI had not occurred. Let's remember that the TD has the right to let the actual result stand for either or both pairs if he believes that it is the most equitable ruling. L12: "The Director may award an adjusted score..." If a pair uses UI to get to a slam that goes down 800, a TD would not adjust the score for either side, although he might impose a PP. > Otherwise, I can't see a Law 12C3 basis for such a score, as it isn't > restoring equity. If *this* E-W pair was headed for -100 without the > UI, they should get the score for -100, whether it is better or worse > than average-plus. > I guess you mean L12C2, since L12C3 is not applicable in ACBL-land. Yes indeed, the non-offending pair should normally be assigned the most favorable result that was likely if the UI had not occurred, not avg+. However, if their bidding or play has been egregiously bad, a TD might let an adverse result stand for them, but that is a separate debate. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 14:44:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:44:34 +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 OAA27768 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:44:28 +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 VAA19098 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804160444.VAA19098@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Insufficient Bid in Reno Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:42:33 -0700 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 I wrote: > > > What would the correct TD ruling be? My inclination (I'm not a TD) > > would be to give the offending side a zero (procedural penalty) and > > the NO side the most favorable result that was likely (+120?), which > > may have been better or worse than avg+. > and Steve Willner commented: > You shouldn't confuse PP's with score adjustment. That's true, they should be applied separately. Adjust the score, matchpoint the results, then apply a PP if that is in order. PPs should not affect the scores of other pairs. > > If the pair have been told to alert this bid and they don't do it, they > should get a PP regardless of score adjustment. The penalty could > range from 1/4 to 1 board, depending on how recently and emphatically > they have been told to alert. I suppose it could even be a mere > warning if they were told some months ago and forgot just this once. > Quite reasonable > At a regional tournament, I believe their opening conflicts with the > above-mentioned ACBL regulation. Yep, here it is, right on the GCC > under disallowed: "Opening one bids which by partnership agreement > could show fewer than 8 HCP." (I abhor this regulation, but if it's on > the books, it should be enforced.) So there's an automatic ruling > against the perpetrators, the worst score at all probable for their > side. > Its illegal in any ACBL-sanctioned event, even a club game. Clubs can allow or disallow any convention they wish, but they cannot allow one-level openings that may be based, per partnership agreement, on less than 8 HCP. It is interesting that the ACBL Board of Directors has elected to bar 1NT openings with less than 8 HCP, even if the partnership agreement is that they show at least 8 HCP, and even if the opening is a psych. I don't know if that was intended, but that's the way the "ELECTIONS BY THE ACBL BOARD OF DIRECTORS" reads in the back of the Laws book. This is not in accordance with the election permitted by L40D. In contrast, the election that applies to one-level openings in a suit uses wording that is in accordance with L40D. > Under L12C2, the NOS gets the best score likely had the infraction > not occurred _provided_ that they didn't do themselves in with an > egregious error. > Right, and we committed no egregious error. > I'm not going to analyze the hands to see what the scores should be, > but there's a reasonable chance they won't balance. One example might > be -300 for OS (in 2Hx) and +120 for NOS (in 1NT). As I say, you would > have to analyze the hands to figure out the proper scores. > Also agreed. > If the 1H bid were not illegal per se, then the issue would be damage > from the failure to alert. It's a standard misinformation ruling. > Basically, you ask whether the NOS could have done better if they had > been alerted and also whether the failure to beat 1S was an egregious > error. Even if it was, you will adjust the score for the OS. Also agreed. > In this > case, it's not obvious to me that the damage comes from the failure to > alert; it seems more likely to be from the 1H bid itself. If that's so > -- and my analysis is very cursory at best -- there would be no score > adjustment in a club where the 1H bid is legal. As I said above, there > still would be a PP. > Moot point, since the bid is illegal at any level. However, Pre-Alerts are required by the ACBL for ultra-light openings (fewer than 11 HCP), and properly so. I would have opened in second seat with my 12 HCP if I had known that the opposition used very weak openings, even legal ones, in third seat. Moreover, my partner would probably have reopened when 1S got passed around, with his 11 HCP. The failure to Pre-Alert did indeed cause damage. Some will say that passing a 4-3-3-3 hand in second seat with 12 HCPs is an egregious error, but I use honor count as a criterion for opening such hands (unless the suit to be opened is a good lead director), and the hand lacked the required 3 honor count. > The actual TD ruling seems bizarre. In effect, he is ruling that the > damage is his own (the TD's) fault. Even with that, it seems odd. > Especially since the opponents were quite ready to accept a penalty, freely admitting that they should have Pre-Alerted as instructed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 15:54:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:54:34 +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 PAA27917 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:54:27 +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 WAA23889; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804160553.WAA23889@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: " CHYAH E BURGHARD" , Cc: Subject: Re: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:52:48 -0700 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 ---------- CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > > There are a couple of ways to make formal > complaints about ACBL directors. They all > start with get the name of the director > and any other director you might talk to. > > If you are at a sectional or regional and > the director in question is not the head > director of the tournament, go to the head > director and voice your complaint. > > If you are at a national, there is always > a director in charge of an event. Speak > to that director first. > > In Reno, it appeared to me that all > directors were handling the complaint > methods very well. If you tell the > director you were not satisfied with > a ruling, they will usually point out > the director you should go talk to with > no hard feelings whatsoever. You will not > be the first person that day to not like > a ruling. > (reasonable e-mail suggestion snipped) This is all very well, but I would prefer that problems with TDs be handled in the same way as problems with players, via a "memo." Stating one's problem orally instead of on paper has many drawbacks. Written complaints can be written and handled whenever time permits; are more accurate, complete, and carefully worded than oral complaints; and provide a permanent record of both the complaint and its resolution, including a record of the deal involved. A "Director Memo" could be used for complaints about a TD's behavior, not just for rulings. As with players, problem TDs would accumulate a dossier that could be used to identify a need for training or disciplinary action. It would also be useful at wage and performance review time. "You want a promotion? Let's look at your dossier." Unlike Player Memos, whose authors get no feedback, a Director Memo could be made out in duplicate, with the copy used as a means of providing the author with an answer to the complaint. Another consideration is that an oral complaint inevitably involves both the TD and the player in a confrontational situation. No one wants to risk making an enemy of a TD. No hard feelings? While I had two occasions in Reno when TDs very graciously returned to admit they were wrong about some Alert rule (I win all those arguments!), there are others who never admit they could be wrong. We can submit a Player Report without the player involved even knowing who the author was. If I am going to nail a TD for something, I would prefer that I not see a vengeful glint in his/her eye the next time he/she is called to my table. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 20:40:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:40:49 +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 UAA28617 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:40:42 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18065 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:40:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3535D31A.EAF1D5BD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:44:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:19:17 +0200 Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > Well, I disagree with David's argument, but only in that I don't > understand at all his point that the two Laws "refer to different > calls" -- L75D2 forbids you to correct partner's mistaken explanation > before the final pass, so I don't see why it's relevant that you're > explaining (before the final pass) a different call. > > However, although I understand Herman's point of view, I think he's > interpreting "indicate in any manner" too inclusively. How can you interpret a word which includes everything as too inclusively. Any = ANY = EVERYTHING > I presume this > phrase in L52D2 was intended to prohibit "hesitation, saying "huh", > laughing, sighing, downright correcting, throwing the cards at > partner", etc., but not to prohibit you from making bids or required > explanations that happen to indicate partner's mistake. > Why would that interpretation carry any more weight than the one in which you read what is said. > OK, I know the Law says "any"; maybe it shouldn't. But suppose I > hold Qxx AKQ AKQJ AKQ and open a strong artificial 2D, misexplained > by partner as a weak two in diamonds; then partner responds 2S, thinking > it's a signoff but systemically promising a spade suit with two of the > top 3 honours. If I rebid 7NT, this "indicates in some manner" that > partner misexplained 2D. Do you think L75D2 forbids me to rebid 7NT, > Herman? > Very good example. Yes, maybe Law75D2 prohibits you from bidding 7NT. So you break a Law. It has been doen before. There is a penalty : UI to partner. Partner is now restricted in his actions by L16. Sometimes the Laws put you in a position that you are forced to break one or the other. Too bad. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 23:04:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:04:16 +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 XAA29062 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:04:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2008733; 16 Apr 98 12:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:46:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 In-Reply-To: <199804151652.MAA28579@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> When awarding an assigned score instead of the score obtained at the >> table after an irregularity, it has been argued here that it is illegal >> to award an artificial score. In other words, if you think that your >> loss of 400 is because your opponents made an illegal call after UI, >> then if the Director accepts your case he should award you -150, or +50, >> or something like that, and not A+/A-. In fact various authorities >> round the world do award A+/A-. > >It often seems to be done when there is no way to determine a reasonable >adjusted score. In this case, it is reasonable (although there is the >Law issue). However, it is also done when there is a way to determine a >reasonable adjusted score but the Director doesn't want to do it, and >this should be strongly discouraged. In fact the EBU/WBU accepts that there are unplayable boards through their psyche, misbid and use of illegal convention regulations. It really is pretty impossible to say how an auction would go which actually started 1S x 2C when the 1S is a psyche and the 2C is a field! However, in nearly every case I have seen on BLML [or RGB, RGBO or OKBD] where an ArtAS has been given there has been an easy AssAS available. I don't mind an ArtAS if an AssAS is impractical but it just does not happen. >For example, in the above situation, suppose that the opponents played >in 3NT with UI rather than in 4S, and it's not clear how the play in 4S >would have gone. The contract can be adjusted to 4S, and if it was >likely that 4S would have either made four or gone down one, then you >should be +50, not A+. Exactly. >I can see a case for A+/A- when there are many possible results. If a >failure to alert fouls up what should be a competitive part-score >auction, allowing N-S to play in 2H uncontested for +110 when they could >be in 3H down one doubled or undoubled for -50 or -100, defending 2S >doubled or undoubled for +100, +50, -530, or -140, or pushing the >opponents to 3S doubled for +300 or +100, then it is certainly probable >that E-W were damaged, but it could be difficult to pick the most >favorable likely alternative. Why? If -530 is at all likely then I pick that. Easy peasy! >> The ACBL goes a step further. They have a habit of awarding -150 or >> A+, whichever is the greater, and other rulings of this type. If the >> above is illegal then this is more so ! > >This is proper in the specific case in which it is trying to avoid >lowering the non-offenders' score or raising the offenders' score. If >N-S use UI to get to 2NT for +150 and an average-plus ruling is >necessary, E-W are entitled to at least the -150 they earned at the >table, which could be better than average-plus if most E-W pairs are >getting doubled too high or most N-S pairs are making the game. This is wrong. The NOs certainly should not get a lower score: if an adjustment leads to this there is no damage, so no adjustment is required. If the NOs get -150 at the table, then the TD works out an adjustment without the infraction. If he works it out as -120 he awards it: if he works it out as -400 then he tells them there is no damage and thus no adjustment. Where does A+ come in to it? You are not suggesting that NOs get A+ or better, I trust? Where is that in the Law book? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 16 23:17:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:17:41 +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 XAA29122 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:17:35 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008732; 16 Apr 98 12:50 GMT Message-ID: <3LSqwSA0nfN1EwSK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:30:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? In-Reply-To: <199804151619.MAA10819@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> Michael Albert wrote: >> >East plays prematurely to a trick, after her partner has led but before >> >dummy has played. She fails to follow suit. Dummy plays a card and before >> >the revoke is established east discovers that she can follow suit after >> >all. May declarer change the card played from dummy? > >> From: David Stevenson >> Not unless the Director can provide a Law number. > >L64C1 looks good to me. L47D might do also. The point is that North's >card was played after East's, and thus North's play is correctable. Had >East played in proper sequence, North's play would not be changeable. > >Even if for some reason you don't let North's play change, you are >always going to restore equity under L72B1. East must not be allowed >to gain from the premature play. It's simpler just to allow North's >card to be changed, and I believe it's correct. > >I agree with David that "correct the revoke, no penalty" would have >done best. Why didn't West ask about a possible revoke as soon as East >played? Surely West knows about East's eyesight problem? > Having read this and other articles in this thread I have become totally confused. However, I believe the answers to be threefold: [1] Steve Willner's second article is in the wrong thread with the wrong title. [2] My understanding of what happened in the case that started this thread is wrong [and thus my answer was wrong], except .... [3] They did not call the Director when an infraction occurred and trouble ensued - what a surprise. Legally, when attention is drawn to an irregularity, you call the Director. In practical terms, an acceptable alternative is to allow the infraction to be corrected without penalty. That may not be legal, and will be anathema to all the BLs who will scream about protecting the field [PtF?], but it shows there *are* human beings playing bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 00:32:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:32:56 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01769 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:32:49 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA09978 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:30:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804161430.JAA09978@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:30:10 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > However, although I understand Herman's point of view, I think he's > > interpreting "indicate in any manner" too inclusively. > > How can you interpret a word which includes everything as too > inclusively. Any = ANY = EVERYTHING Then you must fold your cards and quit the session. Because isn't it possible that _any_ action you perform will wake partner up? And, paradoxically, folding your cards and quitting the session may do it as well. Seriously, isn't it possible that giving your 'incorrect' explanation will itself wake partner up to his own misexplanation? Especially if you then proceed to bid on the basis of your real agreement and not on the basis of the explanation you just gave? I submit that if you interpret this law literally then your action violates it as well. > > I presume this > > phrase in L52D2 was intended to prohibit "hesitation, saying "huh", > > laughing, sighing, downright correcting, throwing the cards at > > partner", etc., but not to prohibit you from making bids or required > > explanations that happen to indicate partner's mistake. > > > > Why would that interpretation carry any more weight than the one in > which you read what is said. Because this interpretation doesn't require us to hold that the Law requires us to break other laws, and yours does. Because this interpretation seems intuitively to rule out the kind of things the lawmakers intended to rule out. And because this is how everyone interpreted the law before this question was brought up. :) > > OK, I know the Law says "any"; maybe it shouldn't. But suppose I > > hold Qxx AKQ AKQJ AKQ and open a strong artificial 2D, misexplained > > by partner as a weak two in diamonds; then partner responds 2S, thinking > > it's a signoff but systemically promising a spade suit with two of the > > top 3 honours. If I rebid 7NT, this "indicates in some manner" that > > partner misexplained 2D. Do you think L75D2 forbids me to rebid 7NT, > > Herman? > > > > Very good example. > > Yes, maybe Law75D2 prohibits you from bidding 7NT. > > So you break a Law. > It has been doen before. Yes, breaking the law is done quite often. It is done accidentally, and it is done deliberately by the unethical. But I think whenever possible we should interpret the laws in such a way than an ethical player will never be forced to deliberately violate any one of them. Perhaps this is the key difference between us. I do not see lawbreaking in bridge in the same way it is seen in [physical] sports--you can break the rule if you're willing to pay the penalty. In bridge, I think an ethical player should never intentionally break any law, even if the penalty for doing so is slight or non-existent. I would be distressed to be placed in a situation where any action I perform breaks a law. > There is a penalty : UI to partner. Partner is now restricted in his > actions by L16. > > Sometimes the Laws put you in a position that you are forced to break > one or the other. Too bad. I disagree with the first sentence, and with the sentiment of the second--I think this would be _very_ bad. Are there other examples of cases where anything one does will violate a law? I certainly do not have the experience of many on this List, so there may indeed be many such cases I am not aware of. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium Sincerely, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 00:34:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:34:01 +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 AAA01802 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:33:54 +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 KAA11929 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA11526; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:34:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:34:14 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804161434.KAA11526@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient Bid in Reno X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" [opening one-bid with <8 HCP] > Its illegal in any ACBL-sanctioned event, even a club game. Clubs can > allow or disallow any convention they wish, but they cannot allow > one-level openings that may be based, per partnership agreement, on > less than 8 HCP. Are you reading from the back of the ACBL lawbook, or do you have another source? If you look carefully, you will find that most of the "Elections by the ACBL BoD" are based on laws where the election is the responsibility of the SO. Thus I take the whole list to apply only where the ACBL is the SO, i.e., tournaments. However, I agree it is ambiguous. The list includes action on L12C3, for example, which is the responsibility of the ZA and cannot be delegated. It is my memory that full L40D authority was specifically delegated to clubs, but perhaps my memory is mistaken. I suppose we could ask if we need an official opinion. I know at least one club that allows forcing pass systems, which would be illegal under your interpretation, but it isn't an ACBL-affiliated club. Still, I'd be shocked if it were the ACBL's intent to ban FP in ACBL clubs that wanted to allow it. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 01:51:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:51:28 +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 BAA02123 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:51:20 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:51:18 +0100 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 QAA29957 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 16:48:55 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School In-Reply-To: <3535D31A.EAF1D5BD@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:47:07 +0100 (BST) 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 Herman De Wael wrote: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > However, although I understand Herman's point of view, I think he's > > interpreting "indicate in any manner" too inclusively. > > How can you interpret a word which includes everything as too > inclusively. Any = ANY = EVERYTHING It was the word "indicate" that I was interpreting, not the word "any". I admit that *when read in isolation*, the obvious interpretation of that passage supports your point of view. However, as you have pointed out, this contradicts another law. When two laws contradict each other, my first reaction is not to think "Oh, the lawmakers decided to force me to be a criminal!", but to think "Oh, maybe I misunderstood one of the laws." In this case, the most obvious way of interpreting the two laws so as not to lead to a contradiction seems to me to be the one that I (and most other contributors) have chosen. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 02:47:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:47:47 +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 CAA02575 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:47:40 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA01008 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:47:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 218.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.218) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000936; Thu Apr 16 11:46:29 1998 Received: by 218.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6935.55310120@218.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:44:01 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6935.55310120@218.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:43:47 -0400 Encoding: 90 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Case one. A player makes an insufficient bid because he misspulls or misspeaks. If he attempts to correct it in time then it may be changed to what he intended. The next player has no right whatever to accept the first call: it was not an insufficient bid: it was a mechanical error changed in time. (C)Agreed. (D) Case two. A player makes an insufficient bid. _Either_ it is the call he intended to make _or_ it is a mechanical error which he did not attempt to correct _or_ it is a mechanical error which he did attempt to correct but not in time [very unlikely]. Then the Director reads out L27, which includes your right to accept the insufficient bid. (C)Agreed (D) If you do not call the Director but accept the bid in Case One then you have certainly been unethical [**]. You have gained from their ignorance, and it should be ruled back under L72B1. (C) This would be true in the case of a true inadvertancy, corrected without pause for thought. I have serious doubts about the self-serving testimony of bidder being accepted as to intent (UGH...director back to reading minds again). I would suggest that allowing a reasonable period of time prior to acting after a bid is placed on the table, during which bidder is expected to look at it and confirm that it is what he intended to bid (two to three seconds perhaps) should be regarded as obviating the defence of inadvertancy. If he hasn't noticed the error by then, a correction should generally not be considered to be without pause for thought unless there are demonstrable, objective extenuating circumstances (he spilled his drink in his lap as he placed the bid on the table; there was an earthquake and part of the ceiling fell down; the air raid siren went off; a showgirl picked that moment to streak between the tables; his opponents began a fist fight OR something less extreme but equally demanding of his attention so that he was overwhelmingly likely to have been distracted from noticing the errant bid). (D) If you do not call the Director in Case Two it may not matter very much. However if there is any doubt about whether it was a correctable mechanical error then again you are denying the oppos their rights, and it is unethical [**]. (C) That is true, though I would say any *reasonable* doubt. (D) [**] If you did not know this was the Law then your actions were improper but not unethical. Incidentally this is meant as an impersonal "you"! (C) English badly needs a true equivalent of the French on. (D) If you call the Director and he rules it as a mechanical error then you had no right to accept the original bid. (C) Unless he grossly misrules. If the Director is a buffoon, incompetent, or bent upon enforcing a bizarre interpretation of the Laws inconsistent with their letter or the intent of their framers, I submit it may be more likely to produce a valid contest to fail to consult him if no unfair advantage is being taken thereby. These cases should be rare exceptions, but then this should be a more perfect world. And I am concerned lest such an action, while perhaps legally and more likely ethically acceptable, send us down a slippery slope into anarchic chaos. Still if I knew some jackass who can't RTFLB to save his life was going to give me a bad and unfavourable ruling, I would be sorely tempted to avoid bringing him into the situation. Appeal of the bad ruling is time consuming, expensive, often not possible at the club level, and not likely to achieve a correct result at the table through bidding and playing the hand. (D) Of course, in the Reno example it appears that the Director misapplied L25A. (C) And from the sound of recent posts here and in rgb, it seems a lot of directors, especially in ACBL territory are doing just that, allowing almost any wrong bid to be retracted as mechanical error on the sole evidence of self-serving bidder's testimony. We need a rule change or clarification that makes it plain that a player is responsible to undertake reasonable care with his use of the bidding box, so that mispulls are corrected VERY promptly, and pause for thought is assumed otherwise in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 03:27:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:27:21 +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 DAA02878 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:27:10 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA21905; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:27:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804161727.NAA05393@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:46:10 +0100) Subject: Re: L12C2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > David Grabiner wrote: >> David Stevenson writes: >>> The ACBL goes a step further. They have a habit of awarding -150 or >>> A+, whichever is the greater, and other rulings of this type. If the >>> above is illegal then this is more so ! >> This is proper in the specific case in which it is trying to avoid >> lowering the non-offenders' score or raising the offenders' score. If >> N-S use UI to get to 2NT for +150 and an average-plus ruling is >> necessary, E-W are entitled to at least the -150 they earned at the >> table, which could be better than average-plus if most E-W pairs are >> getting doubled too high or most N-S pairs are making the game. > This is wrong. The NOs certainly should not get a lower score: if an > adjustment leads to this there is no damage, so no adjustment is > required. > If the NOs get -150 at the table, then the TD works out an > adjustment without the infraction. If he works it out as -120 he awards > it: if he works it out as -400 then he tells them there is no damage and > thus no adjustment. > Where does A+ come in to it? You are not suggesting that NOs get A+ > or better, I trust? Where is that in the Law book? I am suggesting that if the TD awards A+ to the NOs but they earned 70% at the table, they should be allowed to keep their 70% rather than receiving A+, and the Os should take their earned 30% rather than A-. This is a more common situation at IMPs than at matchpoints. If the NOs are -150 at the table and the other table is +400, they should be allowed to keep their six IMPs for their teammates' good bidding rather than having it reduced to three. -- 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 Apr 17 03:40:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:40:20 +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 DAA02910 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:40:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2001910; 16 Apr 98 17:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:02:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors In-Reply-To: <199804160553.WAA23889@proxyb2.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >We can submit a >Player Report without the player involved even knowing who the author >was. I thought one of the basic tenets of natural justice was the right to confront one's accusers. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 04:13:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:13:20 +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 EAA03024 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:13:11 +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 OAA19074 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA11772; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:13:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:13:33 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804161813.OAA11772@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I thought one of the basic tenets of natural justice was the right to > confront one's accusers. Nope. That right comes from English common law. It is not recognized in most of the world. (France and Italy come to mind as two European countries where no such right is recognized as part of criminal law.) Of course many of us believe the tenets of English common law are the same as natural justice, but we aren't a majority. The specific question at issue -- anonymous reports of possible wrongdoing by TD's or players -- comes down to how the reports are used. If they might trigger investigation, that's fine. If they might determine the outcome and lead to serious consequences, that's not so good. Even in countries that recognize the right to confront one's accuser, there is no reason the police cannot accept anonymous tips. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 04:14:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:14:07 +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 EAA03047 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:14:01 +1000 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil by mx3.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 2.90g) id 00000732; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:32:13 -0400 From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 10:32:07 -0400 Message-ID: <000001bd6944$6fdeb1c0$1b0d9e83@hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-reply-to: <3535D31A.EAF1D5BD@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 5:45 AM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School > > > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > [snip] > > OK, I know the Law says "any"; maybe it shouldn't. But suppose I > > hold Qxx AKQ AKQJ AKQ and open a strong artificial 2D, misexplained > > by partner as a weak two in diamonds; then partner responds 2S, thinking > > it's a signoff but systemically promising a spade suit with two of the > > top 3 honours. If I rebid 7NT, this "indicates in some manner" that > > partner misexplained 2D. Do you think L75D2 forbids me to rebid 7NT, > > Herman? > > > > Very good example. > > Yes, maybe Law75D2 prohibits you from bidding 7NT. > > So you break a Law. > It has been doen before. > There is a penalty : UI to partner. Partner is now restricted in his > actions by L16. > > Sometimes the Laws put you in a position that you are forced to break > one or the other. Too bad. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Good grief. I am too amazed to even bother with the appropriate citations. In order to keep his partner in the dark, Herman will commit possibly violate Laws on use of UI, providing misinformation to opponents, committing a deliberate infraction, attempting to conceal an infraction by committing a subsequent infraction. Not to mention the ethical implications of lying to the opponents. Yes, he thinks it's for the opponents own good, and intends to correct the explanations and pay the penalties at a later time. The sheer number of possible violations inherent in deliberately lying about his agreements boggles the mind. That he may deliberately take an action suggested by the UI is beyond belief. I am going to have to run to catch up with the others who have already gone for a walk. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 04:30:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:30:14 +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 EAA03177 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:30:05 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA04959; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:28:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca1-24.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.56) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma004919; Thu Apr 16 13:28:46 1998 Message-ID: <35364DAD.5FED@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:27:57 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix16.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: Player Memos (was: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >We can submit a > >Player Report without the player involved even knowing who the author > >was. > > I thought one of the basic tenets of natural justice was the right to > confront one's accusers. > Marvin's statements about Player Memos were not exactly correct. First, he said that authors receive no feedback after filing PMs, and secondly, he made the statement reproduced above. PMs are forwarded to the appropriate Recorder. At NABCs, we have Recorders who take their jobs seriously: Every PM prompts a discussion with the alleged offenders, and the Recorder reports back to the complaintant (except in a few trivial instances where it was apparent that the complaintant was not seeking feedback). Some District and Unit Recorders also have such established guidelines; others are less regimented in their approach; still other jurisdictions have no Recorder at all. While it is possible that a PM can be filed without the accused knowing the identity of the author, I suspect this occurs only in the jurisdictions where Recorders are either absent or without rigid guidelines. It does not happen at NABC events. Part of the job of a Recorder is to discuss a potentially recurring problem with the perpetrator and attempt to achieve behavior modification without the need for formal proceedings. However, the NABC Recorder found three PMs at Reno of sufficient gravity to cause him to request a C&E hearing about the incident(s). In all of these cases, the accused was entitled to and was given his due process right to hear the evidence first hand, ask questions of the accuser(s), and present evidence on his own behalf. No C&E hearing has ever been held within the ACBL, to my knowledge, which did not afford the accused his right of confrontation. Marvin's proposal about a Director Memo may have some merit. Jon Brissman ACBL NABC Appeals Chair From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 04:45:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:45:11 +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 EAA03218 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:45:04 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12158; 16 Apr 98 11:44 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:13:33 PDT." <199804161813.OAA11772@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:44:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804161144.aa12158@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > From: David Stevenson > > I thought one of the basic tenets of natural justice was the right to > > confront one's accusers. . . . > The specific question at issue -- anonymous reports of possible > wrongdoing by TD's or players -- comes down to how the reports are > used. If they might trigger investigation, that's fine. If they might > determine the outcome and lead to serious consequences, that's not so > good. Even in countries that recognize the right to confront one's > accuser, there is no reason the police cannot accept anonymous tips. Also, if there are a number of accusations against a player from different sources, I think it's OK to take action against the player based on that. If there's just one accusation, it's possible the accuser is lying or was exaggerating out of anger or was p*ssed because they found a clever defense to beat his 3NT. But if there are a fair number of them, the chance that the accused is innocent should be pretty slim; I wouldn't need to question the accusers to come to this conclusion. This reasoning might not be good enough for a criminal court, but we're not talking about throwing someone in prison or taking a chunk of their money---we're talking about a GAME. Just MHO; I'm sure some will disagree. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 04:52:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:52:24 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA03262 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:52:18 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yPtlr-0006st-00; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:52:27 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <23X5CV8V>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:31:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:31:45 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > Even in countries that recognize the right to confront one's > accuser, there is no reason the police cannot accept anonymous tips. > > ####### Police accepting anoymous tips sound very dodgy to me! Do you > by any chance mean tip-offs? ######## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 04:57:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:57:15 +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 EAA03300 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:57:09 +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 LAA08626 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA07304; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:59:51 -0700 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:59:51 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199804161859.LAA07304@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player Memos (was: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon Brissman wrote: |David Stevenson wrote: |> |> Marvin L. French wrote: |> |> >We can submit a |> >Player Report without the player involved even knowing who the author |> >was. |> |> I thought one of the basic tenets of natural justice was the right to |> confront one's accusers. |> | |Marvin's statements about Player Memos were not exactly correct. First, |he said that authors receive no feedback after filing PMs, and secondly, Indeed, usually the director who obtains the PM asks the filer if he wants to be contacted later about it. At least I have had this question asked of me several times. |he made the statement reproduced above. | |PMs are forwarded to the appropriate Recorder. At NABCs, we have |Recorders who take their jobs seriously: Every PM prompts a discussion |with the alleged offenders, and the Recorder reports back to the |complaintant (except in a few trivial instances where it was apparent |that the complaintant was not seeking feedback). Some District and Unit |Recorders also have such established guidelines; others are less |regimented in their approach; still other jurisdictions have no Recorder |at all. While it is possible that a PM can be filed without the accused |knowing the identity of the author, I suspect this occurs only in the |jurisdictions where Recorders are either absent or without rigid |guidelines. It does not happen at NABC events. This isn't quite true. Often, in practice, the recorder or a delegate just asks the player involved about the incident orally. The player may well not see the PM. In fact, I've heard of incidents in which the player reported didn't know that a PM had been filed, so didn't know to ask to see it. I don't know of any such incident at the Reno NABC. |Part of the job of a Recorder is to discuss a potentially recurring |problem with the perpetrator and attempt to achieve behavior |modification without the need for formal proceedings. However, the NABC |Recorder found three PMs at Reno of sufficient gravity to cause him to |request a C&E hearing about the incident(s). In all of these cases, the |accused was entitled to and was given his due process right to hear the |evidence first hand, ask questions of the accuser(s), and present |evidence on his own behalf. No C&E hearing has ever been held within |the ACBL, to my knowledge, which did not afford the accused his right of |confrontation. In the case of the recent Reno NABC, this might not have been fully correct. In one case, the player was somewhat not allowed due process. The story he told me is as follows: He was told there'd be a C&E hearing that evening at 11:30. He was gambling and drunk at the time, about 2-3 hours before the hearing was to start. He didn't think (and wasn't told) to request a different time for the hearing. I think the person serving the papers should have realized that the player wasn't going to be able to consider carefully the issue, being intoxicated, and should have seen to it that the hearing was held no earlier than the next morning. Indeed, the player was so drunk that he was obviously not going to be sober for the hearing. The drunk claims he decided to try to sleep off the alcohol so as to be sober, but evidentally forgot to leave a wakeup call and thus didn't appear at the hearing. He may have just forgotten about the whole thing instead or slept through it; I don't know. I do know he was plastered. While failure to appear at a C&E hearing isn't supposed to affect the result, it in fact does; the accused cannot supply evidence or extenuating circumstances on his behalf, and thus usually gets a more severe punishment. Of course, there are some players who are exceptions to this; their appearance hurts their side. --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 Apr 17 05:34:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:34:04 +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 FAA03360 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:33:58 +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 PAA24025 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11872; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:34:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:34:20 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804161934.PAA11872@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Martin > > ####### Police accepting anoymous tips sound very dodgy to me! Do you > > by any chance mean tip-offs? ######## A difference between UK and US usage, I expect. Here a "tip" is a small piece of information, either anonymous or otherwise. Your "tip" is probably our "spiff" or "gratuity" or maybe "perk" (in the context of police work. "Tip" is what you leave at a restaurant, though. Go figure!) It is seldom anonymous, receiving favors in return being the whole point. Over here, a "tip-off" is what starts a basketball game. Sorry to have been unclear. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 05:43:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:43:20 +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 FAA03407 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:43:12 +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 PAA23616 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:43:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11886; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:43:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:43:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804161943.PAA11886@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player Memos (was: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > | No C&E hearing has ever been held within > |the ACBL, to my knowledge, which did not afford the accused his right of > |confrontation. > > In the case of the recent Reno NABC, this might not have been > fully correct. Another possible example, the story of 'K', was presented in a Bridge World editorial some years ago. Briefly: K was a college student, away for the summer. Someone else signed for the registered letter informing K when the hearing would be held. In spite of these examples, the _intent_ is surely that the accused have the right of confrontation. Procedures to assure this right may, however, occasionally be imperfect. Jeff gives one example. In the case of 'K', the letter should have been sent "deliver to addressee only." As someone else, said, though, it's a game. The people doing the work are mostly volunteers. Overall, I think they do a good job, and I'm grateful for their work. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 06:12:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 06:12:00 +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 GAA03552 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 06:11:51 +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 NAA16871 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA07436; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:14:37 -0700 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:14:37 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199804162014.NAA07436@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player Memos (was: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: |Another possible example, the story of 'K', was presented in a Bridge |World editorial some years ago. Briefly: K was a college student, |away for the summer. Someone else signed for the registered letter |informing K when the hearing would be held. | |In spite of these examples, the _intent_ is surely that the accused |have the right of confrontation. Procedures to assure this right may, |however, occasionally be imperfect. Jeff gives one example. In the |case of 'K', the letter should have been sent "deliver to addressee |only." Fortunately, we learn from our errors. In ACBL District 23, (a) we send the letters certified mail, return receipt, (b) send them regular mail, and (c) call the people. (Actually, this is the procedure, but the last time (a) was good enough. They called us upon receipt.) I think most formal C&E committees do a good job on this, but tournament committees might be somewhat different. Their time frame is much shorter than other bodies'. A unit/district needs to deal with the problem to clean up the game and to deter others from doing bad things. A tournament committee, however, has to fix their tournament RIGHT NOW. I'm sure this was the main reason why the incident in Reno occurred. ...human nature being what it is, the faster something has to get done, the less common sense is applied. For what it's worth, "deliver to addressee only" doesn't work. The mailman is not going to say, "sorry, I can't let you sign for it. This goes to Joe Doakes, only." In fact, we can consider ourselves lucky when a certified letter isn't just left on the doorstep. UPS has left packages insured for real money on my porch, forging the signature. That's why process servers have a profession. |As someone else, said, though, it's a game. The people doing the work |are mostly volunteers. Overall, I think they do a good job, and I'm |grateful for their work. It doesn't feel like a game when we get to C&E, I'm afraid. Try to tell someone who's just been disciplined that it's just a game. --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 Apr 17 07:38:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 07:38:03 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03952 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 07:37:56 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-35.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.35]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA08888; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <353677D2.7A6FC763@idt.net> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:27:46 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Goldsmith CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player Memos (was: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors) References: <199804162014.NAA07436@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As District 23 Recorder, I'd lilke to add something to this conversation. When I receive a player memo, I will usually contact the subject of the memo directly, and I try to make sure that all parties concerned are aware of any communications I might have. I do NOT try to keep the identity of the complainant from the "accused". When I have looked into a matter, I try to let both parties know what my conclusions were. For the most part, people seem to be content when they find out that a record of their complaint will be kept on file, for about five years. I also have to let them know that I have no judicial or punitive power. I can only recommend that bodies like Jeff's C&E committee take a look. We recently had a case where I instituted an investigation without alerting the accused, because it seemed a matter of catching them "in the act." This investigation did in fact uncover pretty conclusive evidence of hand rigging, and the pair has been suspended. This came about, incidentally, because of a pair of player memos that were filed in another district and forwarded to me, since the accused live in District 23. As a radio personality here in Los Angeles likes to say, "I am a mere conduit!" Irv Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > |Another possible example, the story of 'K', was presented in a Bridge > |World editorial some years ago. Briefly: K was a college student, > |away for the summer. Someone else signed for the registered letter > |informing K when the hearing would be held. > | > |In spite of these examples, the _intent_ is surely that the accused > |have the right of confrontation. Procedures to assure this right may, > |however, occasionally be imperfect. Jeff gives one example. In the > |case of 'K', the letter should have been sent "deliver to addressee > |only." > > Fortunately, we learn from our errors. In ACBL District 23, > (a) we send the letters certified mail, return receipt, (b) send > them regular mail, and (c) call the people. (Actually, this is the > procedure, but the last time (a) was good enough. They called us upon > receipt.) > > I think most formal C&E committees do a good job on this, but > tournament committees might be somewhat different. Their time > frame is much shorter than other bodies'. A unit/district needs > to deal with the problem to clean up the game and to deter others > from doing bad things. A tournament committee, however, has to > fix their tournament RIGHT NOW. I'm sure this was the main > reason why the incident in Reno occurred. ...human nature being > what it is, the faster something has to get done, the less > common sense is applied. > > For what it's worth, "deliver to addressee only" doesn't work. > The mailman is not going to say, "sorry, I can't let you sign > for it. This goes to Joe Doakes, only." In fact, we can > consider ourselves lucky when a certified letter isn't just > left on the doorstep. UPS has left packages insured for real > money on my porch, forging the signature. That's why process > servers have a profession. > > |As someone else, said, though, it's a game. The people doing the work > |are mostly volunteers. Overall, I think they do a good job, and I'm > |grateful for their work. > > It doesn't feel like a game when we get to C&E, I'm afraid. > Try to tell someone who's just been disciplined that it's just > a game. > --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 Apr 17 08:21:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:21:45 +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 IAA04072 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:21:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011877; 16 Apr 98 22:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:10:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 In-Reply-To: <199804161727.NAA05393@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >I am suggesting that if the TD awards A+ to the NOs but they earned 70% >at the table, they should be allowed to keep their 70% rather than >receiving A+, and the Os should take their earned 30% rather than A-. The whole point is that we suggest that A+ should not be awarded. Anyway, if all you are saying is that when there is no damage we do not adjust, yes. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 08:52:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:52:23 +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 IAA04250 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:52:16 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:31:43 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:31:12 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? 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 Zone 7 (which, by the way, includes other countries besides New Zealand = and Australia) has lifted the prohibition on asking about a possible = revoke. From what I have heard, Australia wished to adopt the prohibition = as per the laws while New Zealand wished to maintain the lifting of the = prohibition. The New Zealand argument won the day. Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> Steve Willner 16/04/98 5:14:36 >>> > From: John A Kuchenbrod =5Bdefender asking about partner=27s revoke=5D > The Laws as first passed may prohibit this practice, but SO=27s may > elect to allow the practice. The ACBL has done so, and the original > author believes that New Zealand=27s SO allows it as well. This is actually a Zonal option (L61B) with no provision for delegating to NCBO=27s or SO=27s. I=27m not sure what would happen if a SO took a position opposing that of the Zonal Authority. The ACBL, as Zonal Authority, allows defenders to ask. This decision is effective throughout North America, and in theory, no club in the zone can overturn it. Most other ZA=27s prohibit asking, but I have heard that NZ/Australia is an exception. Anybody care to comment on the status there? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 09:09:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 09:09:31 +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 JAA04338 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 09:09:19 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-202.access.net.il [192.116.204.202]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA19967; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:08:58 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3536901E.DA8F4279@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:11:26 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Grant C. Sterling" CC: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players References: <199804131456.JAA17403@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear and Sincere friend 1. Commentaries to the 97 Laws: Sir Grattan Endicott published the commentaries for the 1987 laws , somewhere in the early 90.........I think it was a very helpful book ...and I believe some people will convince him to do that marvelous job again . There are two issues which I would like to beg him : a. to do it as early as possible , i mean not later than Feb - March 99. b. to include some "troubles" discussed here by the distinguished BLML non-cat members !!; where there was a world-wide agreement to print the best interpretation , but when there are some controversies - and the WBF laws' committee didn't want to decide a clear-cut version - publish 2 or 3 ways of interpretation. I don't refer to items which are the SO elections.... I believe that BLML is a good, prolific and wild field to discuss and conclude ( as much as possible) most of those controversies.. 2. Laws' s Booklet/Article for the players : There are two main problems which still keep me opposite to your opinion : 1. Even for the most experienced TDs there are a lot of troubles which they must handle at the table , when an irregularity occurs and especially a chain of them occur during one board. 2. Players like to "explain" (or "teaching the TD a lesson"...) what other TD did , or decided, or explained etc ..(btw: especially when the other TD was of a higher rank ..!!) last evening (or last week or...) in the same position .... ; from my experience I can swear that 85% it was a very different "environment".... The two issues above lead me to think that a detailed booklet "for players" .. will lead to more troubles.... I agree that players should be taught basic mannerism , during their first topics on bridge and told to summon the TD always when she/he even dreamt there was an irregularity... I don't mind if a "manifest" , epistle or a very short guide ( not more than one page) will be provided to the players , but not more. We must remember that the PLAYERS themselves are interested more to play this fanatic game , not reading laws' books or booklets ; they want them only when feel damaged ...and want to see the explanations the way ^they^ wish....... Dany P.S. - Your Excellency , the WBF non-cat Laws' committee secretary , Sir Grattan ..... do you agree ??? Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > Second : The FLB ( Fabulous Laws Book)itself is not a perfect > > result of what the lawmakers attempted to publish .. Bridge is a very > > complex and multi-disciplinary game and the book is the best > > they could give birth at that date. An attempt to publish a book > > for players is worthless , even worse - a confusing redundant paper. > > I strongly disagree with this claim. Just because the FLB is an > imperfect rendering of the intent of the creators, why should that make > any book/chart/pamplet for players redundant? Obviously, any such book is > _by intention_ redundant in one sense--it is intended to explain the laws > and their consequences, not replace them. But it is surely not redundant > in another sense, because the players haven't read the FLB, or perhaps > have read it and don't remember it, or didn't understand it. {I am not, > of course, talking about _all_ players here.} In addition, there are > numerous points where the FLB has been _interpreted_ in certain ways that > might not be obvious on a cursory reading. I think a booklet outlining > the responsibilities of players [reminding them they're supposed to have > CCs at the table so they won't leave coffee rings, etc.] and explaining > various commonly-misapplied laws and common rulings might be very helpful. > In addition, some players feel taken-advantage-of when another > pair [especially a much more experienced pair] calls the director and > receives a favorable ruling on a matter which is not commonly disputed at > rubber bridge or local clubs. Having a readable pamplet available to > explain such ruling might make them feel less taken, and might even allow > them to avoid such problems in advance. > > > What we do in Israel (^trying^ to do is a better wording) is to tell > > players that they should summon the TD every time > > they deem/seem/think/etc./etc. an irregularity occurred . Some clubs > > And certainly that is an admirable thing. But not all TDs give > correct rulings, and many TDs do not give _complete_ rulings {they do not > explain all the consequences of their ruling, or players' ethical > responsibilities, etc.}. And many players 'automatically' correct an > insufficient bid at the next level in the same denomination, etc., without > realizing that this is not always correct [or required]. Telling them to > always call the director first may help with this problem--but a booklet > on player's responsibilities might help, too. > > > Dany > > > > > One comment from a player trying to be ethical who hasn't mastered the > > > rules to the level they are discussed on this list (eg how many PLAYERS > > > know what L43B2C say?). I think there is a need for a simple "Guide o > > > Ethical Playing" which outlines players responsibilities in common > > > situations. > > > > > > Peter Newman > > In addition, I wonder if it might not be a good idea for the Laws > Commission to provide an official gloss to accompany each new edition of > the laws. Such a gloss could include the reasons for any changes in the > Laws, as well as an explanation of how they understand the application of > the laws. It seems to me that such a gloss would be preferable to > either sending out the laws and allowing them to be interpreted quite > differently from region to region, or else requiring repeated questions on > this List of the form "What were you thinking when you decided to do X" > and replies from Grattan [etc.] of the form "Well I consulted my notes and > here's what was being thought". I have no problem with cases where the > WBFLC _intentionally_ allows for varied interpretations of a law, but I > see no positive value in having unintended controversies which could have > easily been prevented with a clear description of the intention of the > lawmakers. > [FWIW, Plato recommends this proceedure for _all_ > lawmaking--accompanying the actual text of the law with a description of > how and why the law was made.] > > Sincerely, > Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 10:52:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:52:19 +1000 Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04687 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:52:13 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb233.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.233]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA20088 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980416205214.006f8ffc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:52:14 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed In-Reply-To: <199804090111.VAA13006@mime4.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:11 PM 4/8/98 -0500, Chyah wrote: >Here is the blurb from the ACBL >Tournament dept in regards to >the subject of "fixed." > >This was in regards to can a club >make people play only unalertable >bids if they get two partnership >understandings wrong in a single session. > >************************************* > >A partnership is required to have an >agreement as to the meaning of their calls >for all reasonably to be expected auctions. Aside from the awkward construction and imprecise meaning of the phrase "all reasonably to be expected auctions", I am most curious where in the Laws this requirement can be either found or inferred. >A partnership is required to have two >identically filled out convention cards that >reflect their agreements (in particular >conventional methods). Any pair found in >violation of this requirement may be >restricted to employing only standard >methods until such a time as they can meet >the requirement. > Of course the requirement for the convention card is an SO matter, but the stated sanction seems contrary to the Laws and, to the best of my limited knowledge, is not documented in any formal way. There is also a question about the antecedent for "this requirement". Is it meant to apply only to the requirement for the CC, or does it also encompass the first sentence of the paragraph? >Additionally, if it is discovered that while >the convention cards may be properly filled >out, the partnership has not discussed >specifics (and thus have no agreement about >the meaning) it would be proper to require >the pair to employ standard methods until >they have the time to reach an agreement. > This is completely unclear. Does it mean that the partnership can be restricted from using ALL "non-standard" methods until they have sorted out their agreements on a particular issue? What if the sequence in question is not conventional, but a simple disagreement over which among several natural variations is to be applied? Does confusion over any possible continuation of a conventional method expose the pair to the above restriction? For example, in an earlier thread, we discussed the possible meanings of a 3D response to Flannery 2D. Based on my own experience, I'd wager that most partnerships using Flannery have no agreement about the 3D response. Can a partnership which flubs this sequence be forbidden from the future use of Flannery, or any other conventions? >Clubs do have the right to restrict/permit >conventional calls at their discretion. >While the same rules should apply to all >contestants, if a Club Director/Manager >determines that a pair is having difficulty >employing a particular method(s), they >certainly have the right to deny that pair >the privilege until they become proficient >with the method(s) involved. > "Certainly???" We are well acquainted with the ACBL's um, deferential attitude toward clubs. But this seems ridiculous even by ACBL standards. That a club manager/director might be granted ACBL authority to run games with policies which directly contravene the Laws is bad enough, although it happens all the time. But to state that a director can not only arbitraily ban perfectly legal methods, but additionally has the authority to decide which pairs are "good enough" to use particular methods is simply outrageous. Nothing new, of course, but still outrageous. >With regards to the specific question, yes a >club/director has the right to require a >pair to change their methods during a >session. > Under which Law? Can a director also forbid a particular pair from bidding no-trump, or leading even spot cards? In the ACBL, apparently so. >While the policy they have announced is >permitted, it would seem that this is rather >harsh and I would suggest allowing the >director to use the aforementioned >guidelines. > Are these statements merely the off-hand opinion of Chyah's contact(s) in Memphis, or do they represent some official (and officially documented) policy? Finally, what, in the end, is the purpose of this policy? Mistakes and forgotten agreeements are simply a part of the game, and the idea that the ACBL or its authorized agents should undertake to prevent them is both silly and contrary to the Laws. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 14:18:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:18:19 +1000 Received: from thor.internauts.ca (thor.internauts.ca [205.236.185.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA05326 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:18:11 +1000 Received: from local.none (dialppp24.internauts.ca [205.236.185.124]) by thor.internauts.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA02463 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980417041636.0069d1fc@internauts.ca> X-Sender: ddobridge@internauts.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:16:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: BOB SCRUTON Subject: Mixed Up Defensive Signals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All, I was asked this question this afternoon. Not knowing the answer, I refered to the Law Book and finding nothing, I looked at the ACBL TECH file given to Tournament Directors. A great deal of data is containrd in that Data Base but I could not find anything addressing the following. Is each member of a partnership allowed to play different defensive carding. i.e. East plays standard and west upside down, east leads 4th best and west 3rd or 5th ? My feeling is that it is not allowed, but where is it written ? Thanks for your help. Bob From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 15:03:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:03:53 +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 PAA05462 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:03:48 +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 WAA04794; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804170502.WAA04794@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "David Stevenson" Cc: Subject: Re: Player Memos (was: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:59:27 -0700 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: Jon C. Brissman > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >We can submit a > > >Player Report without the player involved even knowing who the author > > >was. > > > > I thought one of the basic tenets of natural justice was the right to > > confront one's accusers. > > Not always. In the U. S. we have a very popular "Secret Witness" procedure, in which people who might know something about a crime are urged to call in with their knowledge, with the assurance that their identity will not be revealed. "Accuser" is not really the right word for an informer. > Marvin's statements about Player Memos were not exactly correct. First, > he said that authors receive no feedback after filing PMs, and secondly, > he made the statement reproduced above. > > PMs are forwarded to the appropriate Recorder. At NABCs, we have > Recorders who take their jobs seriously: Every PM prompts a discussion > with the alleged offenders, and the Recorder reports back to the > complaintant (except in a few trivial instances where it was apparent > that the complaintant was not seeking feedback). My statement was exactly correct. You had better talk to Rich Kolker, Recorder for the Reno NABC. When I queried him about a PM I submitted, making sure he received it, he informed me that no feedback was in order. The reason, a valid one I believe, is that the ACBL doesn't want people going around gloating about having "got" someone. One might say okay, feed back only if the "accused" was found to be innocent of any wrongdoing, but that won't work. Why? Because lack of feedback would signal that the "accused" had a problem. With someone like Rich Kolker as Recorder, I don't worry that appropriate action might not be taken. I don't have to hear back, because I know that Rich will do what is right. That's the sort of person we need as Recorder, one we can trust. Now, I put "accused" in quotes for a reason. We are not supposed to accuse anyone of anything in PMs, that would be completely out of line. We merely report what happened, and let any accusing be done by a C&E committee. The form itself uses the neutral words "Express your concern." In my particular case, why would anyone want to "confront" me, when my PM merely reported the bidding at my table, as witnessed by a TD? I'm sure that if a Player Memo did contain an accusation of a sort that the accused might want to rebut by cross-examining the reporter, then "confrontation" would be arranged. Otherwise, nothing is served by turning strangers or acquaintances (or friends!) into enemies. If strange-looking table actions cannot be reported to a Recorder in confidence, the whole Recorder concept might as well be junked. Here are quotes from the ACBL's RECORDER REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES "9.2 The subject, and to a lesser extent, the reporter are entitled to privacy regarding the reported incident subject to the needs of the investigation." "9.4 ....As appropriate, the recorder may investigate further by interviewing witnesses and hold additional meetings with the reporter or the subject." "9.6 ....If a recorder will not be filing a complaint, the subject and reporter should be so informed." When I quoted 9.6 to Rich, he said that this part of the regulation was unworkable in regard to the reporter, or words to that effect. As I understand him, the reason is what I mentioned above. So, it is fairly clear that the reporter's anonymity will be respected unless the investigation requires otherwise. I see nothing wrong with that. >Marvin's proposal about a Director Memo may have some merit. My next proposal will be for an Appeals Committee Member Memo, to report such things as illegal mixing of artificial and assigned adjusted scores. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 15:08:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:08:50 +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 PAA05482 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:08:44 +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 WAA05422 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804170508.WAA05422@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Player Memos (was: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:07:17 -0700 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 Irwin J. Kostal wrote: > As District 23 Recorder, I'd lilke to add something to this > conversation. When I receive a player memo, I will usually contact the > subject of the memo directly, and I try to make sure that all parties > concerned are aware of any communications I might have. I do NOT try to > keep the identity of the complainant from the "accused" Then you are violating ACBL's RECORDER REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES, which says that the reporter is "entitled to privacy regarding the reported incident subject to the needs of the investigation." From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 15:12:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:12:05 +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 PAA05500 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:11:58 +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 WAA06525 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804170511.WAA06525@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Player Memos Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:10:50 -0700 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 Sorry, I inadvertently sent the following without a signature (new e-mail program!) Irwin J. Kostal wrote: > As District 23 Recorder, I'd lilke to add something to this > conversation. When I receive a player memo, I will usually contact the > subject of the memo directly, and I try to make sure that all parties > concerned are aware of any communications I might have. I do NOT try to > keep the identity of the complainant from the "accused" Then you are violating ACBL's RECORDER REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES, which says that the reporter is "entitled to privacy regarding the reported incident subject to the needs of the investigation." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 17:59:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA05869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:59:48 +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 RAA05864 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:59:40 +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 AAA24503; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804170758.AAA24503@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Insufficient Bid in Reno Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:56:23 -0700 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: Steve Willner > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > [opening one-bid with <8 HCP] > > Its illegal in any ACBL-sanctioned event, even a club game. Clubs can > > allow or disallow any convention they wish, but they cannot allow > > one-level openings that may be based, per partnership agreement, on > > less than 8 HCP. > > Are you reading from the back of the ACBL lawbook, or do you have > another source? >From the back of the ACBL's version of the 1997 Laws. >If you look carefully, you will find that most > of the "Elections by the ACBL BoD" are based on laws where the > election is the responsibility of the SO. Thus I take the whole > list to apply only where the ACBL is the SO, i.e., tournaments. I'm not knowledgeable about this SO/ZA nomenclature. Someone please educate me. > However, I agree it is ambiguous. The list includes action on > L12C3, for example, which is the responsibility of the ZA and > cannot be delegated. > > It is my memory that full L40D authority was specifically delegated > to clubs, but perhaps my memory is mistaken. I suppose we could > ask if we need an official opinion. I believe the delegated authority applied only to conventions, not to ultra-light openings. To quote from CLUBS AND CONVENTIONS in the ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" handbook for clubs: "Clubs must allow all conventions listed in the *ACBL Limited Convention Chart* in all events." "All conventions outside of those listed on the *ACBL Limited Convention Chart* may be allowed or disallowed at the discretion of the club's management." and under PROHIBITED BIDS AND PROCEDURES, I see something I hadn't noticed before. Confirming the wording of the Elections, which treats one notrump and one of a suit a little differently, it says, "An opening one bid (in a suit or notrump) which by partnership agreement may contain fewer than 8 high-card points is prohibited. 1NT openers with fewer than 8 HCP are barred." I guess that means you can open one of a suit with 7 HCP if partner will take you for at least 8, but you can't open 1NT with less than 8 HCP under any circumstances, except as a psych. Evidently the ACBL applies the Elections to all games in which masterpoints are awarded. I inquired about this once in regard to a local club's barring of psychs, asking whether club games had to adhere to everything in the Laws. The answer from the ACBL administration was yes, and I presume that applies to the Elections, based on what is writtten in "Duplicate Decisions." > > I know at least one club that allows forcing pass systems, which would > be illegal under your interpretation, but it isn't an ACBL-affiliated > club. Still, I'd be shocked if it were the ACBL's intent to ban FP in > ACBL clubs that wanted to allow it. What interpretation is that? The prohibition against forcing pass systems is stated on the GCC, not in the Elections. Going by the quotes above, any convention can be permitted by a club, which would include forcing pass systems. The GCC, Mid-Chart, and Super Chart do not apply to club games (except, of course, games such as STACs, nationwide events, etc., that involve more than one club). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 19:25:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 19:25:24 +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 TAA06105 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 19:25:19 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ERJ0060OWU3O2@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:25:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA21760; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:24:43 +0200 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:24:43 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Mixed Up Defensive Signals In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19980417041636.0069d1fc@internauts.ca>; from "BOB SCRUTON" at Apr 17, 98 12:16 (midnight) To: ddobridge@internauts.ca (BOB SCRUTON) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ERJ0060PWU3O2@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk snip > I was asked this question this afternoon. Not knowing the answer, I refered > to the Law Book and finding nothing, I looked at the ACBL TECH file given to > Tournament Directors. A great deal of data is containrd in that Data Base > but I could not find anything addressing the following. > > Is each member of a partnership allowed to play different defensive carding. > i.e. East plays standard and west upside down, east leads 4th best and west > 3rd or 5th ? > > My feeling is that it is not allowed, but where is it written ? snip > Bob ----------------------------------------------------------- Hi Bob, See law 40E1 1.Right to Prescribe. The sponsering ....,including requirement that both members of a partners- ship employ the same system. etc. This means also defencing signals, 3rd or 5th best etc. Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 23:20:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:20:35 +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 XAA06700 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:20:24 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-123.uunet.be [194.7.9.123]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA00965 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:20:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3537534F.AE31490E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:04:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > > However, although I understand Herman's point of view, I think he's > > > interpreting "indicate in any manner" too inclusively. > > > > How can you interpret a word which includes everything as too > > inclusively. Any = ANY = EVERYTHING > > It was the word "indicate" that I was interpreting, not the word "any". > > I admit that *when read in isolation*, the obvious interpretation of > that passage supports your point of view. However, as you have pointed > out, this contradicts another law. When two laws contradict each other, > my first reaction is not to think "Oh, the lawmakers decided to force > me to be a criminal!", but to think "Oh, maybe I misunderstood one of > the laws." In this case, the most obvious way of interpreting the two > laws so as not to lead to a contradiction seems to me to be the one that > I (and most other contributors) have chosen. > Very sensible reaction. Thank you Jeremy, at least you take the time to try and understand my reasoning and to argue against it. However, there is a third option. We have often seen that the bridge-laws, despite considerable effort, are not perfect. It just might be (no, it is certain) that the Lawmakers never visualised this occurence, where in a particular situation a player is faced with the dilemma that he must break one Law or the other. So the Lawmakers never intended a player to become a criminal as you put it. So we are still with this dilemma. We should decide upon which law to break, not by reinterpreting one of the laws so that it ends up not being broken (*), but by ranking the laws as to severity. When one law states "may not" and the other "shall" then that at least is one argument for favouring to break L75C in stead of L75D2. (*) don't forget that one might just as well try to reinterpret L75C in order not to conflict with L75D2. Another piece of symmetry - why the one and not the other ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 17 23:43:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:43:37 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.maine.rr.com (ns1.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA06789 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:43:30 +1000 Received: from Goodwin.maine.rr.com (dt032n33.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.51]) by prefetch-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA02628 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 09:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980417093757.0a5f6822@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 09:37:57 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Player Memos In-Reply-To: <199804170511.WAA06525@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am a recorder for a small ACBL unit. When I receive a player memo, it is usually directly from the player who is submitting the memo. In this case, I will discuss the incident with the submitter. If I receive the memo through a director or in the mail, I do not make any attempt to contact the submitter unless I need clarification. (Actually, if the memo was filed by a newer player, I will make it a point to let them know I received it and tell them that some action will be taken.) If asked, I will explain what actions the recorder can take. But, I do not discuss specific actions taken. I do not always contact the alleged offender. If the incident is minor, I am likely to simply file the memo. When I do take action, it is always in writing. In the letter I explain the duties and powers of the recorder and explain why the action taken by the alleged offender was inappropriate. I always offer to discuss the matter further. My feeling is that the duty of a recorder in an ACBL unit is primarily one of education. I believe this approach is more effective that speaking in person. The letter makes the discussion official, yet non-confrontational. Whenever possible, I keep the identity of the person who submitted the memo secret. Of course, this is often impossible, or at least the alleged offender can narrow the possibilities to a few potential filers. I realize my procedures are probably different than what would be appropriate at the National level. But, I do think that two things should remain constant: the filer's identity is not revealed if at all possible, and the filer should not be contacted and told of the resolution of the matter. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 00:28:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 00:28:27 +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 AAA09202 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 00:28:19 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ERK00HBAAVDMW@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:28:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA24063; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:27:49 +0200 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:27:48 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Dummy Revoke. In-reply-to: <352F0DAD.FF8768E8@pinehurst.net>; from "Nancy T Dressing" at Apr 11, 98 2:29 am To: nancy@pinehurst.net (Nancy T Dressing) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ERK00HBBAVDMW@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Help!! At our local club, the director was called after a revoke by the > dummy which had been established. He awarded 1 trick to the opponents. > Several of us have tried to convince this director that the dummy cannot > revoke. I know this is in the Law book tucked away in an unusual > place. My law book is at the club and I would like to able to call this > person and point out the law. Fortunately the ruling did not affect the > standing on the board but all involved would like the answer for next > time. Thanks, Nancy > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Nancy, IMO : -- Dummy can revoke and the revoke can also be established. -- But for these revokes with open cards No penalty are assesed (64B). -- Even then by law 64C and 72B1 there is a possibility to rectify the score. It depends on how it happens etc. Evert. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 01:11:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 01:11:48 +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 BAA09462 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 01:11:29 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:11:33 +0100 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 QAA09776 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:09:26 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School In-Reply-To: <3537534F.AE31490E@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:07:35 +0100 (BST) 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 Herman De Wael wrote: > We have often seen that the bridge-laws, despite considerable effort, > are not perfect. > It just might be (no, it is certain) that the Lawmakers never visualised > this occurence, where in a particular situation a player is faced with > the dilemma that he must break one Law or the other. Granted, the laws are not perfect and may well contain unintentional contradictions, but the situation we're discussing (partner misexplains a bid, and this makes it clear to us that he does not mean by a subsequent bid what our agreements claim) is hardly an exotic one ... I'm sure I've been in that situation a dozen times or more. It therefore seems less reasonable to suppose that it is something that the lawmakers overlooked. > We should decide upon which law to break, not by reinterpreting one of > the laws so that it ends up not being broken (*), but by ranking the > laws as to severity. > > When one law states "may not" and the other "shall" then that at least > is one argument for favouring to break L75C in stead of L75D2. > > (*) don't forget that one might just as well try to reinterpret L75C in > order not to conflict with L75D2. Another piece of symmetry - why the > one and not the other ? The symmetry is broken because I can't think of any remotely reasonable such way of interpreting L75C. On the other hand, it seems reasonable (to me, anyway) to interpret the word "indicate" in L75D2 as meaning something like "explicitly point out", and therefore not forbidding subsequent bids, explanations, etc. from which partner might be able to work out that his own explanation was wrong. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 02:11:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 02:11:07 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10093 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 02:11:00 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06690 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:08:22 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804171608.LAA06690@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:08:22 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies to anyone who receives multiple copies of this message--my mailer is acting up. > We have often seen that the bridge-laws, despite considerable effort, > are not perfect. > It just might be (no, it is certain) that the Lawmakers never visualised > this occurence, where in a particular situation a player is faced with > the dilemma that he must break one Law or the other. > > So the Lawmakers never intended a player to become a criminal as you put > it. > > So we are still with this dilemma. > > We should decide upon which law to break, not by reinterpreting one of > the laws so that it ends up not being broken (*), but by ranking the > laws as to severity. But what many of us are claiming is that we are not _re_ interpeting the law at all. We originally, before this case was ever discussed, interpreted the law to mean that we should not correct partner's misexplanation during the auction in the ways indicated [gestures, expressions, verbal corrections, etc.] We _never_ interpreted it to mean that we were barred from making [otherwise] legal calls, explanations, alerts, reviews, etc. So this is not a case where everyone used to interpret a law one way, saw a possible problem, and then tried to change their interpretation. It is a case where the natural [at least as measured by the number of people currently taking walks] interpretation of the law leads to no difficulty at all, and only a certain literal reading causes problems. I would reverse your statement--why should we reinterpret a law in such a way that it will force us to break other laws? I do agree with you that the law as written is quite important. I do not agree with you that the law is unambiguous. If it is ambiguous, I prefer the interpretation which is miost natural, was probably the intent of the lawmakers, and causes the fewest problems. > When one law states "may not" and the other "shall" then that at least > is one argument for favouring to break L75C in stead of L75D2. True. If I thought the laws were in conflict, I would think L75D2 took precedence. > (*) don't forget that one might just as well try to reinterpret L75C in > order not to conflict with L75D2. Another piece of symmetry - why the > one and not the other ? Because the one was never interpreted your way in the first place. And because your interpretation of L75D2 doesn't _just_ cause it to conflict with L75C, it _also_ causes potential conflict with many other proceedures--alerting proceedures, the ability to make legal calls, and L20 among others. Simply reinterpreting L75C won't fix the problem. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium Sincerely, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 04:34:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:34:54 +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 EAA10755 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:34:46 +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 LAA09816 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804171834.LAA09816@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:33:10 -0700 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 MIke Dennis wrote; ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed > Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 5:52 PM > > At 09:11 PM 4/8/98 -0500, Chyah wrote: > >Here is the blurb from the ACBL > >Tournament dept in regards to > >the subject of "fixed." > > > >This was in regards to can a club > >make people play only unalertable > >bids if they get two partnership > >understandings wrong in a single session. > > > >************************************* > > > >A partnership is required to have an > >agreement as to the meaning of their calls > >for all reasonably to be expected auctions. > > Aside from the awkward construction and imprecise meaning of the phrase > "all reasonably to be expected auctions", I am most curious where in the > Laws this requirement can be either found or inferred. > My inference is that L40D, which allows an SO to "regulate the use of bidding or play conventions, permits this sort of regulation in regard to conventions (only). However, I cannot find this regulation printed anywhere, so I doubt that it exists in any official (i.e., BoD-approved) form. Sounds like a Bobby Wolff dictum. > >A partnership is required to have two > >identically filled out convention cards that > >reflect their agreements (in particular > >conventional methods). Any pair found in > >violation of this requirement may be > >restricted to employing only standard > >methods until such a time as they can meet > >the requirement. > > > Of course the requirement for the convention card is an SO matter, but the > stated sanction seems contrary to the Laws and, to the best of my limited > knowledge, is not documented in any formal way. There is also a question > about the antecedent for "this requirement". Is it meant to apply only to > the requirement for the CC, or does it also encompass the first sentence of > the paragraph? > > >Additionally, if it is discovered that while > >the convention cards may be properly filled > >out, the partnership has not discussed > >specifics (and thus have no agreement about > >the meaning) it would be proper to require > >the pair to employ standard methods until > >they have the time to reach an agreement. > > > > This is completely unclear. Does it mean that the partnership can be > restricted from using ALL "non-standard" methods until they have sorted out > their agreements on a particular issue? What if the sequence in question is > not conventional, but a simple disagreement over which among several > natural variations is to be applied? Does confusion over any possible > continuation of a conventional method expose the pair to the above > restriction? For example, in an earlier thread, we discussed the possible > meanings of a 3D response to Flannery 2D. Based on my own experience, I'd > wager that most partnerships using Flannery have no agreement about the 3D > response. Can a partnership which flubs this sequence be forbidden from the > future use of Flannery, or any other conventions? The actual regulation (Item 2 under "Convention Card" in ACBL Convention Regulations) is as follows: "If a director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play conventions listed on the ACBL Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. This restriction may only be lifted at the beginning of a subsequent round after convention cards have been properly prepared and approved by the director. Further the partnership will receive a 1/6 board match point penalty for each board played, commencing with the next round and continuing until the restriction is lifted. In IMP Team Games penalties shall be at the discretion of the director." Let's all quote the actual regulations instead of reciting our impression of what they are. > > >Clubs do have the right to restrict/permit > >conventional calls at their discretion. > >While the same rules should apply to all > >contestants, if a Club Director/Manager > >determines that a pair is having difficulty > >employing a particular method(s), they > >certainly have the right to deny that pair > >the privilege until they become proficient > >with the method(s) involved. > > > "Certainly???" We are well acquainted with the ACBL's um, deferential > attitude toward clubs. But this seems ridiculous even by ACBL standards. > That a club manager/director might be granted ACBL authority to run games > with policies which directly contravene the Laws is bad enough, although it > happens all the time. But to state that a director can not only arbitraily > ban perfectly legal methods, but additionally has the authority to decide > which pairs are "good enough" to use particular methods is simply > outrageous. Nothing new, of course, but still outrageous. > The ACBL does not permit club games that directly contravene the Laws, according to an e-mail I received from the ACBL when I asked about this. Club owners might argue that L40D gives them the right to control conventions in this manner. > >With regards to the specific question, yes a > >club/director has the right to require a > >pair to change their methods during a > >session. > > > Under which Law? Can a director also forbid a particular pair from bidding > no-trump, or leading even spot cards? In the ACBL, apparently so. Even if L40D is interpreted as permitting this sort of control over conventions (which include play conventions), a club director has no basis in law or regulation for controlling other calls. > > >While the policy they have announced is > >permitted, it would seem that this is rather > >harsh and I would suggest allowing the > >director to use the aforementioned > >guidelines. > > > Are these statements merely the off-hand opinion of Chyah's contact(s) in > Memphis, or do they represent some official (and officially documented) > policy? Finally, what, in the end, is the purpose of this policy? Mistakes > and forgotten agreeements are simply a part of the game, and the idea that > the ACBL or its authorized agents should undertake to prevent them is both > silly and contrary to the Laws. > My opinion also, FWIW, at least at the club level, where mistakes are expected. Doing away with Stratified games might reduce the need for such policies. Chyah should cite regulations by document and page number, so we can check what she writes more easily. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 04:38:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:38:51 +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 EAA10776 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:38:40 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA299978329; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:38:49 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA274488327; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:38:47 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:38:29 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Re: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Wrote : 2. Laws' s Booklet/Article for the players : There are two main problems which still keep me opposite to your opinion= =20 1. Even for the most experienced TDs there are a lot of troubles which they must handle at the table , when an irregularity occurs and especially a chain of them occur during one board. 2. Players like to "= explain " (or " teaching the TD a lesson "...) what other TD did , or decided, or explained etc ..(btw: especially when the other TD was of a higher rank ..!!) last evening (or last week or...) in the same position= =2E... ; from my experience I can swear that 85% it was a very differe= nt " environment ".... The two issues above lead me to think that a detailed booklet " for players " .. will lead to more troubles.... I agree that players should be taught basic mannerism , during their first topics on bridge and told to summon the TD always when she/he even= dreamt there was an irregularity... I don't mind if a " manifest " , epistle or a very short guide ( not more than one page) will be provided= to the players , but not more. We must remember that the PLAYERS themselves are interested more to play this fanatic game , not reading laws' books or booklets ; they want them only when feel damaged ...and want to see the explanations the way ^they^ wish....... Dany I am director for less than 5 years, but my short experience brings me to an other position. My wife an I try to sell the idea in our bridge community that every player must know not only etiquette and mannerism, but basic Laws to play this game. They dont have to know how to solve problems (they just have to call the TD), but must know when there is a violation of Laws (most frequent cases like bid out of turn, insufficient bid, lead out of turn, exposed card and lead penalities, revoke and claim). We teach basic laws and etiquette in our school of bridge (serie of 5 lessons, half an hour of theory followed by 2 hours of bridge). I published a book illustrating chapters 4, 5 and 6 of Laws by flow charts and we distribute some of these charts in our clubs. I also write articles on Laws in a local bridge magazine, trying always to= think as a player instead of a director. Players knowing nothing about Laws will often be spoliate by more experienced players. As an example, when such a defender expose a card he will tell to declarer " no problem, I just have to play it at the first legal occasion ", and " forget " to talk about lead penalities. Beginning players will be shy to call the director againts old timers. Not if they remember something about lead penalities. I know what you mean by " detailed booklet for players will lead to more= troubles ". Some players think, after reading my books or other material= on laws that they can use this information to their advantage and try to= find something wrong in our decisions. I often have to explain that ruling is like bridge. At the beginning, it seems quite simple, but there is a lot of exceptions, circonstances and other elements. I try to= be patient and explain, but it is not always easy to remain cool on the fire of the action. Nevertheless, as time goes on, I think we took the good approach. Players in our clubs know more and more about Laws ans become more and more confident that the game is equitable for all players. We dont have more but less troubles than 5 years ago. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 05:10:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:10:01 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10905 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:09:55 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA17842; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:09:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.217) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017818; Fri Apr 17 14:08:51 1998 Received: by 217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6A12.BF640280@217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:08:58 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6A12.BF640280@217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:08:51 -0400 Encoding: 76 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's one. Taking any disciplinary action against a member without giving him a fair chance to defend himself is not only repugnant and indecent, it is an open invitation to a lawsuit. It is possible to be disliked and innocent. If anonymous complaints were to be the sole justification for punitive action, a single sorehead/psycho could "get even" with a perceived enemy by just filing a number of them. I am pleased that this does NOT seem to be the actual procedure, and that C&E matters do involve a more quasi-judicial forum including the right of confrontation of accuser and witnesses and testimony for the defence. By the way, Steve, it seems to me that such rights are not just found in English common law but are also embedded in the U.S. Constitution...possibly the fourth amendment? Save for Louisiana, where the Napoleonic Code may take precedence in some matters, I believe that English common law is the basis of most state law in the U.S. as well. If you aren't willing to put your name on it and stand behind it, you should avoid any criticism of another's conduct...and that doesn't apply just to bridge. I realise the thread relates to complaints about Directors. I would accept a procedure whereby such complaints could be made anonymously, provided they relate to the person's conduct of his job as paid for (indirectly) by the player through his entry fee. The criticism of a "hireling" like that of a public figure does allow for some relaxation of the standards for criticism as borne out by the law on libel and slander. Thus I may say the President is a political imbecile or tell a restaurant your waiter did a poor job with more freedom than I might attack my neighbour's honesty. Still I would attach much less weight to such gutless criticisms as do cloak themselves in anonymity. The threat of reprisal by a TD should be an empty one. Questionable action against a publicly known accuser would, I suspect, be more compel ling evidence of bias and/or misconduct to the TD's employer than most of the initial complaints might have been. Thus only a fool would attempt such reprisals. (He may of course not become your best friend.) ---------- From: Adam Beneschan[SMTP:adam@flash.irvine.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 2:44 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors > > From: David Stevenson > > I thought one of the basic tenets of natural justice was the right to > > confront one's accusers. . . . > The specific question at issue -- anonymous reports of possible > wrongdoing by TD's or players -- comes down to how the reports are > used. If they might trigger investigation, that's fine. If they might > determine the outcome and lead to serious consequences, that's not so > good. Even in countries that recognize the right to confront one's > accuser, there is no reason the police cannot accept anonymous tips. Also, if there are a number of accusations against a player from different sources, I think it's OK to take action against the player based on that. If there's just one accusation, it's possible the accuser is lying or was exaggerating out of anger or was p*ssed because they found a clever defense to beat his 3NT. But if there are a fair number of them, the chance that the accused is innocent should be pretty slim; I wouldn't need to question the accusers to come to this conclusion. This reasoning might not be good enough for a criminal court, but we're not talking about throwing someone in prison or taking a chunk of their money---we're talking about a GAME. Just MHO; I'm sure some will disagree. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 05:39:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:39:04 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10982 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:38:58 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA14654 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:38:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.217) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014628; Fri Apr 17 14:38:11 1998 Received: by 217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6A16.DAF117A0@217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:38:23 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6A16.DAF117A0@217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:38:21 -0400 Encoding: 23 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Probably by reducing the table count so greatly that half of the clubs close their doors. Whether you like Stratified games as an alternative to open pairs (or whether you would rather see a return to BOM instead of Swiss) or not, they have been VERY effective in getting more people to play. They are needed. Of course those 2 1/2 table games once a month in the surviving clubs might have less "mistakes" Craig (snip)(earlier post by another author) ...Mistakes > and forgotten agreeements are simply a part of the game, and the idea that > the ACBL or its authorized agents should undertake to prevent them is both > silly and contrary to the Laws. > (Marv)My opinion also, FWIW, at least at the club level, where mistakes are expected. Doing away with Stratified games might reduce the need for such policies. Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 05:41:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:41:05 +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 FAA11003 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:40:59 +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 MAA10782 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id MAA09056; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:43:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:43:42 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199804171943.MAA09056@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: | Taking any disciplinary action against a member without giving him a |fair chance to defend himself is not only repugnant and indecent, it is an That's not what's at issue. To have a player memo filed against one is not the same as to have disciplinary action taken against one. In order for disciplinary action to occur, one of two things must happen: (1) a director punishes a player on the spot, or (2) a committee meets, using due process, protecting the player's rights, etc. I have seen or heard of a few cases in which players' rights were compromised, but these all failed to follow proper procedure. The system as it is, assuming no axes are being ground or errors made, reasonably protects players' rights. |open invitation to a lawsuit. It is possible to be disliked and innocent. |If anonymous complaints were to be the sole justification for punitive |action, a single sorehead/psycho could "get even" with a perceived enemy by Player memos are not anonymous. If they are used in C&E, the players who wrote them are clearly identified. Should a C&E committee hear a case in which every single one of the PMs was submitted by a single person, they'd realize this and take it into account. |just filing a number of them. I am pleased that this does NOT seem to be |the actual procedure, and that C&E matters do involve a more quasi-judicial |forum including the right of confrontation of accuser and witnesses and |testimony for the defence. Yes and no. Writers of PMs do not need to testify before a C&E committee when their "evidence" is used. They may be requested to appear, but subpeonas are not part of the bridge judiciary as far as I know, so they need not appear. In cases of "a compendium of evidence," in general they do not appear. | If you aren't willing to put your name on it and stand behind it, you |should avoid any criticism of another's conduct...and that doesn't apply |just to bridge. That's not so clear *particularly* with respect to bridge. The problem with requiring someone to "stand behind" a player memo is that this may discourage a player from writing one. That person might spread innuendo instead. This is to be discouraged; the PM system does so to some extent. It is not only the accumulation of evidence against wrong-doers that is needed and performed by the PM system, but also the allowing of a player to vent steam or suspicion in a socially acceptable way. | I realise the thread relates to complaints about Directors. I would |accept a procedure whereby such complaints could be made anonymously, |provided they relate to the person's conduct of his job as paid for |(indirectly) by the player through his entry fee. The criticism of a |"hireling" like that of a public figure does allow for some relaxation of |the standards for criticism as borne out by the law on libel and slander. |Thus I may say the President is a political imbecile or tell a restaurant |your waiter did a poor job with more freedom than I might attack my |neighbour's honesty. Still I would attach much less weight to such gutless |criticisms as do cloak themselves in anonymity. I don't know if PMs may be submitted anonymously. I've never seen one that wasn't signed. I'll guess that "DMs" won't be, should they ever exist. The reason for that is not one of protection, but of obtaining more information should it be needed. Let's say a DM alleges that a director was drunk at 1PM when he was working an event. Should said director dispute that claim, it'd be helpful if the writer could be reached to explain why he believed the director was drunk. | The threat of reprisal by a TD should be an empty one. Questionable The fear of reprisal by a TD exists. That's sufficient to prevent many players, particularly professionals, whose livelihood depends on their performance, from ever submitting a DM if they knew that their name would get back to the TD. Note that even though a DM is signed, it's not clear that the name of the author need to be given to the target. Should the DM be used in a formal hearing, or as evidence used for a private sanction, then it seems to me only fair that the author's name is made available then. |action against a publicly known accuser would, I suspect, be more compel |ling evidence of bias and/or misconduct to the TD's employer than most of |the initial complaints might have been. Thus only a fool would attempt such |reprisals. (He may of course not become your best friend.) It's impossible to prove that Mr. Director gave a biased ruling, rather than just erred. Or why didn't Mr. Player get a seed that day? "Oh, I thought you were playing with Mr. Chair. Sorry." No, to claim that no director, particularly one in danger of losing his job, would fail to take action against his accusors is not only likely to be inaccurate, but more importantly, would be perceived as incorrect, which is sufficient to prevent players from using the system. --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 Apr 18 05:43:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:43:27 +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 FAA11023 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:43:16 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa24068; 17 Apr 98 12:42 PDT To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:08:51 PDT." <01BD6A12.BF640280@217.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:42:44 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804171242.aa24068@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Here's one. > > Taking any disciplinary action against a member without giving him a > fair chance to defend himself is not only repugnant and indecent, it is an > open invitation to a lawsuit. It is possible to be disliked and innocent. > If anonymous complaints were to be the sole justification for punitive > action, a single sorehead/psycho could "get even" with a perceived enemy by > just filing a number of them. I am pleased that this does NOT seem to be > the actual procedure, and that C&E matters do involve a more quasi-judicial > forum including the right of confrontation of accuser and witnesses and > testimony for the defence. My fault for not being clear. When I said: But if there are a fair number of [accusations], the chance that the accused is innocent should be pretty slim; I didn't mean a fair number of accusations coming from one sorehead. I was thinking of a number of accusations from different people. BTW, if someone is disliked enough that a lot of different people are filing recorder forms, then I don't have a problem kicking that guy out even if there's not enough evidence to convict him of the specific accusations being made. It's pretty clear that the guy is interfering with peoples' enjoyment of the game in any case. The U.S. Constitution, which you mentioned in the part of your post I deleted, also guarantees "freedom of association." The ACBL is a club, not a governmental body, even if it has a tendency to act as stupidly bureaucratic as the government sometimes. So while a governmental agency may be required to provide its services to everyone and may have to provide an airtight case against a person, according to the usual legal rules, to deny those services, there's no reason the ACBL has to. Freedom of association means (as I interpret it) that if they don't want someone in their club, they don't have to accept them, and they don't have to put together a case against them that's as good as the kind of case you'd need to convict someone of a criminal offense. Or, to put it another way: a lot of business establishments say, "We refuse the right to reserve service to anyone"; doesn't the ACBL have the same right? If the ACBL wants to apply the same standards for kicking someone out as the judicial system does for putting someone in prison, that's fine, but I don't see any reason its standards *have* to be that high, morally or legally. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 07:04:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 07:04:47 +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 HAA11278 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 07:04:41 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA23670 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12551; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:05:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:05:06 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804172105.RAA12551@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior > By the way, Steve, it seems to me that such rights are not just found > in English common law but are also embedded in the U.S. > Constitution...possibly the fourth amendment? The US Constitution is based on English common law, as are the equivalent documents and practices in most English-speaking countries. (Some, notably the UK itself, have no written constitution, hence the reference to practices as well as documents.) The point is that many countries that we think of as "free" do not accept some of the doctrines that come from English common law. Among these are limitations on search and seizure, protection against self-incrimination (where the UK has recently backtracked), confrontation of accuser, right to grand jury, and presumption of innocence. Many Americans, at least, expect these rights to prevail everywhere, or at least everywhere we think of as "free." This idea is wrong. > Save for Louisiana, where the > Napoleonic Code may take precedence in some matters, I believe that English > common law is the basis of most state law in the U.S. as well. English common law is the basis in 49 states, the exception being Louisiana, as stated. The principal rights guaranteed by the US Constitution apply in all states because of the "incorporation doctrine" under the fourteenth amendment. > If you aren't willing to put your name on it and stand behind it, you > should avoid any criticism of another's conduct...and that doesn't apply > just to bridge. In general, I prefer this approach. However, there may be circumstances that require anonymous complaints. The key point is that authorities should not act against anyone on the basis of anonymous complaints, but they may initiate further investigation. In general, I don't think American bridge has problems with its procedures for disciplinary action, at least against players. There do seem to be some "quality control" problems relating to directors. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 19:43:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 19:43:41 +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 TAA12625 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 19:43:33 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-17.uunet.be [194.7.13.17]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02669 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:43:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <353872CD.EAD0885D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:30:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > > > (*) don't forget that one might just as well try to reinterpret L75C in > > order not to conflict with L75D2. Another piece of symmetry - why the > > one and not the other ? > > The symmetry is broken because I can't think of any remotely reasonable > such way of interpreting L75C. On the other hand, it seems reasonable > (to me, anyway) to interpret the word "indicate" in L75D2 as meaning > something like "explicitly point out", and therefore not forbidding > subsequent bids, explanations, etc. from which partner might be able to > work out that his own explanation was wrong. > I do not want to reinterpret L75C, but when you say that you cannot do it, I shall try nevertheless : "When explaining the significance of partner's call ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from general knowledge and experience." I interpret this as : I must tell the opponents the "significance of partner's call, which is what my partner intends with his bid of 4NT. My experience with partner says that 4NT is asking for aces unless he knows this already. Since he doesn't, he is asking for aces. I disclose that partner wants to know how many aces I have. I realise that this is not the general accepted interpretation of L75C, nor is it my interpretation, but as I said, if you want to reinterpret a law so that it does not conflict with another one (in a specific and rare situation), then there is no need to choose one Law over the other simply because the reinterpretation might be easier to comprehend. In stead one should choose which Law is the strongest in that particular case and break the other one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 18 19:43:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 19:43:42 +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 TAA12626 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 19:43:35 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-17.uunet.be [194.7.13.17]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02673 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:43:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35387526.941C51D9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:40:54 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804171608.LAA06690@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > Apologies to anyone who receives multiple copies of this > message--my mailer is acting up. > > > > > We should decide upon which law to break, not by reinterpreting one of > > the laws so that it ends up not being broken (*), but by ranking the > > laws as to severity. > > But what many of us are claiming is that we are not _re_ > interpeting the law at all. We originally, before this case was ever > discussed, interpreted the law to mean that we should not correct > partner's misexplanation during the auction in the ways indicated > [gestures, expressions, verbal corrections, etc.] We _never_ interpreted > it to mean that we were barred from making [otherwise] legal calls, > explanations, alerts, reviews, etc. > So this is not a case where everyone used to interpret a law one > way, saw a possible problem, and then tried to change their > interpretation. It is a case where the natural [at least as measured by > the number of people currently taking walks] interpretation of the law > leads to no difficulty at all, and only a certain literal reading causes > problems. I would reverse your statement--why should we reinterpret a law > in such a way that it will force us to break other laws? > I do agree with you that the law as written is quite important. I > do not agree with you that the law is unambiguous. If it is ambiguous, I > prefer the interpretation which is miost natural, was probably the intent > of the lawmakers, and causes the fewest problems. > The fact that nobody noticed my interpretation of L75D2 (which is only relevant in a particular situation which almost never arises - even 10 years ago when it happened they did not ask me for the meaning of 4NT) does not mean that the general, natural, whatever you call it, interpretation is the correct one ! I do not use the prefix re- in reinterpreting as meaning : interpreting it now as supposed to before. I have used the re- as meaning : when we interpret it in its logical (to me) sense, and we find that it then conflicts, THEN we REinterpret to get out of the problem. I also seem to feel that none of you are really reinterpreting. Before you thought of the consequences, how many of you would have included the next explanation WITHIN the concept of "indicate in ANY manner". Only when you read my consequence, and you say : "he's deliberately lying to opponents", do you begin stating, "hey, in that case, ANY shall not include explanations, bids and what have you". The road of reinterpreting one Law or another in order to have them not conflicting is simply not the correct one. Face it guys : the Laws are not perfect ! > > When one law states "may not" and the other "shall" then that at least > > is one argument for favouring to break L75C in stead of L75D2. > > True. If I thought the laws were in conflict, I would think L75D2 > took precedence. > Thank you ! > > (*) don't forget that one might just as well try to reinterpret L75C in > > order not to conflict with L75D2. Another piece of symmetry - why the > > one and not the other ? > > Because the one was never interpreted your way in the first place. So it was always misinterpreted ! > And because your interpretation of L75D2 doesn't _just_ cause it to > conflict with L75C, it _also_ causes potential conflict with many other > proceedures--alerting proceedures, the ability to make legal calls, and > L20 among others. Simply reinterpreting L75C won't fix the problem. > As I also stated in a reply to Jeremy's post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 09:22:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:22:05 +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 JAA23401 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:21:59 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:22:59 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:22:49 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? 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 For Herman and others I confused, In Zone 7 you can ask about a possible revoke. I also received a private response from Steve Willner which said >Thanks for clearing up the Zone 7 rule on asking about revokes. A reminder to us all, I think, that what may be clear to some may not be = clear to others in this international forum. Hoping I haven=27t branched = too far off the original subject... Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> Herman De Wael 17/04/98 23:15:53 >>> Simon Edler wrote: >=20 > Zone 7 (which, by the way, includes other countries besides New Zealand = and Australia) has lifted the prohibition on asking about a possible = revoke. From what I have heard, Australia wished to adopt the prohibition = as per the laws while New Zealand wished to maintain the lifting of the = prohibition. The New Zealand argument won the day. >=20 > Simon Edler, > Forestry Tasmania >=20 Sorry Simon, I can=27t see the wood through your trees of double negatives :-) Spell it out : can you ask in zone 7 ? --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html=20 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 11:22:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:22:39 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (root@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23568 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:22:33 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA05153; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 16:28:40 -0800 Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 16:28:40 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mixed Up Defensive Signals In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980417041636.0069d1fc@internauts.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, BOB SCRUTON wrote: > Hi All, > > I was asked this question this afternoon. Not knowing the answer, I refered > to the Law Book and finding nothing, I looked at the ACBL TECH file given to > Tournament Directors. A great deal of data is containrd in that Data Base > but I could not find anything addressing the following. > > Is each member of a partnership allowed to play different defensive carding. > i.e. East plays standard and west upside down, east leads 4th best and west > 3rd or 5th ? > > My feeling is that it is not allowed, but where is it written ? > > Thanks for your help. > > Bob It seems to me that this depends on how you decide who signals which way. There is a requirement that both members of the partnership play the same system, have identical convention cards, etc. This, in my opinion, is enough to disallow your proposed example: East does one thing and West does another. However - as I read the laws and regulations, "opening leader uses standard signals and his partner uses upside-down" would be a legal, though rather bizarre, agreement. Likewise for 4th vs 3rd/5th. One does have to wonder - is there any merit in playing this way? I would be much more willing to allow it if there was a claim of benefitting from the method itself, not just by confusing the opponents. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 11:38:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:38:02 +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 LAA23612 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:37:50 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017706; 20 Apr 98 1:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 02:12:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alcatraz variation? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Simon Edler wrote: >For Herman and others I confused, > >In Zone 7 you can ask about a possible revoke. > >I also received a private response from Steve Willner which said >>Thanks for clearing up the Zone 7 rule on asking about revokes. > >A reminder to us all, I think, that what may be clear to some may not be clear >to others in this international forum. Hoping I haven't branched too far off the >original subject... >>>> Herman De Wael 17/04/98 23:15:53 >>> >> Zone 7 (which, by the way, includes other countries besides New Zealand and >Australia) has lifted the prohibition on asking about a possible revoke. From >what I have heard, Australia wished to adopt the prohibition as per the laws >while New Zealand wished to maintain the lifting of the prohibition. The New >Zealand argument won the day. >Sorry Simon, I can't see the wood through your trees of double negatives >:-) > >Spell it out : can you ask in zone 7 ? In Australia/NZ you may ask partner whether he has shown out of a suit, as you can in the ACBL. This has followed what NZ wanted rather than what Australia wanted. Perhaps we should try and find out all the Zonal variations? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 11:51:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:51:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23656 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:51:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018397; 20 Apr 98 1:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 02:47:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mixed Up Defensive Signals In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, BOB SCRUTON wrote: >> I was asked this question this afternoon. Not knowing the answer, I refered >> to the Law Book and finding nothing, I looked at the ACBL TECH file given to >> Tournament Directors. A great deal of data is containrd in that Data Base >> but I could not find anything addressing the following. >> >> Is each member of a partnership allowed to play different defensive carding. >> i.e. East plays standard and west upside down, east leads 4th best and west >> 3rd or 5th ? >> >> My feeling is that it is not allowed, but where is it written ? >It seems to me that this depends on how you decide who signals which way. >There is a requirement that both members of the partnership play the same >system, have identical convention cards, etc. This, in my opinion, is >enough to disallow your proposed example: East does one thing and West >does another. > >However - as I read the laws and regulations, "opening leader uses >standard signals and his partner uses upside-down" would be a legal, >though rather bizarre, agreement. Likewise for 4th vs 3rd/5th. > >One does have to wonder - is there any merit in playing this way? I would >be much more willing to allow it if there was a claim of benefitting from >the method itself, not just by confusing the opponents. When I was at Cambridge Univ I believed that K from AKx was more helpful to partner than A from AKx. However, my partner, Pete Strode, thought otherwise. As a result I played A from AKx for his benefit, and he played K from AKx for mine! Let us get it straight: the Laws allow for it, and it is a matter of regulation. The ACBL, and EBU/WBU, do not permit you to play different conventions from your partner, so you may not play this in these areas. However, I do not know what other SOs think. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 13:51:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:51:11 +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 NAA23889 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:51:04 +1000 From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au Received: from 131.217.115.43 (lab500.tuu.utas.edu.au [131.217.115.43]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA16289 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:51:19 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <353B52F2.7392@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:51:51 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> Is each member of a partnership allowed to play different defensive carding. >> i.e. East plays standard and west upside down, east leads 4th best and west >> 3rd or 5th ? >> >> My feeling is that it is not allowed, but where is it written ? >It seems to me that this depends on how you decide who signals which way. >There is a requirement that both members of the partnership play the same >system, have identical convention cards, etc. This, in my opinion, is >enough to disallow your proposed example: East does one thing and West >does another. > >However - as I read the laws and regulations, "opening leader uses >standard signals and his partner uses upside-down" would be a legal, >though rather bizarre, agreement. Likewise for 4th vs 3rd/5th. > >One does have to wonder - is there any merit in playing this way? I would >be much more willing to allow it if there was a claim of benefitting from >the method itself, not just by confusing the opponents. A logical extension of this kind of idea is the use of Encrypted Signals. Both defenders agree to use a specific set of signals (e.g. natural or upside-down counts & attitudes, even/odd etc.) until declarer is known to be exhausted of the suit originally led by the defence. If a defender has shown up with initially an even number of the 3,5,7&9 of that suit, then they use standard signals. If an odd number of those four cards was held initally, then the defender uses reverse signals. Once declarer has shown out of the suit, both defenders know how many of the four key cards were held by the other, and hence the nature of partner's signals. Now both members of the partnership are using the same defensive convention, and are playing the same system (some will disagree here, but it depends on what you consider a "system" - here the system embraces the possibilities of using either of the commonly accepted methods of carding). This information can made available to declarer. But hiding behind the letter of the law, neither defender is obliged to reveal information derived from the contents of his own hand. If declarer has not seen the four key cards yet, then declarer cannot know the meaning of the defensive signals after they are known to have become encrypted. Hence the intrinsic benefit of using the system. Provided that both members of the partnership have the ability (and spare brain cells) to switch between natural and standard signals from hand to hand, and to remember how to work out which partner is using, then it is quite possible to derive advantage from using this system. IMHO only a sadist would bother with it, but there are occasions when declarer ruffs the return of the opening lead, such that declarer will be in the dark for most of the hand. Doubtless prevalence of such a system would lead to regulations banning it. I see no legal basis for such a restriction, however. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 15:22:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:22:18 +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 PAA24054 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:22:13 +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 WAA07237; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804200521.WAA07237@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:20:03 -0700 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 Mark Abraham wrote, in regard to encrypted signals: (snip) > Doubtless prevalence of such a system would lead to regulations banning > it. I see no legal basis for such a restriction, however. > The ACBL specifically bars encrypted signals, which it has the right to do, under CARDING on the General Convention Chart. Such signals constitute a play convention, and L40D gives the sponsoring authority the right to regulate conventions. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 15:22:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:22:52 +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 PAA24068 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:22:47 +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 WAA07372 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804200522.WAA07372@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:21:37 -0700 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 Mark Abraham wrote, in regard to encrypted signals: (snip) > Doubtless prevalence of such a system would lead to regulations banning > it. I see no legal basis for such a restriction, however. > The ACBL specifically bars encrypted signals, which it has the right to do, under CARDING on the General Convention Chart. Such signals constitute a play convention, and L40D gives the sponsoring authority the right to regulate conventions. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 15:55:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:55:22 +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 PAA24155 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:55:17 +1000 From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au Received: from 131.217.115.43 (lab500.tuu.utas.edu.au [131.217.115.43]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA16562 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:55:32 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <353B700E.C8B@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:56:02 +0000 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) References: <199804200521.WAA07237@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Mark Abraham wrote, in regard to encrypted signals: > > (snip) > > > Doubtless prevalence of such a system would lead to regulations > banning > > it. I see no legal basis for such a restriction, however. > > > The ACBL specifically bars encrypted signals, which it has the right > to do, under CARDING on the General Convention Chart. Such signals > constitute a play convention, and L40D gives the sponsoring authority > the right to regulate conventions. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Sorry, yes I was aware that an SO has the right to regulate play conventions. I don't see any more logic in banning this particular type than the prevention of the odd ugly scene, wherein the declarer would be maintaining that he has a right to know the meaning of the defensive signals, where under law he is entitled to know only the defenders' agreements. The ABF regulations specify only that the partnership play the same system, but leaves "system" loosely defined in terms of opening bid strengths and styles. >2.10 PLAYING THE SAME SYSTEM > >Both members of a partnership must play the same system, including >bidding and cardplay agreements. Where as a matter of style members >frequently adopt different styles from each other, that difference (or >those differences) must be disclosed on the system card. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 20:31:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:31:34 +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 UAA24941 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:31:25 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2009120; 20 Apr 98 9:54 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Martin Pool To: Bridge Laws Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:38:20 +0100 Message-ID: <4839ae9ca9Martin.Pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Pluto 0.44f for RISC OS 3.7 Subject: ZT in Sussex Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sussex are now running Zero Tolerance at all their competitions. The first go with ZT was last weekend which was our spring congress. There were no incidents. Does this mean it's working or was not necessary in the first place ? I guess only time will tell. I will keep you informed how we go on. We would like to say thank you to friends on the other side of the pond for help & advice in setting things up. If anyone here wants information on how we have adapted things for the UK please get in touch. Sussex is an English county with a bridge membership of 1500 & our spring congress had between 30 & 50 tables through the weekend. Martin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 21:59:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:59:06 +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 VAA25145 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:59:00 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2003773; 20 Apr 98 11:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:47:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) In-Reply-To: <353B700E.C8B@postoffice.utas.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark wrote: >Marv wrote: >> Mark Abraham wrote: >> > Doubtless prevalence of such a system would lead to regulations >> > banning it. I see no legal basis for such a restriction, however. >> The ACBL specifically bars encrypted signals, which it has the right >> to do, under CARDING on the General Convention Chart. Such signals >> constitute a play convention, and L40D gives the sponsoring authority >> the right to regulate conventions. The EBU does not permit them either. Orange book 98: 12Q1 You may use any system of leads, signals and discards as long as: =B7 reasonable details are entered on your convention card: it is not acceptable to use terms such as =91natural=92 or =91standard= =92. =B7 no signal is given to your partner which, in principle, is based upon information not available to declarer, so no form of 'encrypted' signalling is allowed. =B7 you do not use dual meaning odd/even signals [when following suit] where odd and even are combined with whether a card is high or low to show suit preferences. Odd/even discards, however, are permitted. >Sorry, yes I was aware that an SO has the right to regulate play >conventions. I don't see any more logic in banning this particular type >than the prevention of the odd ugly scene, wherein the declarer would be >maintaining that he has a right to know the meaning of the defensive >signals, where under law he is entitled to know only the defenders' >agreements. However, if the SO does not ban them I understand them to be legal under the Laws. "What are your defensive agreements?" "If my partner is known to have started with an even number of trumps then we play high-low to encourage: if an odd number of trumps we play low-high to encourage." That is the agreement: that is what declarer is entitled to. Furthermore, both of them are playing it, so if the SO requires them to play the same system under L40E1, then they are! >The ABF regulations specify only that the partnership play the same >system, but leaves "system" loosely defined in terms of opening bid >strengths and styles. > >>2.10 PLAYING THE SAME SYSTEM >> >>Both members of a partnership must play the same system, including >>bidding and cardplay agreements. Where as a matter of style members >>frequently adopt different styles from each other, that difference (or >>those differences) must be disclosed on the system card. In my view this regulation does not bar encrypted signals. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 22:04:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:04:07 +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 WAA25190 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:03:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2003764; 20 Apr 98 11:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:52:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: POOT! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A play out of turn by a defender is covered by L57. However, what about declarer and dummy? K83 AJ94 765 Q102 South is declarer. East leads the 7. Declarer is momentarily confused and calls for the 8 from dummy. If the trick goes 7 - 2 - 9 does the 8 have to be played? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 23:11:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:11:32 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25415 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:11:26 +1000 Received: from Goodwin.maine.rr.com (dt032n33.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.51]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA14109 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:52:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980420090546.2ea7ba0a@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:05:46 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: ZT in Sussex In-Reply-To: <4839ae9ca9Martin.Pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM 4/20/98 +0100, Martin Pool wrote: >Sussex are now running Zero Tolerance at all their competitions. I saw a Zero Tolerance bumper sticker yesterday! It was a circular sticker with the words Zero Tolerance around the outside. On the inside was the head and chest of a bulldog in a police uniform and hat. Maybe someone else already has a copyright on Zero Tolerance and that will require a new name for the ACBL's policy? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 23:46:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:46:09 +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 XAA25573 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:45:56 +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 RAA11016 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:46:00 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199804201346.RAA11016@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: POOT! Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:45:27 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > A play out of turn by a defender is covered by L57. However, what > about declarer and dummy? > > K83 > AJ94 765 > Q102 > > South is declarer. East leads the 7. Declarer is momentarily > confused and calls for the 8 from dummy. > > If the trick goes 7 - 2 - 9 does the 8 have to be played? > For sure. If declarer said he play the King before West played, he MUST play the King even West out the Ace! (You can read Vitold's mails about such cases.) Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 20 23:52:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:52:14 +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 XAA25613 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:52:08 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:52:13 +0100 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 OAA24059 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:48:18 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:46:27 +0100 (BST) 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:47:21 +0100 David Stevenson=20 wrote: > The EBU does not permit them either. Orange book 98: >=20 > 12Q1 You may use any system of leads, signals and discards as long > as: [snipped] > =B7 no signal is given to your partner which, in principle, is > based upon information not available to declarer, so no form of > 'encrypted' signalling is allowed. [snipped] Sorry if this is retreading old ground, but I've always felt a little uneasy about regulations like this. Admittedly, in practice you know an encrypted signal when you see one, but since the information that=20 partner can deduce from your signal often depends on what he can see in his own hand, it's possible to make a case for most signals being=20 "encrypted". E.g., Declarer's shown out of clubs, and there are two clubs left in the defenders' hands; declarer doesn't know how they break. "We play standard count in spades if clubs are breaking; otherwise we play reverse count." Clearly encrypted. "High-low in spades shows an odd number of black cards." Sounds almost innocuous when you put it like=20 that. Alternatively, there's one club honour left. It's clear to everybody=20 that declarer doesn't have it, but declarer doesn't know which defender has it. "We play standard count in clubs." No problem. "High-low shows an even number of small clubs if I have the honour, an odd number of=20 small clubs if he does." Sounds a bit dodgy when you put it like that. Another example: In a heart contract, declarer's drawn trumps and shown=20 out of clubs; two clubs left with the defenders, declarer doesn't know=20 how they break. Declarer is playing on spades, and it's clear that=20 everybody needs to know the spade distribution. Partner plays a spade to trick eight. "He'll give standard count in spades if clubs break, otherwise reverse count." Encrypted. "His spade card gives reverse count in diamonds." Who could possibly object to that? =09Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 00:30:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:30:26 +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 AAA27950 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:30:20 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp29.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.29]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA00503 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:30:33 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980420103155.006b84f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:31:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) In-Reply-To: References: <353B700E.C8B@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:47 PM 4/20/98 +0100, David wrote: > =B7 no signal is given to your partner which, in principle, is > based upon information not available to declarer, so no form of > 'encrypted' signalling is allowed. Declarer plays spades, my partner wins the trick, and I pitch a club. Usually, my spot card will indicate to partner whether or not I (think I) want a club play now. But suppose declarer has earlier shown out of clubs, and I have all of the remaining clubs not in dummy. Now I know that (a) partner doesn't have any clubs to lead, and (b) partner has a count on the club suit, and so knows that I know that he doesn't have any clubs to lead. So, logically, my spot card can't be telling him whether or not to lead a club (and can't be count, since that's known as well), so I select my club spot to show suit preference. The fact that I have all of the outstanding clubs is information not available to declarer. Does that make my choice of club spot an encrypted signal? Does my spot selection, providing the only information I can logically give partner at this point, constitute an infraction? If so, what am I required to do here? Signal attitude, knowing it can't help partner? Select a spot card at random? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 00:41:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:41:12 +1000 Received: from legend.sat.txdirect.net (root@legend.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27998 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:41:07 +1000 Received: from biigal2 (dnas-01-02.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.68.210]) by legend.sat.txdirect.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA11354; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:41:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <353B5E5F.DAF@txdirect.net> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:40:31 -0500 From: "Albert \"biig-Al\" Lochli" Reply-To: biigal@txdirect.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Goodwin CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ZT in Sussex References: <3.0.5.16.19980420090546.2ea7ba0a@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ZT - Zero Tolerance was a buzz word in the US Military in the maintenace areas way back in the 1960's - The US Army Ordnance Corps in particular used this in their support level missile electronic maintenance field. The US Air Force also had a Zero Tolerance program in the late 1960's and may still have it today. I believe the term may have initially started in the Ordnance Special Weapons area - but then they had a most serious reason toward tolerating any errors at all. Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 10:38 AM 4/20/98 +0100, Martin Pool wrote: > > >Sussex are now running Zero Tolerance at all their competitions. > > I saw a Zero Tolerance bumper sticker yesterday! It was a circular sticker > with the words Zero Tolerance around the outside. On the inside was the > head and chest of a bulldog in a police uniform and hat. Maybe someone > else already has a copyright on Zero Tolerance and that will require a new > name for the ACBL's policy? > > Tim -- BiigAl, Al Lochli - POBox 15701 San Antonio TX 78212-8901 - phone 210-829-4274 District 16 Internet Coordinator http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 00:46:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:46:26 +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 AAA28030 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:46:20 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA17058; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 09:46:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.214) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017038; Mon Apr 20 09:45:50 1998 Received: by 214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C49.7D10B020@214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:45:52 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6C49.7D10B020@214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jeff Goldsmith'" Subject: RE: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:45:44 -0400 Encoding: 23 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I should think this would be a situation in which the "rule of coincidence" might have considerable application. Administration should be quite suspicious of any unfavourable action against a whistle blower. The onus is (perhaps unfairly) on the TD to prevent it even "looking like" he is discriminating against Mr. Player. Craig ---------- From: Jeff Goldsmith[SMTP:jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 3:43 PM It's impossible to prove that Mr. Director gave a biased ruling, rather than just erred. Or why didn't Mr. Player get a seed that day? "Oh, I thought you were playing with Mr. Chair. Sorry." No, to claim that no director, particularly one in danger of losing his job, would fail to take action against his accusors is not only likely to be inaccurate, but more importantly, would be perceived as incorrect, which is sufficient to prevent players from using the system. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 00:49:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:49:34 +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 AAA28044 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:49:27 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA07214 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804201449.KAA11630@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu) Subject: Re: Mixed Up Defensive Signals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower writes: > It seems to me that this depends on how you decide who signals which way. > There is a requirement that both members of the partnership play the same > system, have identical convention cards, etc. This, in my opinion, is > enough to disallow your proposed example: East does one thing and West > does another. > However - as I read the laws and regulations, "opening leader uses > standard signals and his partner uses upside-down" would be a legal, > though rather bizarre, agreement. Likewise for 4th vs 3rd/5th. > One does have to wonder - is there any merit in playing this way? I would > be much more willing to allow it if there was a claim of benefitting from > the method itself, not just by confusing the opponents. There's one standard example, the modified Smith echo. Opening leader plays high-low in declarer's suit if he doesn't want the opening lead continued when the defense gets back in, while responder plays high-low if he does want it continued. This has the advantage over the standard Smith echo that the high-low marks the non-standard play from both sides. Opening leader usually wants his suit played back, while responder usually doesn't. Thus, if you are afraid that signaling with the 9 might cost a trick, or if you forget the signal, you will usually send the right message by playing low. -- 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 Apr 21 01:06:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 01:06:57 +1000 Received: from imo19 (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28128 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 01:06:49 +1000 Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id SFKEa09366 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:59:25 -0400 (EDT) From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: <7a180738.353b62d0@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:59:25 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: POOT! Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/20/98 7:05:20 AM EST, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > A play out of turn by a defender is covered by L57. However, what > about declarer and dummy? > > K83 > AJ94 765 > Q102 > > South is declarer. East leads the 7. Declarer is momentarily > confused and calls for the 8 from dummy. > > If the trick goes 7 - 2 - 9 does the 8 have to be played? I think Law 45C4 makes it clear that the 8 is indeed a played card. That certainly doesn't have any effect on what card declarer plays. I can't believe that after all this time on BLML we are now seeing a posting with the subject being "POOT". I certainly hope there are no grownups monitoring... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 01:07:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 01:07:16 +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 BAA28147 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 01:07:07 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA26620; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:06:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.214) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026531; Mon Apr 20 10:06:21 1998 Received: by 214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6C4C.5B8CA460@214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:06:24 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6C4C.5B8CA460@214.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ACBL Formal complaints on Directors Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:06:23 -0400 Encoding: 57 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Adam Beneschan[SMTP:adam@flash.irvine.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 3:42 PM BTW, if someone is disliked enough that a lot of different people are filing recorder forms, then I don't have a problem kicking that guy out even if there's not enough evidence to convict him of the specific accusations being made. It's pretty clear that the guy is interfering with peoples' enjoyment of the game in any case. (C) If you refer to a TD/employee, this makes some sense. A key component of that job is keeping the paying customers happy. Dismissal, in any business, can be justififed of an individual who alienates the source of revenue of the business. (A)The U.S. Constitution, which you mentioned in the part of your post I deleted, also guarantees "freedom of association." The ACBL is a club, not a governmental body, even if it has a tendency to act as stupidly bureaucratic as the government sometimes. So while a governmental agency may be required to provide its services to everyone and may have to provide an airtight case against a person, according to the usual legal rules, to deny those services, there's no reason the ACBL has to. Freedom of association means (as I interpret it) that if they don't want someone in their club, they don't have to accept them, and they don't have to put together a case against them that's as good as the kind of case you'd need to convict someone of a criminal offense. (c) This would surely be true if there were no element of monopoly involved. However when there is not an alternative group, is this not a little like saying "No werewolves need apply" or demanding that all werewolves sit in the back of the bus, or denying werewolves service in the town's only restaurant, restroom or drinking fountain? I suspect there could be some precedent under civil rights/anti-discrimination laws delimiting the degree to which a private organisation can restrict its membership. (A)Or, to put it another way: a lot of business establishments say, "We refuse the right to reserve service to anyone"; doesn't the ACBL have the same right? If the ACBL wants to apply the same standards for kicking someone out as the judicial system does for putting someone in prison, that's fine, but I don't see any reason its standards *have* to be that high, morally or legally. (C)Legally, no, except as indicated above. Morally, I would hope that we do not extend cronyism and cliqueishness to such an extent that rights of the accused would be buried. We need to avoid both alienation and exclusion...we aren't exactly awash in membership growth. Thank you for an intelligent, well thought out response. We are more in agreement that you think. :-) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 03:41:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 03:41:00 +1000 Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29142 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 03:40:53 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24740; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804201740.KAA24740@prefetch.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "AlLeBendig" , Subject: Re: POOT! Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:39:13 -0700 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: AlLeBendig < > David Stevenson writes: > > A play out of turn by a defender is covered by L57. However, what > > about declarer and dummy? > > > > K83 > > AJ94 765 > > Q102 > > > > South is declarer. East leads the 7. Declarer is momentarily > > confused and calls for the 8 from dummy. > > > > If the trick goes 7 - 2 - 9 does the 8 have to be played? > > I think Law 45C4 makes it clear that the 8 is indeed a played card. That > certainly doesn't have any effect on what card declarer plays. L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with penalties applying only to defenders. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 05:08:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 05:08:44 +1000 Received: from meadowval.peel.edu.on.ca (blue.peel.edu.on.ca [207.81.165.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA29489 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 05:08:36 +1000 Received: from 1163 ([10.18.134.133]) by meadowval.peel.edu.on.ca (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA19521 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:54:23 -0400 Message-ID: <353BC641.31@meadowval.peel.edu.on.ca> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:03:45 -0700 From: Martin Hunter Reply-To: hunterm@meadowval.peel.edu.on.ca Organization: Peel Board of Education Meadowvale S.S. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: change of call Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everybody, here is my first contribution S 10xx H 109 D Qxx C Qxxxx S KJxxxx S xx H AJxx H Kxx D K D J10xx C 10x C K9xx S AQ H Q8xx D A9xxx C AJ The Auction: W dlr NS vul W N E S 1D* P 1H 1NT** *1D= <15HCP at least 4-4 majors 2S 3C P 3NT ** NS play sandwich NT and this P*** P DBL**** was alerted as such. S had decided to bid this way and clarify later since this situation hadn't come up before *** 30-45 sec hesitation(agreed by all) When E doubled, South said " I'd like to call the director" E now put the double card back in the box and pulled out a pass S passed to end the auction.Director was not called. Result down 4 E now called the director and wanted his double back Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 05:38:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 05:38:44 +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 FAA29568 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 05:38:37 +1000 Received: from default (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA25258 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:38:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804201938.VAA25258@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:39:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Mixed Up Defensive Signals Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > When I was at Cambridge Univ I believed that K from AKx was more > helpful to partner than A from AKx. However, my partner, Pete Strode, > thought otherwise. As a result I played A from AKx for his benefit, and > he played K from AKx for mine! > > Let us get it straight: the Laws allow for it, and it is a matter of > regulation. The ACBL, and EBU/WBU, do not permit you to play different > conventions from your partner, so you may not play this in these areas. > However, I do not know what other SOs think. DBF (Denmark) requires that both players in a partnership play the same system, but allows for different indications in the field on the form where the frequency of psychic bids is declared. For instance mine is "never", and my partner's is "seldom". Still, I was the one who psyched most recently. You see, "never" means "very seldom", like for instance no more than twice a year. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 05:57:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 05:57:44 +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 FAA29655 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 05:57:36 +1000 Received: from default (cph44.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.44]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA25947 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:57:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804201957.VAA25947@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:58:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: change of call Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Hunter (snip) > *** 30-45 sec hesitation(agreed by all) > > When E doubled, South said " I'd like to call the director" > > E now put the double card back in the box and pulled out a pass > > S passed to end the auction.Director was not called. > > Result down 4 > > E now called the director and wanted his double back > > Comments? I see no reason to change the table score. The substitution of the pass for the double is probably best considered a change of call under L25B, and could have limited E to A- on the board, but S condoned it, so now it stands (L25B1). I am not familiar with the 1NT convention played, but I see no irregularity in connection with the 1NT bid nor the following 3NT bid. And E's choice of pass is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. I am going to fine both sides 3 imps or 10% of a board for failing to call the director after S had expressed the need for the director. That will teach them to call next time. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 08:41:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:41:58 +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 IAA00413 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:41:50 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yROfl-0007ORC; Mon, 20 Apr 98 17:04 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:06:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: change of call In-Reply-To: <353BC641.31@meadowval.peel.edu.on.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:03 PM 4/20/98 , Martin Hunter wrote: >Hi everybody, here is my first contribution >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S 10xx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 H 109 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 D Qxx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 C Qxxxx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=20 > >S KJxxxx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 S xx >H AJxx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0 H Kxx >D K=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 D J10xx >C 10x=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 C K9xx >=20 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S AQ >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 H Q8xx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 D A9xxx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 C AJ > > >The Auction:=A0=A0=A0 W dlr=A0 NS vul > >W=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 N=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S >1D*=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1H=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1NT**=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 *1D=3D <15HCP=A0 at least 4-4 majors >2S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3C=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3NT=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ** NS play sandwich NT and this=20 >P***=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DBL****=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 was alerted as such. >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S had decided to bid this way >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 and clarify later since this >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 situation hadn't come up > before=A0=A0=20 > > *** 30-45 sec hesitation(agreed by all) > > When E doubled, South said " I'd like to call the director" >E now put the double card back in the box and pulled out a pass >S passed to end the auction.Director was not called. > >Result=A0 down 4 > >E now called the director and wanted his double back > >Comments? > What a mess! First, East's double must have been based on West's hesitation since East changed it when South asked to call the director. So, there is no way the double can be allowed. It should have been cancelled if it hadn't been changed. The table result stands. Penalize east for the abuse of UI. =20 Next, penalize everyone for playing on after South asked for the director to be called. =20 Now, East wants his double back. On what basis? I had a couple of hands= last night that I wanted to double after the play was over! I think I will join Grattan on that walk. John S. Nichols=20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 21:09:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:09:02 +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 VAA02116 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:08:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003766; 21 Apr 98 10:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:49:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Correction Period revisited MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law has been misapplied. The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the first two places in the competition. The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 22:12:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:12:41 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02373 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:12:35 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yRbuo-0004SA-00; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:12:47 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:12:32 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:12:30 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: SNIP > The fact that I have all of the outstanding clubs is information not > available to declarer. Does that make my choice of club spot an > encrypted > signal? Does my spot selection, providing the only information I can > logically give partner at this point, constitute an infraction? If > so, > what am I required to do here? Signal attitude, knowing it can't help > partner? Select a spot card at random? > > ######### No and no. But you do have an agreement that must be > disclosed to declarer that, in certain situations (such as this one), > suit preference is an alternative secondary signal instead of your > primary one of attitude. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 22:41:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:41:01 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02441 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:40:46 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yRcM2-0005td-00; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:40:55 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:40:43 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Correction Period revisited Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:40:42 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over > 2H. > The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in > full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes > three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law > has been misapplied. > > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the > Correction > Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a > narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close > enough, > for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double > was > not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the > first two places in the competition. > > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the > team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your > help > on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. > > ########## Sadly I think that it is too late to do anything. I do not > have my Law book with me as I am at work but I seem to recall that Law > 92 says something along the lines of "The right to request or appeal a > Director's ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been > made available unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a > different time period." If I am correct, then the two captains > agreeing the score is the nearest equivalent in teams to the official > score being made available and, therefore, unless the particular > event's rules specify a longer period than this, then I do not think > that anything can be done except possibly to the TD! ######### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 22:44:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:44:33 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02473 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:44:21 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yRcPb-000670-00; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:44:36 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:44:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: POOT! Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:44:21 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: SNIP > L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with > penalties applying only to defenders. > > ######## The card has been played (Law 45) prematurely but IMO not > illegally and therefore I do not think that Law 47 allows it to be > retracted. Law 57 even recognises the possibility of declarer playing > ahead of one defender. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 23:26:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:26:58 +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 XAA02606 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:26:50 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yRd2j-0007KVC; Tue, 21 Apr 98 08:25 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:27:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:49 AM 4/21/98 , David Stevenson wrote: > > In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. >The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in >full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes >three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law >has been misapplied. > > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction >Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a >narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, >for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was >not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the >first two places in the competition. > > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the >team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help >on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. > > Appologize to the players, but explain that since the Correction Period has ended, no appeal is possible. At the same time, the director needs to be made aware of the error. If this is an experienced director who rarely makes this sort of mistake just pointing it out should suffice. If the director is inexpreienced, perhaps some training is called for. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 21 23:39:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:39:30 +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 XAA02672 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:39:24 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:37:26 +0100 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 OAA04741 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:33:27 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: RE: Encryped Signals (was Mixed Up Defensive Signals) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:31:35 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:12:30 +0100 David Martin wrote: > Eric wrote: > > SNIP > > > > The fact that I have all of the outstanding clubs is information not > > available to declarer. Does that make my choice of club spot an > > encrypted > > signal? Does my spot selection, providing the only information I can > > logically give partner at this point, constitute an infraction? If > > so, > > what am I required to do here? Signal attitude, knowing it can't help > > partner? Select a spot card at random? > > > > ######### No and no. But you do have an agreement that must be > > disclosed to declarer that, in certain situations (such as this one), > > suit preference is an alternative secondary signal instead of your > > primary one of attitude. ######### I'm not sure which of Eric's five questions "no and no" are the answers to. But anyway, I suspect the questions were rhetorical and the question he was *really* asking was "Isn't the EBU's attempt to formulate a regulation to ban encrypted signals rather unsatisfactory and muddled?" I think the answer is "yes". Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 00:12:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:12:51 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA03845 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:12:34 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Tue, 21 Apr 98 10:12:50 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa28909; 21 Apr 98 9:47 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA18892 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:09:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199804211409.KAA18892@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: POOT! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:09:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Martin" at Apr 21, 98 01:44:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Martin: > Marv wrote: > > SNIP > > > > L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with > > penalties applying only to defenders. > > > ######## The card has been played (Law 45) prematurely but IMO not > illegally and therefore I do not think that Law 47 allows it to be > retracted. Law 57 even recognises the possibility of declarer playing > ahead of one defender. ######## L44B -- dummy (i.e. called by declarer) played a card when it wasn't that player's turn to play a card. It's illegal, so L47B applies. I want to know where was dummy's mind when declarer called for the 8. Why didn't dummy keep declarer from committing this irregularity? L47B indeed allows the card to be withdrawn. Law 57 is irrelevant--although it considers the situation where declarer (or dummy) plays ahead of a defender, it doesn't make the situation a legal one. It just keeps the defenders from being penalized. I think our answer lies in L60C--or perhaps a stretch of it. West has played before a ruling/penalty/whatever can be assessed, and L60C says that such a play does not alter the rights of the offending side. Thus the card may be withdrawn, and (if I were directing) West must play the nine. But once again, a slap on the wrist to everyone at the table for not calling Director once the call for the 8 was made. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 00:13:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:13:26 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04080 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:13:09 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA13157 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:10:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804211410.JAA13157@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 3NT on UI? - the De Wael School To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:10:23 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <35387526.941C51D9@village.uunet.be> from "Herman De Wael" at Apr 18, 98 11:40:54 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The fact that nobody noticed my interpretation of L75D2 (which is only > relevant in a particular situation which almost never arises - even 10 I disagree. This situation would arise _every single time there was a misexplanation_. And it would cover every subsequent bid, alert, explanation, and review, at the very least. > years ago when it happened they did not ask me for the meaning of 4NT) > does not mean that the general, natural, whatever you call it, > interpretation is the correct one ! No, I agree. > I also seem to feel that none of you are really reinterpreting. > Before you thought of the consequences, how many of you would have > included the next explanation WITHIN the concept of "indicate in ANY > manner". Only when you read my consequence, and you say : "he's > deliberately lying to opponents", do you begin stating, "hey, in that > case, ANY shall not include explanations, bids and what have you". But this was not my point. If you had asked us "What kinds of actions is this law meant to prohibit" we would have listed things like gestures, comments, etc. None of us would have listed any otherwise legal calls, explanations, alerts, etc. This isn't what we understood the law as saying _in general_, not just in your specific case. > The road of reinterpreting one Law or another in order to have them not > conflicting is simply not the correct one. Face it guys : the Laws are > not perfect ! I agree that the Laws are not perfect. But when there exists a simple and [to most people] _obvious_ interpretation of a law that causes no conflict, it should be preferred. > > And because your interpretation of L75D2 doesn't _just_ cause it to > > conflict with L75C, it _also_ causes potential conflict with many other > > proceedures--alerting proceedures, the ability to make legal calls, and > > L20 among others. Simply reinterpreting L75C won't fix the problem. > > As I also stated in a reply to Jeremy's post. But I think this is a significant problem. Now we do not merely have a case where on your interpretation two laws conflict. We have a situation where your interpretation produces conflict with at least two other laws, and numerous proceedures. An interpretation of a law would have to be overwhelmingly obvious for me to accept it in that case, and your interpretation is definately not overwhelmingly obvious. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium Sincerely, Grant Sterling [I think I'll let this thread die now. Apologies to those on the list who think I have already kept it alive too long.] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 00:48:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:48:59 +1000 Received: from gw1.mcda.org (gw1.mcda.org [206.196.37.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05182 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:48:50 +1000 Received: from MCDA__S0 ([170.159.61.11]) by gw1.mcda.org via smtpd (for octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) with SMTP; 21 Apr 1998 14:49:07 UT Received: by MCDA__S0 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <2M8BKZNZ>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:48:20 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Kryst, Jack" To: "'BLML'" Subject: Too many aces. Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:48:18 -0500 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a weekly club game - playing the second board of a three board round - N/S reach a game contract with S as declarer. West leads a small diamond. Dummy follows small and East cashes the DA milliseconds before declarer plays his DA. With the Director quickly summoned it is determined that E has taken his hand from the next board. Director rules that the current board is fouled and awards A+/A-. Director further rules that since DA has been exposed W is barred from the auction when the third board is bid. DA becomes a penalty card. As W, it seems to me that the ruling for the third board was appropriate but that we got off too easily with an A-. Comments? ----jk jack.kryst@mcda.org From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 01:26:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:26:20 +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 BAA05456 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:26:12 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA280112387; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:26:27 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA046962385; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:26:26 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:26:10 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Re: Correction Perio Revisited Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:49 AM 4/21/98 , David Stevenson wrote: =20 In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law= has been misapplied. =20 The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction= Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the first two places in the competition. =20 The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. As somebody else pointed out, Law 92 is clear : time to appeal expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different= time period. Law 79C says about the same thing concerning scoring errors. The problem, at the club level, is that only a few have a clear policy on this, specially on the 30 min. period. My wife had some problems like= this in her club, players calling at home after the game and asking for corrections. Most problems came from summary of results produced by ACBLScore. Players get these reports and leave the room without checking= scores. It is frustrating for a player to see his name as winner at the end of a= game and know, the day after or next week, he is no more at the top, because director changed a ruling decision or corrected a score. If such= late corrections are made frequently, players begin to be suspicious, saying director may favorise some players. =20 We had no more problem after adopting a clear policy and sticking it on wall: when the game is over and scores available, players have 30 min to= report errors and appeal of director decision. After that, no correction= will be made. The winner is the winner. We clearly explained that this policy respects Laws and was adopted to protect players againts favoritism. Unfortunatly, most clubs around us dont have any policy, some of them scoring game at home and giving results next day=85. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 01:35:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:35:43 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA05528 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:35:37 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yRf5J-0007Ya-00; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:35:50 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:35:34 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: POOT! Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:35:33 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John wrote: > From David Martin: > > > Marv wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with > > > penalties applying only to defenders. > > > > > ####OLD##### The card has been played (Law 45) prematurely but IMO > not > > illegally and therefore I do not think that Law 47 allows it to be > > retracted. Law 57 even recognises the possibility of declarer > playing > > ahead of one defender. #####OLD##### > > L44B -- dummy (i.e. called by declarer) played a card when it wasn't > that > player's turn to play a card. It's illegal, so L47B applies. > > ######## Which Law says that it is illegal? ######### > > I want to know where was dummy's mind when declarer called for the 8. > Why > didn't dummy keep declarer from committing this irregularity? > > ######### The card *is* played when declarer names it and from that > moment on it is too late for dummy to *prevent* an irregularity > because *it has already taken place*. ######### > > L47B indeed > allows the card to be withdrawn. Law 57 is irrelevant--although it > considers > the situation where declarer (or dummy) plays ahead of a defender, it > doesn't > make the situation a legal one. It just keeps the defenders from > being > penalized. > > I think our answer lies in L60C--or perhaps a stretch of it. West has > played before a ruling/penalty/whatever can be assessed, and L60C says > that > such a play does not alter the rights of the offending side. Thus the > card > may be withdrawn, and (if I were directing) West must play the nine. > > But once again, a slap on the wrist to everyone at the table for not > calling > Director once the call for the 8 was made. > > John > > -- > | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 01:54:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:54:38 +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 BAA05677 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:54:31 +1000 Received: from cph25.ppp.dknet.dk (cph25.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.25]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA18996 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:54:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:54:35 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <353ca5b9.611349@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:49:45 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction >Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a >narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, >for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was >not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the >first two places in the competition. We have had at least two situations at national level in Denmark during the last few years where we've had to decide whether we really mean the correction period limit seriously. We decided that the concept of a limited correction period really is essential to the game. If we allow corrections the day after the expiration of the correction period, then where is the limit? Two days? A week? Ten years? The fact that the problem is a TD error (rather than a scoring error or a player's irregularity, for example) is of course quite irrelevant. There has to be some well-defined time limit, and if the official period in force is the standard half hour, then we must enforce it. And so we did in the two cases that I currently remember, trying to explain to the unlucky players that when the correction period is over and there are no outstanding appeals, the event is history - and history can be criticized, but not changed. This is what we do at the national level. It is also what our regulations say quite clearly, and it is what we tell the DBF districts that they have to do if they ask. However, I would find it quite acceptable if a _club_ chose to interpret the half hour limit as meaning "half an hour into the next club night", so that even players who go home immediately after play has the benefit of a correction period when they show up the following club night. But only if this is (and has been) done consistently, of course. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 02:09:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:09:27 +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 CAA05894 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:09:20 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA28716 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:09:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804211609.MAA08164@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:49:45 +0100) Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. > The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in > full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes > three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law > has been misapplied. > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction > Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a > narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, > for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was > not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the > first two places in the competition. > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the > team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help > on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. Under Law 92B, any appeal of a director's ruling must be made before the correction period expires. Had the appeal been timely, Law 82C might apply since the director made an incorrect ruling, and the ruling would thus be the most favorable result which was likely for both sides. This would probably be 2H passed out down three. -- 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 Apr 22 02:15:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:15:18 +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 CAA05917 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:15:11 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h169.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id TAA04123; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:57:17 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <353D5DAB.953@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:02:03 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="CITATY.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CITATY.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) It is a pity - but we are playing game-sport where people (other than participants) - Directors - determine winner. And they may make mistakes. And they do make mistakes. And the same happens in other kind of sports where people (Directors) rules... Don't you forget goal that was made by Maradonna's hand?:) Don't you forget match England-Germany where nobody saw if the goal was made... And so long, and so forth... We should agree that Director may make mistakes. And it is integral part of our game too. And we should agree that result of case described by David should be unchanged - in accordance with the Laws. Never mind: there will be another contest, another decision, another result. Life does not stop:)) And what about that TD? He made serious mistake because he did not have the Laws about himself when he ruled. He had too much credit to his memory. If it happened at club level - he should learn more about TD's duties. If it happened at great tournament (regional or international) - SO should not invite him more Vitold P.S. And David Martin is right - SO may have another point in the Rules and Regulations of the contest From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 02:16:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:16:17 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA05940 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:16:07 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Tue, 21 Apr 98 12:16:20 EDT Received: from t6.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa01270; 21 Apr 98 11:52 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t6.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA23900; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:14:57 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199804211614.MAA23900@t6.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Too many aces. To: "Kryst, Jack" Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: from "Kryst, Jack" at Apr 21, 98 09:48:18 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In a weekly club game - playing the second board of a three board round > - N/S reach a game contract with S as declarer. West leads a small > diamond. Dummy follows small and East cashes the DA milliseconds before > declarer plays his DA. > > With the Director quickly summoned it is determined that E has taken his > hand from the next board. Director rules that the current board is > fouled and awards A+/A-. Director further rules that since DA has been > exposed W is barred from the auction when the third board is bid. DA > becomes a penalty card. > > As W, it seems to me that the ruling for the third board was appropriate > but that we got off too easily with an A-. > > Comments? It's a judgment call for the director. Quick question for all (first time I've looked at the exact wording)--in L90B7, where it refers to an adjusted score for any contestant, does "any" include the contestants at the table? Normally when I've applied that law, it's been for people messing up the cards at the end of the hand, with the next table being affected by the lack of procedure. If "any contestant" includes those at table, L90B7 justifies a procedural penalty in addition to the A-. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 02:34:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:34:51 +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 CAA06058 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:34:44 +1000 Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id SRTSa24124 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:34:18 -0400 (EDT) From: R Craig H Message-ID: <5852400.353cca8e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:34:18 EDT To: Bridge-Laws@Octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: How to give your cat a pill 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 HOW TO GIVE YOUR CAT A PILL 1. Grasp cat firmly in your arms. Cradle his head on your elbow, just as if you were giving a baby a bottle. Coo confidently, "that's a nice kitty." Drop pill into his mouth. 2. Retrieve cat from top of lamp and pill from under sofa. 3. Follow same procedure as in #1, but hold cat's front paws down with left hand and back paws down with elbow of right arm. poke pill into his mouth with right forefinger. 4. Retrieve cat from under bed. Get new pill from bottle. (Resist impulse to get new cat.) 5. Again proceed as in #1, except when you have cat firmly cradled in bottle-feeding position, sit down on edge of chair, fold your torso over cat, bring your right hand over your left elbow, open cat's mouth by lifting the upper jaw and pop the pill in quickly. Since your head is down by your knees, you won't be able to see what you're doing. That's just as well. 6. Leave cat hanging on drapes. Leave pill in your hair. 7. If you're a woman, have a good cry. If you're a man, slam fist into wall. 8. Now pull yourself together. Who's the boss here, anyway? Retrieve cat and pill. Assuming position #1, say sternly, "Who's the boss here, anyway?" Open cat's mouth, take pill and...Ooops! 9. This isn't working, is it? Collapse and think. Aha! Those flashing claws are causing the chaos. 10. Crawl to linen closet. Drag back large beach towel. Spread towel on floor. 11. Retrieve cat from kitchen counter and pill from potted plant. 12. Spread cat on towel near one end with his head over long edge. 13. Flatten cat's front and back legs over his stomach. (Resist impulse to flatten cat) 14. Roll cat in towel. Work fast. Time and tabbies wait for no man. 15 Resume position #1. Rotate your left hand to cat's head. Press his mouth at the jaw hinges like opening the petals of a snapdragon. 16. Drop pill into cat's mouth and poke gently. Voila! it's done. 17. Vacuum up loose fur. (cat's) Apply bandages to wounds. (yours) 18. Take two aspirin and lie down. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 04:02:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:02:13 +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 EAA06532 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:02:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019380; 21 Apr 98 17:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:54:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Quick'n'easy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I play an opening "Pass" as 0 to 9 HCP, and an opening "No bid" as 10 or 11 HCP. Good convention - I recommend it. What do you mean, I can't? Which Law stops me? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 04:15:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:15:02 +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 EAA06573 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:14:56 +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 LAA26445; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804211810.LAA26445@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOT! Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:08:22 -0700 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 David Stevenson wrote: > A play out of turn by a defender is covered by L57. However, what > about declarer and dummy? > > K83 > AJ94 765 > Q102 > > South is declarer. East leads the 7. Declarer is momentarily > confused and calls for the 8 from dummy. > > If the trick goes 7 - 2 - 9 does the 8 have to be played? ---------- > David Martin wrote: > > Marv wrote: > > SNIP > > > > L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with > > penalties applying only to defenders. > > ######## The card has been played (Law 45) prematurely but IMO not > illegally and therefore I do not think that Law 47 allows it to be > retracted. ######## L44B requires that cards be played "in turn." It is therefore illegal to play a card out of turn. L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with penalties applying only to defenders. If that causes injury to the defending side, the TD is empowered (L12A1) to adjust the score "when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity," but I doubt a TD would rule that indemnity should include the award of a trick that could not be lost by rational play. With one exception: If declarer withdraws the illegally-played card on the basis of the card played by the opponent whose turn it was to play, then he is benefiting inappropriately by the illegal play and that would not be allowed. A common example is that of a declarer who absent-mindly repeats a finesse before the opponent plays. A TD would not permit him/her to retract the card when the finessed opponent surprisingly plays the card being finessed. He is the judge, per L12A, and that justifies this customary ruling. Good sports will often ask that this penalty be waived, but there aren't many good sports around since Edgar Kaplan proclaimed that players are obligated to do everything legal in order to win. Or suppose the out-of-turn finesse unexpectedly loses. Obviously a withdrawal would not be allowed. > Law 57 even recognises the possibility of declarer playing > ahead of one defender. So what? L57 does not say that L47B is inapplicable in such cases. If you are referring to L57C, that law refers to an opponent's "playing before his partner," which is not the case here. L57's title is "PREMATURE PLAY OR LEAD BY DEFENDER." Let's stick to the subject. Maybe Alan LeBendig, who I believe is co-chairman of the NABC Appeals Committee, will help clarify this matter, since he also believes that declarer's play out of turn cannot be withdrawn under any circumstances. And David Stevenson, you started this...what is your opinion? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 04:28:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:28:41 +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 EAA06703 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:28:34 +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 OAA15934 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15211; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:28:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:28:30 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804211828.OAA15211@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick'n'easy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I play an opening "Pass" as 0 to 9 HCP, and an opening "No bid" as 10 > or 11 HCP. Good convention - I recommend it. > > What do you mean, I can't? Which Law stops me? L73B. It's B2 if the method is prearranged, otherwise B1. Also, L16A and L73C prevent your partner making use of the information, so maybe it's not such a good convention after all. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 04:49:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:49:52 +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 EAA06801 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:49:45 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yRi4s-0007KVC; Tue, 21 Apr 98 13:47 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:49:34 +0000 To: "Kryst, Jack" From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Too many aces. Cc: "'BLML'" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:48 PM 4/21/98 , Kryst, Jack wrote: >In a weekly club game - playing the second board of a three board round >- N/S reach a game contract with S as declarer. West leads a small >diamond. Dummy follows small and East cashes the DA milliseconds before >declarer plays his DA. > >With the Director quickly summoned it is determined that E has taken his >hand from the next board. Director rules that the current board is >fouled and awards A+/A-. Director further rules that since DA has been >exposed W is barred from the auction when the third board is bid. DA >becomes a penalty card. > >As W, it seems to me that the ruling for the third board was appropriate >but that we got off too easily with an A-. > >Comments? Looks like the correct rullings to me. The second board was unplayable and unless E would have bid the correct hand exactly the same as the incorrect hand it is impossible to determine an adjusted score. Therefore the assigned score of A+/A-. Unfornate that W gets barred for the third board as well, but this, too, is correct. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 05:04:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:04:17 +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 FAA06861 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:04:11 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA03259; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804211904.PAA13917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:54:24 +0100) Subject: Re: Quick'n'easy Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > I play an opening "Pass" as 0 to 9 HCP, and an opening "No bid" as 10 > or 11 HCP. Good convention - I recommend it. > What do you mean, I can't? Which Law stops me? Law 74C1: The following are considered violations of procedure: using different designations for the same call. -- 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 Apr 22 05:31:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:31:27 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA06943 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:31:22 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA14420 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:30:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 32.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.17.32) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014393; Tue Apr 21 14:30:42 1998 Received: by 32.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6D3A.6FB1DCA0@32.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:30:38 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6D3A.6FB1DCA0@32.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Quick'n'easy Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:30:30 -0400 Encoding: 29 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Plays better as Pass 0-6, "No bid" 7-9 and "bye me" 10-11. A corollary is 1 club (I have the suit, but only a so-so opener), "A club"(it's a short club), "I'll bid a club" a better than average open with real clubs. Generally known as substandard American, it is played most places where tally cards and favours are used, i.e. in parlours across the land. Oddly enough since ALL the LOL's use the same system within any game, there are no CPU's and everyone manages to have fun anyway. Some of them even labour under the misconception that the game they are playing is bridge. :-) ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 11:54 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Quick'n'easy I play an opening "Pass" as 0 to 9 HCP, and an opening "No bid" as 10 or 11 HCP. Good convention - I recommend it. What do you mean, I can't? Which Law stops me? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 05:45:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:45:18 +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 FAA07018 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:45:11 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yRiuS-0007LpC; Tue, 21 Apr 98 14:40 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:42:48 +0000 To: David Stevenson From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Quick'n'easy Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:54 PM 4/21/98 , David Stevenson wrote: > > I play an opening "Pass" as 0 to 9 HCP, and an opening "No bid" as 10 >or 11 HCP. Good convention - I recommend it. > > What do you mean, I can't? Which Law stops me? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > How do you mark this on your convention card? Do you alert it? John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 05:49:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:49:50 +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 FAA07048 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:49:41 +1000 Received: from default (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA28696; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:49:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804211949.VAA28696@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:50:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) CC: Ib Axelsen Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Ulrik Fougt wrote on 1998-03-02: > 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. The director was called at this point, and the NAC has ascertained that he made clear to the players that there would be a one-trick penalty (or possibly two-trick, not that it matters on this hand). > 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. Ruling against the non-offender in a case that the TD thinks should be appealed is unorthodox, but Jens Ulrik has defended this decision admirably elsewhere, and it is not the subject of this message. This case was written up widely in the Danish media, and it was eventually decided by the National AC (NAC) without consensus being reached among its eight members on the interpretation of L64C. The NAC agreed that if E had not revoked on trick 4, S would have been likely to play for the club finesse, using the principle of restricted choice. This line would lead to 12 tricks, and it thus seems likely that S would have won his contract if there had been no revoke. However, the information available to S after trick 6 gives S a count of the hand: East has 6 hearts, 5 diamonds on the bidding, and has shown his two black cards. At this point, S could play out the hand double dummy, winning the contract with the 12th trick awarded as the revoke penalty. The NAC saw this as a question of interpretation of L64C. Some members felt that S had not asked to be put in a situation where he had to reconsider his plan twice because of the revoke, and that the one-trick award therefore was "insufficient compensation". Other members, who turned out to be the majority after a round of deliberations, felt that at this high level (a player on S's team is a junior world champion from 1997), a one-trick penalty and full information allowing declarer to count East's hand is sufficient compensation. The NAC did not consider it important in this case just how quickly after the end of play the right line of play was presented to the director. No consensus was reached, so the majority view prevailed. S was not compensated. This case was discussed widely in the Danish media and on the Internet. Many of the reports on the case are based on loosely founded rumors, including inaccurate but entertaining rumors about the position held by each member of the NAC -- this is information that we do not publish. It is interesting that most of the published opinions that seem to based on the facts disagree with the NAC's ruling. The "popular" verdict, especially among S's peers, is that S should be compensated, because it is asking too much of him to replan the play in light of the revoke situation. The NAC has concluded at its recent annual meeting that the lack of consensus shows that the borderline for "insufficient compensation" is to be drawn somewhere near this case. The actual ruling is, of course, final and by definition correct. The NAC is anxious, however, that its rulings are generally accepted as being reasonable, especially in situations where there is no obvious objectively correct ruling available. Therefore, to shed further light on the interpretation of L64C, we would appreciate feed-back from BLML, either by posting, or by mail directly to me. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 05:49:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:49:52 +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 FAA07049 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:49:42 +1000 Received: from default (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA28693; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:49:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804211949.VAA28693@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:50:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Law 83 CC: Ib Axelsen Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Jens Ulrik Fougt" wrote on 1998-03-02: > 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: (Hand and decision snipped -- see separate message for the actual hand) > 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. At its annual meeting last week, the National AC decided that it agrees with Jens Ulrik, who was the TD, that it was appropriate for the TD to exercise his right to bring the matter before the AC. We are in the process of promulgating this case law precedent, valid for Denmark. I thought BLML might like to know. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 05:49:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:49:57 +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 FAA07059 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 05:49:49 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-32.access.net.il [192.116.198.32]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA06585; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:18:11 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <353CF171.3489B445@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:20:17 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: R Craig H CC: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How to give your cat a pill References: <5852400.353cca8e@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Great , gorgious , bright ........ And..... still remindind some bridge partnerships ....... The wild Chan's son SHOBO R Craig H wrote: > > HOW TO GIVE YOUR CAT A PILL > > 1. Grasp cat firmly in your arms. Cradle his head on your > elbow, just as if you were giving a baby a bottle. Coo > confidently, "that's a nice kitty." Drop pill into his mouth. > > 2. Retrieve cat from top of lamp and pill from under sofa. > > 3. Follow same procedure as in #1, but hold cat's front paws > down with left hand and back paws down with elbow of right arm. > poke pill into his mouth with right forefinger. > > 4. Retrieve cat from under bed. Get new pill from bottle. > (Resist impulse to get new cat.) > > 5. Again proceed as in #1, except when you have cat firmly > cradled in bottle-feeding position, sit down on edge of chair, > fold your torso over cat, bring your right hand over your left > elbow, open cat's mouth by lifting the upper jaw and pop the pill > in quickly. Since your head is down by your knees, you won't be > able to see what you're doing. That's just as well. > > 6. Leave cat hanging on drapes. Leave pill in your hair. > > 7. If you're a woman, have a good cry. If you're a man, slam > fist into wall. > > 8. Now pull yourself together. Who's the boss here, anyway? > Retrieve cat and pill. Assuming position #1, say sternly, "Who's > the boss here, anyway?" Open cat's mouth, take pill and...Ooops! > > 9. This isn't working, is it? Collapse and think. Aha! Those > flashing claws are causing the chaos. > > 10. Crawl to linen closet. Drag back large beach towel. Spread > towel on floor. > > 11. Retrieve cat from kitchen counter and pill from potted plant. > > 12. Spread cat on towel near one end with his head over long > edge. > > 13. Flatten cat's front and back legs over his stomach. (Resist > impulse to flatten cat) > > 14. Roll cat in towel. Work fast. Time and tabbies wait for no > man. > > 15 Resume position #1. Rotate your left hand to cat's head. > Press his mouth at the jaw hinges like opening the petals of a > snapdragon. > > 16. Drop pill into cat's mouth and poke gently. Voila! it's > done. > > 17. Vacuum up loose fur. (cat's) Apply bandages to wounds. > (yours) > > 18. Take two aspirin and lie down. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 07:02:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:02:51 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07281 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:02:41 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA27075; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:02:53 -0800 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:02:53 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) In-Reply-To: <199804211949.VAA28696@isa.dknet.dk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The discussion about whether the declarer in 6S should be expected to re-plan the hand after the revoke is discovered and find a new way to make his contract (or to fall short by few enough tricks the revoke penalty will be enough to make the contract) raised some questions in my mind. How far can one ethically go in taking advantage of a revoke by opponents? One is explicitly permitted to select the most advantageous penalty when one is given a _choice_ of penalties to impose on the opponents. And in general it is considered permissible and ethical to take advantage of the opponent's errors. But: Question #1: The revoke penalty does not offer declarer any explicit choices. However, there is a condition that the revoker cannot win a trick with a card he could have legally played to the revoke-trick. Is it ethical for me to try to force this hand to win a trick with such a card? (I can imagine, for instance, a situation when a trick normally would go 2-J-Q-K, but the person holding J has revoked in this suit, so I can now play 2-J-3, forcing my LHo to waste his king or to give me an extra penalty trick by letting his partner win it.) My guess is that, yes, if you are clever enough to spot this play, you can make it. I am not certain there is universal agreement on this. Question #2: Cases like the original 6S question Jens posed hinge on how well-prepared the declarer was to handle a change of plan as a result of information gained via a revoke and its discovery. Even expert declarers do not usually get given information in this way; it is possible to obtain information that way that no line of normal play could ever give you. Is it reasonable to think a good player can make up, on the spot, a way to cope with a situation that "cannot" occur? And, more to the point of my ethical dilemma: is it permissible for me to study ahead of time, "what if my opponent revokes in such-and-such a situation and I discover it --- how best can I take advantage of this?" It seems as if this might technically be allowable, but it would a) be so much trouble I doubt anyone would really do it and b) it smacks of dishonesty to anticipate how one should take advantage of an infraction. In the ACBL I have been told that my partner and I *cannot* make agreements as to how we will handle insufficient bids -- though it is my right to decide between 1S-1D-1S, 1S-1D-2S, and 1S-1D-fix it!-2S, partner and I cannot assign different meanings to these sequences. Does the same logic apply to bar one from planning how to take advantage of a revoke? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 07:27:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:27:24 +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 HAA07380 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 07:27:18 +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 RAA19599 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15381; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:27:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:27:25 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804212127.RAA15381@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "G. R. Bower" ... > forcing my LHo to waste his king or to give me an extra penalty trick by > letting his partner win it.) > > My guess is that, yes, if you are clever enough to spot this play, you can > make it. I am not certain there is universal agreement on this. I'd be surprised if there isn't universal agreement. This is akin to taking advantage of a penalty card, a matter that is mentioned in at least some books and columns. > is it permissible for me to study ahead of time, "what if > my opponent revokes in such-and-such a situation and I discover it --- how > best can I take advantage of this?" Why shouldn't it be? How would anyone ever stop you? Why would anyone wish to do so? > It seems as if this might technically be allowable, but it would a) be so > much trouble I doubt anyone would really do it Yes. > b) it smacks of > dishonesty to anticipate how one should take advantage of an infraction. I don't see why. You didn't ask the opponents to break the rules. (If you did ask, then I agree taking advantage smacks of dishonesty!) > In the ACBL I have been told that my partner and I *cannot* make > agreements as to how we will handle insufficient bids -- though it is my > right to decide between 1S-1D-1S, 1S-1D-2S, and 1S-1D-fix it!-2S, partner > and I cannot assign different meanings to these sequences. This regulation predates the 1987 Laws, let alone the 1997 ones, and I believe it is contrary to both. It is also contrary to the convention charts, which make no mention of changes in allowable methods over insufficient bids. I was told quite some time ago that the regulation would be rescinded and was even shown replacement language, but I have not seen any official action. I think anyone who challenged this regulation would be on very strong ground. If your preferred meaning is conventional, you could argue that the convention chart allows it. (You had better be right, of course. Illegal conventions don't suddenly become legal after an insufficient bid.) If not, you could argue that the SO has no authority to regulate your agreement. At any rate, I see nothing unethical about taking full advantage of opponents' infractions. It is just the same as taking advantage of any other mistakes they may make. One's own infractions are a different matter. Partnership agreements that contemplate one's own infractions seem dubious indeed. (Also useless for any infractions I can think of. Perhaps I lack imagination.) Studying how best to play when one has a penalty card or after one has revoked seems of small use but legal. Usually the laws prevent gaining any advantage, but we are not to ignore L72A5 either. I am aware that some of the above is controversial, but I am utterly at a loss to see why it should be. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 08:31:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:31:41 +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 IAA07643 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:31:34 +1000 Received: from default (cph33.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.33]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA04669 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:31:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804212231.AAA04669@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:31:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote, somewhat too quickly, unfortunately: > Jens Ulrik Fougt wrote on 1998-03-02: > > > 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. > > The director was called at this point, and the NAC has ascertained > that he made clear to the players that there would be a one-trick > penalty (or possibly two-trick, not that it matters on this hand). > > > 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. > > Ruling against the non-offender in a case that the TD thinks should > be appealed is unorthodox, but Jens Ulrik has defended this decision > admirably elsewhere, and it is not the subject of this message. > > This case was written up widely in the Danish media, and it was > eventually decided by the National AC (NAC) without consensus being > reached among its eight members on the interpretation of L64C. > > The NAC agreed that if E had not revoked on trick 4, S would have > been likely to play for the club finesse, using the principle of > restricted choice. This line would lead to 12 tricks, and it thus > seems likely that S would have won his contract if there had been no > revoke. > > However, the information available to S after trick 6 gives S a > count of the hand: East has 6 hearts, 5 diamonds on the bidding, > and has shown his two black cards. Oops, too fast, as Gordon immedately told me in a mailed message. He has shown only one black card. If declarer is to win 11 tricks, he needs for E to have a stiff club honor, and if he plays the cK he will gratefully see the cQ drop. Only then can he claim 11 tricks. > At this point, S could play out > the hand double dummy, winning the contract with the 12th trick > awarded as the revoke penalty. > > The NAC saw this as a question of interpretation of L64C. > > Some members felt that S had not asked to be put in a situation > where he had to reconsider his plan twice because of the revoke, > and that the one-trick award therefore was "insufficient > compensation". > > Other members, who turned out to be the majority after a round of > deliberations, felt that at this high level (a player on S's > team is a junior world champion from 1997), a one-trick penalty > and full information allowing declarer to count East's hand is > sufficient compensation. > > The NAC did not consider it important in this case just how quickly > after the end of play the right line of play was presented to the > director. > > No consensus was reached, so the majority view prevailed. S was not > compensated. > > This case was discussed widely in the Danish media and on the > Internet. Many of the reports on the case are based on loosely > founded rumors, including inaccurate but entertaining rumors about > the position held by each member of the NAC -- this is information > that we do not publish. > > It is interesting that most of the published opinions that seem to > based on the facts disagree with the NAC's ruling. The "popular" > verdict, especially among S's peers, is that S should be > compensated, because it is asking too much of him to replan the play > in light of the revoke situation. > > The NAC has concluded at its recent annual meeting that the lack of > consensus shows that the borderline for "insufficient compensation" > is to be drawn somewhere near this case. The actual ruling is, of > course, final and by definition correct. The NAC is anxious, > however, that its rulings are generally accepted as being reasonable, > especially in situations where there is no obvious objectively > correct ruling available. Therefore, to shed further light on the > interpretation of L64C, we would appreciate feed-back from BLML, > either by posting, or by mail directly to me. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 08:38:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:38:25 +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 IAA07673 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:38:21 +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 IAA12892; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:38:37 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980422083133.0091ab80@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 08:31:33 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) Cc: Ib Axelsen In-Reply-To: <199804211949.VAA28696@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:50 PM 4/21/98 +0200, Jens & Bodil wrote: >Jens Ulrik Fougt wrote on 1998-03-02: > >> 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. > >The director was called at this point, and the NAC has ascertained >that he made clear to the players that there would be a one-trick >penalty (or possibly two-trick, not that it matters on this hand). > >> Declarer took 10 tricks, adjusted to 11 >The NAC agreed that if E had not revoked on trick 4, S would have >been likely to play for the club finesse, using the principle of >restricted choice. This line would lead to 12 tricks, and it thus >seems likely that S would have won his contract if there had been no >revoke. > >However, the information available to S after trick 6 gives S a >count of the hand: East has 6 hearts, 5 diamonds on the bidding, >and has shown his two black cards. At this point, S could play out >the hand double dummy, winning the contract with the 12th trick >awarded as the revoke penalty. I can't see that declarer knows East has 6 hearts and 5 diamonds. I know plenty of players who would show a two-suiter on a good 6-4, and one including a stiff spade and a doubleton C QJ is possible, and the restricted-choice club finesse will lead to 10 tricks. >The NAC saw this as a question of interpretation of L64C. > > Some members felt that S had not asked to be put in a situation > where he had to reconsider his plan twice because of the revoke, > and that the one-trick award therefore was "insufficient > compensation". South had already had to reconsider his plan in the light of a 5-0 trump break, I might add. Are we now expecting him to formulate a line that will work on all possible permutations of the East hand, even if we assume the hand is close to a conventional Unusual 2NT? > Other members, who turned out to be the majority after a round of > deliberations, felt that at this high level (a player on S's > team is a junior world champion from 1997), a one-trick penalty > and full information allowing declarer to count East's hand is > sufficient compensation. Not full IMHO, nor reasonable. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 09:55:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:55:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA07952 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:55:10 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yRmsn-0003w9-00; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:55:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 01:06:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Mixed Up Defensive Signals In-Reply-To: <199804201938.VAA25258@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199804201938.VAA25258@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> When I was at Cambridge Univ I believed that K from AKx was more >> helpful to partner than A from AKx. However, my partner, Pete Strode, >> thought otherwise. As a result I played A from AKx for his benefit, and >> he played K from AKx for mine! >> >> Let us get it straight: the Laws allow for it, and it is a matter of >> regulation. The ACBL, and EBU/WBU, do not permit you to play different >> conventions from your partner, so you may not play this in these areas. >> However, I do not know what other SOs think. > >DBF (Denmark) requires that both players in a partnership play the >same system, but allows for different indications in the field on the >form where the frequency of psychic bids is declared. For instance >mine is "never", and my partner's is "seldom". Still, I was the one >who psyched most recently. > >You see, "never" means "very seldom", like for instance no more than >twice a year. How enlightened of the Danes to accept that a psyche is a legitimate ploy and that the psyche frequency is something the opponents are entitled to know. Would the EBU would accept this :( -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 10:03:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:03:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA07985 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:03:43 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028808; 22 Apr 98 0:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:02:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. >The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in >full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes >three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law >has been misapplied. > > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction >Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a >narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, >for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was >not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the >first two places in the competition. > > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the >team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help >on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. > Once you're outside your correction period I believe that the score, however arrived at, has to stand - I think I recall a world championship or similar being decided on a 1400 not being changed to an 1100 (or similar) even though the score *was* 1100, because it was outside the correction period. I think this is a parallel example. I would be happy to be over-ruled here BTW. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 12:41:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:41:16 +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 MAA08410 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:41:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003153; 22 Apr 98 2:40 GMT Message-ID: <4AvZiZBI6UP1EwSU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:57:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Too many aces. In-Reply-To: <199804211614.MAA23900@t6.mscf.uky.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A Kuchenbrod wrote: >> In a weekly club game - playing the second board of a three board round >> - N/S reach a game contract with S as declarer. West leads a small >> diamond. Dummy follows small and East cashes the DA milliseconds before >> declarer plays his DA. >> >> With the Director quickly summoned it is determined that E has taken his >> hand from the next board. Director rules that the current board is >> fouled and awards A+/A-. Director further rules that since DA has been >> exposed W is barred from the auction when the third board is bid. DA >> becomes a penalty card. >> >> As W, it seems to me that the ruling for the third board was appropriate >> but that we got off too easily with an A-. >> >> Comments? > >It's a judgment call for the director. Quick question for all (first time I've >looked at the exact wording)--in L90B7, where it refers to an adjusted >score for any contestant, does "any" include the contestants at the table? >Normally when I've applied that law, it's been for people messing up the >cards at the end of the hand, with the next table being affected by the >lack of procedure. If "any contestant" includes those at table, L90B7 >justifies a procedural penalty in addition to the A-. That is hardly the way that L90B is generally applied. Any error in procedure can be penalised by the Director under this Law - the items given are examples, not exhaustive - so which contestant is referred to is not relevant: the Director can certainly fine under this Law. But why should he? Good club directors do not go round scattering PPs like confetti. What do you think of a Director who rules that a pair gets A- on one board; who rules that the same pair gets both a major penalty card and one player barred from the auction on the next; who then fines them in addition? I would sack the Director and never consider using him again. The main aim of a Director should not be to make sure that the game is so unenjoyable for people that they do not return, and a ruling of this harshness seems a good way. What are PPs used for in clubs? To keep players from fouling procedures and thus reducing others' enjoyment of the game. The first two PPs to a pair should normally be warnings. If a pair does something really wrong, and does not suffer by getting an A- or an adjustment against them then a small fine might be in order, especially when their opponents are upset. But never fine a pair that is already getting a very bad deal from the infraction unless they keep doing whatever it is that is wrong. I am not sure that I agree with the ruling quoted BTW, but the principle holds good: fine rarely. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 12:43:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:43:25 +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 MAA08426 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:43:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003155; 22 Apr 98 2:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:39:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quick'n'easy In-Reply-To: <199804211904.PAA13917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> I play an opening "Pass" as 0 to 9 HCP, and an opening "No bid" as 10 >> or 11 HCP. Good convention - I recommend it. > >> What do you mean, I can't? Which Law stops me? > >Law 74C1: > >The following are considered violations of procedure: using different >designations for the same call. > Aha, I missed that one. Good answer. However, I was surprised when I was asked this question [and it was an apparently serious question addressed to the EBU!] to find that while there is a Proper Form for bids [L18A] doubles [L19A2] and redoubles [L19B2] there is none for passes. Now L74C1 has been pointed out, I presume that I can therefore say "Miaouw" instead of "no bid" so long as I do it consistently. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 12:43:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:43:49 +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 MAA08444 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:43:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003152; 22 Apr 98 2:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:33:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: <353ca5b9.611349@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >However, I would find it quite acceptable if a _club_ chose to >interpret the half hour limit as meaning "half an hour into the >next club night", so that even players who go home immediately >after play has the benefit of a correction period when they show >up the following club night. But only if this is (and has been) >done consistently, of course. For an ordinary club duplicate we recommend a Correction Period that ends at the commencement of next week's duplicate. The case quoted is rather different being a special event run by the club. for one thing, people are more likely to stay for the results, prizes and so on. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 16:22:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:22:02 +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 QAA08799 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:21:50 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.71.5.102]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA26251 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:21:34 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:20:41 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd6db6$c6a4b380$6605470c@jay-apfelbaum> 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 story is rather long (sorry), but the question I would pose to the group is whether there is a logical alternative to my choice of bids. At a recent tournament, playing matchpoints, I picked up: S - K J 10 5 H - void D - A K 6 5 3 2 C - J 9 8 Vul against not, I opened (dealer) 1 Diamond. LHO bid 4 Hearts, partner doubled and RHO passed. We play negative doubles through 3S, but did not discuss anything higher. Our partnership is fairly new. I chose to bid 4 Spades. It went all pass. At this point I recalled that I might owe my opponents an alert, as only negative doubles are not alerted at this level. I explained that we played negative doubles only through 3 Spades, and that we had not discussed what doubles over a 4 Heart bid would show. Here is the hand: S - A 9 8 7 6 H - 10 5 D - 8 7 C - K Q 5 2 S - 3 S - Q 4 2 H - A Q 9 8 6 4 3 2 H - K J 7 D - 4 D - Q J 10 9 C - A 10 6 C - 7 4 3 S - K J 10 5 H - void D - A K 6 5 3 2 C - J 9 8 I made twelve tricks by ruffing the opening heart lead, then leading a club towards dummy. RHO won and forced me with another heart. I led another club to dummy to take a spade finesse, then cashed the King. I then led a third club, and when I could win that in dummy I drew the last spade trump and claimed. +680 This was the first board of a two-board round. After the round was finished and the round was called, my opponents called for the director. They stated that my partner had broken tempo before doubling. My partner and I were not present when the director was called. After hearing from my opponents, and without speaking to either my partner or me, the director changed the contract to 4 Hearts, doubled, making 5 (+690) on a diamond lead. After the session was completed, my partner and I learned of this ruling. We appealed, and the Committee decided to award Average plus (them) and Average minus (us). During the appeal hearing, they asked my partner how long it took him to double after the "Stop Card" was returned to the bidding box by the 4 Heart bidder. He said it took about 15 seconds (his rough estimate) after the 4 Heart bid for him to Double. Although I disputed this, I recognize that with my partner's statement the Committee probably had to find a break in tempo. My position is that pass is not a logical alternative. Preliminarily, it is not clear to me that a prompt double suggests a better trump (hearts) holding. Law 16 requires that the break in tempo has to "demonstrably suggest" one meaning over another. I do accept, however, that a double after a break in tempo almost certainly never has a trump stack. A prompt double may show one. My problem is that this double is over a 4-level preempt. The preempter RARELY holds poor enough trumps that anyone can have a stack. So, my first question is: Does this break in tempo "demonstrably suggest" poor trumps? Assuming the break in tempo does suggest poor trumps, the next question deals with logical alternatives to bidding 4 Spades. It has been my experience that with a void in the opposition trump suit (on extremely high level preempts like this, anyway) it is almost always right to bid. As an aside, if you reverse partner's and RHO's hands it is still right to bid 4 Spades. In the "reversed hand" case, 4 Hearts still makes (-590). So, after bidding 4 Spades partner will correct to 5 Diamonds. It takes a spade lead by LHO to beat 5 Diamonds two tricks, but -500 is still an improvement over -590. Without a spade lead, you escape for -200. And partner has two trump tricks. The standard, I believe, is whether a significant number of players (my class or ability) would actually pass the 4 Heart preempt if partner doubled in tempo in a confident voice. I recognize that pass could be right. However, that figures to be ONLY when all contracts go down. And that seems to me very much against the odds. Especially with my heart void. My only real defense is an A-K in a six-card suit. On highly distributional hands it is very likely this will take only one trick on defense. So, what is the groups opinion of pass as a logical alternative? As another aside, the next day I picked up: S - A K x H - J 10 9 x D - void C - K J 9 x x x Now playing Board-a-Match teams, vul against not, I opened 1 Club. My LHO bid 5 Diamonds and partner doubled (no break in tempo this time). I bid 5 Hearts and got doubled. Here is the hand: S - Q J 10 x x H - 7 x x x D - K 7 x C - x S - x S - x x x x H - A K 5 H - Q x D - A Q J 10 8 x x x D - 9 x C - x C - A Q 10 x x S - A K x H - J 10 9 x D - void C - K J 9 x x x I wound up down 2, -500. However, my team-mates came back with 5 Diamonds, doubled, making 5 for +550. This was a normal result across the event. So, we won the board. I am not using this hand to say that because I would always take this double out, I should be allowed to do it after partner breaks tempo. I use this hand to show that taking out this double is a correct action. Here also, reverse partner's and RHO's hands and a 5 Heart bid is still right. In this case, LHO makes 5 Diamonds by taking a ruffing finesse against my spade honors. And partner corrects my 5 Heart bid to 6 Clubs, which loses only the A-K of hearts (-200). Thanks for your patience in reading this very long post, but I thought the problem complex enough to warrent it. Thoughts? Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 18:09:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:09:38 +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 SAA09083 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:09:32 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id EAA10013; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:12:36 -0400 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow via smap (4.1) id xma009908; Wed, 22 Apr 98 04:12:07 -0400 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA06840; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 04:07:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199804220807.EAA06840@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 08:58:12 GMT Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: // much snipping >This was the first board of a two-board round. After the round was finished >and the round was called, my opponents called for the director. They stated >that my partner had broken tempo before doubling. > >My partner and I were not present when the director was called. After >hearing from my opponents, and without speaking to either my partner or me, >the director changed the contract to 4 Hearts, doubled, making 5 (+690) on a >diamond lead. Of course it is usually a mistake to comment when only one side of the story has been presented: even more so when another Zone/NBO is involved. Nevertheless I feel so strongly about this I will do so anyway. IMO it is quite wrong to award an adjusted score against a side without hearing their arguments: it is still worse to do so without telling them. I would like to think such things don't happen in English Bridge Union (EBU) events, but if they did, and the L&E got to hear of them they would very likely send a letter to the TD asking for an explanation. If the TD had no good explanation (and, short of the facts not being as stated I cannot think of a good one) then I expect the TD would be unequivocally told this was a very clear mistake. On the facts as presented there is another question. Why did EW not call the TD at the end of the hand, but delay this until the opponents had left the table? I would not expect a TD to even consider giving a ruling until this question had been satisfactorily answered, as of course EW might very well be able to. Of course there are times when infractions do not come to light until some time after the end of the round. But this is not one of those hands. The alleged hesitation was of course self-evident, and S's hand would surely have been clear to EW at the end of the hand. // much more snipping As to your main question, I am afraid I think it is very close. As a TD I would rule that pass was an LA. On an AC I would ask questions and base my decision on your and your partner's responses. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 18:36:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:36:20 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA09207 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:35:10 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199804220835.SAA09207@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:33:47 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA033444024; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:33:45 +0200 Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: from John at "Apr 22, 98 01:02:05 am" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:33:44 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 691 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to John: > Once you're outside your correction period I believe that the score, > however arrived at, has to stand - I think I recall a world championship > or similar being decided on a 1400 not being changed to an 1100 (or > similar) even though the score *was* 1100, because it was outside the > correction period. Rosenblum Cup 1990, Semifinal Germany vs. Canada. A different decision would have made Canada finalist. They were running out of time, Germany was going down quite a few in 5CX, and both sides scored the board wrongly on their scoresheet. Later that night, after the correction period, the Canadians discovered that they were due 1700, not only 1100. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 20:05:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:05:09 +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 UAA09424 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:05:03 +1000 Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id CNYCa27908; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:04:44 -0400 (EDT) From: R Craig H Message-ID: <954e9c6e.353dc0bd@aol.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:04:44 EDT To: JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don' t see how the TD can make a ruling absent a full inquiry. Any question about break in tempo should be found against a pair that waits until after the round is over, it seems to me. It should be normal to wait for about 10 seconds after a preempt, warned or not. A good practice to adopt as a standard, so that there is never a variance in tempo. Is a 15 second break alleged in the absence of testimony from the purported offender such a break as to justify such a ruling? Not after the board is over, the round called, the opponents gone. Estimates of elapsed time are notoriously subjective and suspect. Only with testimony with all players present can the director make an educated ruling in a close case. Perhaps in a case allegedly not close. In any event, the procedure was totally inappropriate here. On the rare occasion when I have seen a request for a ruling after the boards were completed, the directors have always questioned both sides before ruling. This was an isolated ruling by one director, not an ACBL approved procedure. Jay, knowing your stature in the ACBL, I hope that you have protested the procedure at the appropriate level, disassociating the result from your concern. Were I the TD I would rule no infraction and would not get to the question of logical alternatives. However, were the findings of UA due to improper tempo different and clear cut, I would rule against you. Shift the Ax of spades from your partner's hand to RHO in return for the KJ of hearts, and the double is right, your action is result-wrong. Sometimes there ARE trump stacks. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 20:13:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:13:16 +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 UAA09442 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:13:10 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-205.uunet.be [194.7.9.205]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA26010 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:13:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <353C8E4E.B86D96E8@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:17:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the > team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help > on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. > L82C does not specify a period : next year the result should still be changed to A+ to both sides ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 22 22:40:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:40:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA09998 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:39:58 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yRyoc-0001ws-00; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:39:55 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:39:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: POOT! Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:39:56 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Marv wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with > > > penalties applying only to defenders. > > > > ####OLD#### The card has been played (Law 45) prematurely but IMO > not > > illegally and therefore I do not think that Law 47 allows it to be > > retracted. ####OLD#### > > L44B requires that cards be played "in turn." It is therefore illegal > to play a card out of turn. > > ####### HOLD ON - The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws states > that "A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... dummy > spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure > **without any suggestion that a violation be penalised**" The "**" > are mine. Reading Law 44B carefully ("each other player in turn plays > a card") clearly shows that *it does not require anything* but is > merely establishing correct procedure and that does not of itself make > declarer's premature play from dummy illegal although, as it is a > failure to follow correct procedure, a Law 90 procedural penalty could > be applied (but I doubt that any TD would normally dream of doing so). > All other plays out of turn that are illegal and that are penalised > are therefore covered by other Laws that specifically make them > illegal and specify the penalty to be paid. ######### > > > MEGA-SNIP > > > > Law 57 even recognises the possibility of declarer playing > > ahead of one defender. > > So what? L57 does not say that L47B is inapplicable in such cases. If > you are referring to L57C, that law refers to an opponent's "playing > before his partner," which is not the case here. L57's title is > "PREMATURE PLAY OR LEAD BY DEFENDER." Let's stick to the subject. > > ######## This is relevant as if the Lawmakers ever intended > Declarer's premature play from Dummy to be penalised then I would > expect a footnote or text indicating that the Defender over Dummy > although not subject to penalty for playing ahead of his partner, > should nevertheless not itentionally do so if Declarer's act is to be > subject to a legal penalty and therefore withdrawn. Please compare > with Law 47E1 where LHO is prevented from accepting a lead out of > turn. ########## > > > > Maybe Alan LeBendig, who I believe is co-chairman of the NABC Appeals > Committee, will help clarify this matter, since he also believes that > declarer's play out of turn cannot be withdrawn under any > circumstances. > > And David Stevenson, you started this...what is your opinion? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 00:00:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:00:26 +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 AAA10470 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:00:19 +1000 Received: from cph42.ppp.dknet.dk (cph42.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.42]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA04750 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:00:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:00:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3543f769.2887862@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:33:41 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > The case quoted is rather different being a special event run by the >club. for one thing, people are more likely to stay for the results, >prizes and so on. In that case I don't think there is any legal way in which you can change the result the following day. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 00:38:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:38:57 +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 AAA12889 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:38:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019315; 22 Apr 98 14:35 GMT Message-ID: <+CzkUXAW6eP1EwyS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:20:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) In-Reply-To: <199804212231.AAA04669@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >I wrote, somewhat too quickly, unfortunately: >> Jens Ulrik Fougt wrote on 1998-03-02: >> >> > 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. >> >> The director was called at this point, and the NAC has ascertained >> that he made clear to the players that there would be a one-trick >> penalty (or possibly two-trick, not that it matters on this hand). >> >> > 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. >> >> Ruling against the non-offender in a case that the TD thinks should >> be appealed is unorthodox, but Jens Ulrik has defended this decision >> admirably elsewhere, and it is not the subject of this message. >> This case was written up widely in the Danish media, and it was >> eventually decided by the National AC (NAC) without consensus being >> reached among its eight members on the interpretation of L64C. >> >> The NAC agreed that if E had not revoked on trick 4, S would have >> been likely to play for the club finesse, using the principle of >> restricted choice. This line would lead to 12 tricks, and it thus >> seems likely that S would have won his contract if there had been no >> revoke. Why does it lead to twelve tricks? He has already lost one of his chances of making twelve tricks by winning with the HT not the HK. There *is* a line for 12 tricks, but it is not at all obvious. Just taking the club finesse will normally result in 11 tricks. >> However, the information available to S after trick 6 gives S a >> count of the hand: East has 6 hearts, 5 diamonds on the bidding, >> and has shown his two black cards. > >Oops, too fast, as Gordon immedately told me in a mailed message. He >has shown only one black card. If declarer is to win 11 tricks, he >needs for E to have a stiff club honor, and if he plays the cK he >will gratefully see the cQ drop. Only then can he claim 11 tricks. This is not correct either, as another poster has pointed out. Relying on opponents to bid as you do is not always a winning policy. The easiest way to make 12 tricks without the revoke or 11 tricks with the revoke is to play East to hold 4 Q97532 AK92 QJ and I know plenty of people who would bid 2NT with that! >> At this point, S could play out >> the hand double dummy, winning the contract with the 12th trick >> awarded as the revoke penalty. Could he indeed? I considered the hand for some time, and then decided it does not make. When I wrote the options down I discovered one line that does make the slam, but it is very easy to miss. >> The NAC saw this as a question of interpretation of L64C. While true, it also depends on a correct analysis of the hand, and I have not seen one that convinces me yet. >> Some members felt that S had not asked to be put in a situation >> where he had to reconsider his plan twice because of the revoke, >> and that the one-trick award therefore was "insufficient >> compensation". >> >> Other members, who turned out to be the majority after a round of >> deliberations, felt that at this high level (a player on S's >> team is a junior world champion from 1997), a one-trick penalty >> and full information allowing declarer to count East's hand is >> sufficient compensation. Why? What is L64C for? The question is whether there was damage, surely. What does that mean? It means that you consider what would have happened without the revoke. Would he have made 12 tricks? If so, then he is damaged, surely? On the actual hand, you have to reach a position where you finesse the C7 for the contract either with or without the revoke [unless you win T2 with the HK, but that is now moot]. The line of play is basically the same. Since declarer did not find it after the revoke, then I do not believe he would have found the same winning line without the revoke. I am sympathetic to the idea that to ask Declarer to find 3 lines of play is not fair, and if this were the only consideration then I would give him his 12 tricks. However, line 1 and line 3 are in effect the same. Thus he is not being asked to formulate a new plan, and the evidence is that he was going for the wrong plan originally. So I do not believe that declarer suffered damage from the revoke and correction and I rule 11 tricks. >> The NAC did not consider it important in this case just how quickly >> after the end of play the right line of play was presented to the >> director. *I* think it is important in *this* case, because the winning lines with and without the revoke are the same. >> It is interesting that most of the published opinions that seem to >> based on the facts disagree with the NAC's ruling. The "popular" >> verdict, especially among S's peers, is that S should be >> compensated, because it is asking too much of him to replan the play >> in light of the revoke situation. >> >> The NAC has concluded at its recent annual meeting that the lack of >> consensus shows that the borderline for "insufficient compensation" >> is to be drawn somewhere near this case. The actual ruling is, of >> course, final and by definition correct. The NAC is anxious, >> however, that its rulings are generally accepted as being reasonable, >> especially in situations where there is no obvious objectively >> correct ruling available. Therefore, to shed further light on the >> interpretation of L64C, we would appreciate feed-back from BLML, >> either by posting, or by mail directly to me. I believe that in general to ask a player to get a third plan right is not reasonable: he has been damaged. However, the actual case appears to have been mis-analysed. cc Hans-Olof Hellen -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 00:38:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:38:54 +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 AAA12891 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:38:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019343; 22 Apr 98 14:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:50:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: > >The discussion about whether the declarer in 6S should be expected to >re-plan the hand after the revoke is discovered and find a new way to make >his contract (or to fall short by few enough tricks the revoke penalty >will be enough to make the contract) raised some questions in my mind. > >How far can one ethically go in taking advantage of a revoke by opponents? > >One is explicitly permitted to select the most advantageous penalty when >one is given a _choice_ of penalties to impose on the opponents. And in >general it is considered permissible and ethical to take advantage of the >opponent's errors. But: > >Question #1: > >The revoke penalty does not offer declarer any explicit choices. However, >there is a condition that the revoker cannot win a trick with a card he >could have legally played to the revoke-trick. Is it ethical for me to >try to force this hand to win a trick with such a card? (I can imagine, >for instance, a situation when a trick normally would go 2-J-Q-K, but the >person holding J has revoked in this suit, so I can now play 2-J-3, >forcing my LHo to waste his king or to give me an extra penalty trick by >letting his partner win it.) > >My guess is that, yes, if you are clever enough to spot this play, you can >make it. I am not certain there is universal agreement on this. Sounds like normal bridge to me. WTP? >Question #2: > >Cases like the original 6S question Jens posed hinge on how well-prepared >the declarer was to handle a change of plan as a result of information >gained via a revoke and its discovery. Even expert declarers do not >usually get given information in this way; it is possible to obtain >information that way that no line of normal play could ever give you. Is >it reasonable to think a good player can make up, on the spot, a way to >cope with a situation that "cannot" occur? And, more to the point of my >ethical dilemma: is it permissible for me to study ahead of time, "what if >my opponent revokes in such-and-such a situation and I discover it --- how >best can I take advantage of this?" > >It seems as if this might technically be allowable, but it would a) be so >much trouble I doubt anyone would really do it True. > and b) it smacks of >dishonesty to anticipate how one should take advantage of an infraction. Not at all: I want to take advantage of any mistakes by oppos, and an infraction seems similar to a bidding misjudgement. If an opponent bids out of turn then it is sensible *not* to accept such a bid unless [a] you were in trouble and wanted oppos to bid or [b] you are going to double it. So a commonsense rule for you is don't think deeply about whether to accept a BOOT: just don't unless [a] or [b] applies. There is *nothing* wrong in doing what I have advised in the last paragraph. That is anticipating how to take advantage of an infraction and there is nothing wrong with it. >In the ACBL I have been told that my partner and I *cannot* make >agreements as to how we will handle insufficient bids -- though it is my >right to decide between 1S-1D-1S, 1S-1D-2S, and 1S-1D-fix it!-2S, partner >and I cannot assign different meanings to these sequences. Does the same >logic apply to bar one from planning how to take advantage of a revoke? Not at all. If the ACBL reg is legal [see Steve's post] then it is a regulation under L40D. [IMO it is legal for conventions but not for natural bids.] There is no reason to assume that a totally different Law carries *any* inference from an ACBL regulation covering a different part of the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 00:40:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:40:23 +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 AAA12918 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:40:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019317; 22 Apr 98 14:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:38:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <01bd6db6$c6a4b380$6605470c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: [s] >This was the first board of a two-board round. After the round was finished >and the round was called, my opponents called for the director. They stated >that my partner had broken tempo before doubling. > >My partner and I were not present when the director was called. After >hearing from my opponents, and without speaking to either my partner or me, >the director changed the contract to 4 Hearts, doubled, making 5 (+690) on a >diamond lead. If the facts are as you state then the Director has clearly ruled in the absence of the facts. This ruling is thus untenable. >After the session was completed, my partner and I learned of this ruling. We >appealed, and the Committee decided to award Average plus (them) and Average >minus (us). During the appeal hearing, they asked my partner how long it >took him to double after the "Stop Card" was returned to the bidding box by >the 4 Heart bidder. He said it took about 15 seconds (his rough estimate) >after the 4 Heart bid for him to Double. > >Although I disputed this, I recognize that with my partner's statement the >Committee probably had to find a break in tempo. My position is that pass is >not a logical alternative. They should be considering this as a Law 82C [Director's Error] case. Thus both sides are treated as non-offending. Still, if they decide that there was a break in tempo despite giving you the benefit of the doubt then that is a reasonable conclusion. >So, what is the groups opinion of pass as a logical alternative? I do not believe it is in Europe, but I am afraid it may be in NAmerica. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 00:40:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:40:54 +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 AAA12933 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:40:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019318; 22 Apr 98 14:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:48:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Use of BLML MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others had the same view, or whether I had missed something. I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that has occurred. I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good faith. What do you think? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 00:41:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:41:57 +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 AAA12949 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:41:51 +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 KAA19228 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15784; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:42:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 10:42:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804221442.KAA15784@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de > Rosenblum Cup 1990, Semifinal Germany vs. Canada. > A different decision would have made Canada finalist. > > They were running out of time, Germany was going down > quite a few in 5CX, and both sides scored the board > wrongly on their scoresheet. Later that night, > after the correction period, the Canadians discovered > that they were due 1700, not only 1100. Good memory! I thought it was only a one-trick difference (1400), but either way, it was enough to swing the match. The problem was complicated by that CoC having specified _two_ correction periods. One was the normal one for appeals, and there was another, much later, expiration for correction of "obvious errors" or words to that effect. (Anybody remember the exact language?) The correction request was filed after the first period had expired but before the second one had, and the result hinged on the narrow question of whether the error qualified for handling under the language in the CoC. Eventually the committee decided the language did not allow the correction. There was an interesting Bridge World editorial on the case. Kaplan, who was a member of the committee, explained and defended the decision. Rubens said that the committee's duty was to restore equity if it could possibly do so within the rules, "and we know who won the match in equity." I'm afraid I side with Rubens. Either way, there are a few lessons for tournament organizers and for players: 1) There has to be some moment after which any error, no matter how egregious, cannot be corrected. (Of course appeals filed before this magic moment may take as long to decide as need be.) 2) It is desirable that this moment be as late as possible consistent with other constraints on the contest (e.g., need to play the next round and at the end to announce a winner and go home). 3) It is in everybody's interest that there be no doubt whatsoever when this moment will occur. Balancing items 2 and 3 may be difficult, but I hope nobody ever again writes CoC like the ones at that Rosenblum. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 01:16:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:16:10 +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 BAA13145 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:16:01 +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 LAA20044 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15812; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:16:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:16:11 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804221516.LAA15812@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "JApfelbaum" This was quite a comedy of errors, wasn't it? At least this proves BoD members don't always get favored treatment from TD's. > Vul against not, I opened (dealer) 1 Diamond. LHO bid 4 Hearts, partner > doubled and RHO passed. We play negative doubles through 3S, but did not > discuss anything higher. Our partnership is fairly new. > I chose to bid 4 Spades. It went all pass. At this point I recalled that I > might owe my opponents an alert, as only negative doubles are not alerted at > this level. I explained that we played negative doubles only through 3 > Spades, and that we had not discussed what doubles over a 4 Heart bid would > show. Seems reasonable. As far as I can tell, the rules don't require an alert if you have no agreement. (As I've complained before, the rules are so unclear that I don't think anybody can tell for sure what requires an alert and what doesn't.) Anyway, on the facts presented, the opponents didn't claim damage from the failure to alert. > My partner and I were not present when the director was called. Others have commented on the director's procedure. It is hard to imagine it was correct. > After the session was completed, my partner and I learned of this ruling. We > appealed, and the Committee decided to award Average plus (them) and Average > minus (us). I cannot imagine that this is correct either. Why the artificial score instead of an assigned one if they decide to adjust? (Looks like the TD's ruling of 4Hx making five is the proper adjustment if you think the 4S bid is an infraction.) > During the appeal hearing, they asked my partner how long it > took him to double after the "Stop Card" was returned to the bidding box by > the 4 Heart bidder. He said it took about 15 seconds (his rough estimate) > after the 4 Heart bid for him to Double. I don't understand why "after the Stop Card was returned" has anything to do with the matter. Under ACBL regulations, the Stop Card is a reminder and nothing more. Your partner's obligation is to wait about 10 seconds after the skip bid is made, regardless of what the opponent does with the stop card. It is reasonable to rule that "15 seconds after the 4H bid" is out of tempo, but it is also reasonable to rule otherwise. For one thing, your partner probably spent some of his time thinking about what double would mean in this undiscussed sequence and might therefore take longer than normal. Also, a 4H preempt over a 1m opening is always difficult to deal with and can often take more than 10 seconds. Nevertheless, I don't think we can second guess the committee on this point. They were there and heard the testimony, and we weren't. > Preliminarily, it is not clear to me that a prompt double suggests a better > trump (hearts) holding. Law 16 requires that the break in tempo has to > "demonstrably suggest" one meaning over another. L16 applies if the tempo demonstrably suggests one action over another. I think a slow double suggests pulling in almost all cases. [logical alternative, holding] > S - K J 10 5 > H - void > D - A K 6 5 3 2 > C - J 9 8 > The standard, I believe, is whether a significant number of players (my > class or ability) would actually pass the 4 Heart preempt if partner doubled > in tempo in a confident voice. In the ACBL, the standard is whether your peers would "seriously consider" pass, even if none of them actually would pass. In many other jurisdictions, the standard is, as you say, whether 20-30% actually would pass. I believe pass is a LA under the ACBL standard. Partner could have a balanced hand, say 3424, and nothing makes for either side. The opponent's white on red overcall doesn't have to be very sound. I'm not sure how I would vote in a jurisdiction that adopted the less stringent "25% rule." I agree that 4S is the right bridge action, and I think I'd vote that pass is not a LA, but I'd want to discuss it with the rest of the committee. I could probably be persuaded either way. > I recognize that pass could be right. Under the ACBL standard, I think that makes it a LA. You had to at least think about it before rejecting it. On the facts presented, and aside from procedural and legal mistakes, the only doubtful point seems to me the issue of fact as to whether the double was out of tempo. If it was, the rest seems automatic (in the ACBL). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 01:25:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:25:07 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13187 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:25:00 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA15777 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:25:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Use of BLML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the > answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others > had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that > has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect > that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so > as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them > the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good > faith. > > What do you think? > I think that the problem was posted in good faith. Have you been criticised for posting academic problems, as you sometimes do? Probably not, even though you seem to have your own view as to what the answer should be. Why is a real life problem any different? Most members of the mailing list seem to use the "this is what happened, this is what I think" approach for actual incidents. So what? -- Richard Lighton Wood-Ridge NJ USA (but for the next 17 days wandering around Great Britain) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 01:28:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:28:59 +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 BAA13212 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:28:52 +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 LAA20845 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15828; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:29:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:29:03 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804221529.LAA15828@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If the ACBL reg is legal [see Steve's post] then it is a > regulation under L40D. [IMO it is legal for conventions but not for > natural bids.] Just to clarify... I agree that any SO has full authority to regulate conventions after opponent's insufficient bids as well as in other situations. They would be wise to be careful how they exercise this authority. The ACBL regulation in question, if read literally, seems to prohibit all conventions (indeed all partnership agreements, conventional or otherwise!) after an opponent's insufficient bid. Since I cannot believe that is what the regulation meant, and since the convention charts make no mention of any difference in rules after an insufficient bid, the simplest interpretation seems to me that the convention charts have now superseded the regulation. If this is not the case, I think I shall bid an insufficient one of my suit next time the opponents launch into a conventional, constructive auction. That will bar them from using any conventions. (This is a joke, of course, but the potential is real.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 01:35:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:35:51 +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 BAA13262 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:35:44 +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 LAA21448 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15836; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:35:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:35:54 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804221535.LAA15836@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > They should be considering this as a Law 82C [Director's Error] case. I don't see how this could be right. The hand was played out without a director being called. Thus any error the TD may have made subsequently can, in principle, be rectified. Of course not having had the TD called makes it more difficult to determine the facts, but I'm afraid it is the AC's unpleasant duty to make the best determination it can from the evidence available. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 01:45:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:45:51 +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 BAA13315 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:45:44 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA09596 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804221545.LAA18504@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199804212127.RAA15381@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > From: "G. R. Bower" >> In the ACBL I have been told that my partner and I *cannot* make >> agreements as to how we will handle insufficient bids -- though it is my >> right to decide between 1S-1D-1S, 1S-1D-2S, and 1S-1D-fix it!-2S, partner >> and I cannot assign different meanings to these sequences. > This regulation predates the 1987 Laws, let alone the 1997 ones, and I > believe it is contrary to both. It is also contrary to the convention > charts, which make no mention of changes in allowable methods over > insufficient bids. I was told quite some time ago that the regulation > would be rescinded and was even shown replacement language, but I have > not seen any official action. > I think anyone who challenged this regulation would be on very strong > ground. If your preferred meaning is conventional, you could argue > that the convention chart allows it. (You had better be right, of > course. Illegal conventions don't suddenly become legal after an > insufficient bid.) If not, you could argue that the SO has no > authority to regulate your agreement. The ACBL's regulation, as written, deals with conventional agreements over insufficient bids, which it does have the authority to regulate. On the other hand, the convnetion chart is ambiguous in this situation. For example, if you normally play negative doubles, is a negative double of an insufficient overcall allowed? I don't think the ACBL has the right to regulate the distinction between the sequences above, but this does cause the problem of implicit agreements. -- 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 Apr 23 01:59:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:59:28 +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 BAA13369 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:59:20 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-59.uunet.be [194.7.13.59]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA04593 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:59:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <353E10B7.E01AFDF3@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:45:59 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3543f769.2887862@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 02:33:41 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > > The case quoted is rather different being a special event run by the > >club. for one thing, people are more likely to stay for the results, > >prizes and so on. > > In that case I don't think there is any legal way in which you > can change the result the following day. Why not ? You just change it ! We do that all the time with appeals, superior appeals to the national authority and so on ... I am not saying that a player can ask for, and expect to receive a change in score. But the director is certainly entitled to change an incorrect ruling as per L82C ! Whether it's a good thing for him to do so or not, I'm not certain. But if he is now convinced his ruling of yesterday is wrong, then he must be allowed to change the results. He will not be popular with the SO however ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 02:06:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:06:06 +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 CAA13562 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:05:58 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10566 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804221606.MAA19495@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:38:34 +0100) Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > JApfelbaum wrote: >> This was the first board of a two-board round. After the round was finished >> and the round was called, my opponents called for the director. They stated >> that my partner had broken tempo before doubling. Nobody has brought this up, but should any correction have been allowed at this point? Law 16A2 specifies that the director "should" be summoned as soon as the non-offender has reason to believe there was an infraction. Does he forfeit his right after the round ends, or does the "should" mean only that he may jeopardize his rights but hasn't done so here? >> My partner and I were not present when the director was called. After >> hearing from my opponents, and without speaking to either my partner or me, >> the director changed the contract to 4 Hearts, doubled, making 5 (+690) on a >> diamond lead. > If the facts are as you state then the Director has clearly ruled in > the absence of the facts. This ruling is thus untenable. However, I don't think this would have such an effect on >> After the session was completed, my partner and I learned of this ruling. We >> appealed, and the Committee decided to award Average plus (them) and Average >> minus (us). During the appeal hearing, they asked my partner how long it >> took him to double after the "Stop Card" was returned to the bidding box by >> the 4 Heart bidder. He said it took about 15 seconds (his rough estimate) >> after the 4 Heart bid for him to Double. Is that 15 seconds after the bid, or did the bidder leave the Stop Card out for ten seconds, then return it to the box, and then wait another 15 seconds? In the first case, I wouldn't find a break in tempo. >> Although I disputed this, I recognize that with my partner's statement the >> Committee probably had to find a break in tempo. My position is that pass is >> not a logical alternative. > They should be considering this as a Law 82C [Director's Error] case. > Thus both sides are treated as non-offending. Still, if they decide > that there was a break in tempo despite giving you the benefit of the > doubt then that is a reasonable conclusion. Law 82C doesn't apply here; it only applies if a director's error prevents normal scoring of the board. If the director had been called at the right time, he would have ruled an adjusted score or no adjusted score, and the committee would have ruled in the same way, determining a normal result in the adjusted or original contract. Also, if Law 82C were applied, the score should have been A+/A+, not A+/A-, since both sides were non-offending. If Law 82C were not applied. the score should have been +690/-690 or -500/+500, since there is a definite result in whichever contract the committee assigns. -- 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 Apr 23 02:18:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:18:08 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA13699 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:18:02 +1000 Received: from Goodwin.maine.rr.com (dt032n33.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.51]) by proxyb1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA25090; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980422121130.2d174a40@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:11:30 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Use of BLML In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:48 PM 4/22/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the >answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others >had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that >has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect >that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so >as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them >the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good >faith. > > What do you think? I can't imagine people getting upset about this. This mailing list is supposed to be used for discussion of issues of Laws, is it not? And, your post appears to have generated some appropriate discussion. Next time, maybe you should include a disclaimer: "Beware, I have an opinion on this matter." Now, as for the discussion of cats.... Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 02:20:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:20:13 +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 CAA13713 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:20:07 +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 MAA23495 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA15885; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:20:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:20:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804221620.MAA15885@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Too many aces. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Kryst, Jack" > With the Director quickly summoned it is determined that E has taken his > hand from the next board. Director rules that the current board is > fouled and awards A+/A-. Even though the auction period has ended, I'd be tempted to apply L17D. The headers are not part of the Laws, and L17D says nothing about applying only during the auction period. In other words: East looks at his correct hand. If his call at each turn would have been the same as the call he made, the board is played normally. Even then, the TD has the option of adjusting the score ("_may_ allow the board to be played normally"). The TD should exercise this option if, for example, East might have overcalled with his correct hand but decides (having heard the full auction) not to do so, and this damages the NOS. But if, for example, East has nothing on either hand and is always passing (or by some miracle has the same normal bids on each hand), there's no reason not to play the current board. If there is an adjustment, avg+/avg- is correct. A PP is legal but (as others have said) wildly inappropriate unless this is a repeated offense or caused by EW having done something else wrong (e.g., handling the boards when North should be the only one to do so). > Director further rules that since DA has been > exposed W is barred from the auction when the third board is bid. DA > becomes a penalty card. It looks to me as though the ruling should have been under L24B with West barred only for one round. Also check L23 and any UI implications of having played D-A (probably denies the D-K, for example). The penalty card part is right if EW become defenders. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 02:25:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:25:34 +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 CAA13766 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:25:29 +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 MAA21998 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:25:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA15894; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:25:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 12:25:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804221625.MAA15894@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > Nobody has brought this up, but should any correction have been allowed > at this point? Law 16A2 specifies that the director "should" be > summoned as soon as the non-offender has reason to believe there was an > infraction. Does he forfeit his right after the round ends, or does the > "should" mean only that he may jeopardize his rights but hasn't done so > here? I don't think "jeopardize" is the same as "forfeit." By calling late, a player makes it harder for the TD to rule that an action was out of tempo. Thus he has "jeopardized" his chance of redress. But if investigation produces evidence that on balance implies that the action was indeed out of tempo, redress is not forbidden. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 02:36:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:36:51 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA13887 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:36:44 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yS2Vv-0000CW-00; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:36:54 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:36:45 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Use of BLML Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:36:43 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of > the > answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether > others > had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something > that > has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in > effect > that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case > so > as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them > the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good > faith. > > What do you think? > > ########## Personally speaking, I am quite happy about this as I find > it refreshing to see new and interesting problems rather than just the > same old chestnuts recurring time after time. However, it is probably > wise to post such problems in a way that does not later suggest that > you already knew the answer and were just seeing how many people could > be tripped up by it. :-) > > ########### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 03:03:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:03:52 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14172 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:03:45 +1000 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27347 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199804221442.KAA15784@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:08:05 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de >> Rosenblum Cup 1990, Semifinal Germany vs. Canada. >> A different decision would have made Canada finalist. >> >> They were running out of time, Germany was going down >> quite a few in 5CX, and both sides scored the board >> wrongly on their scoresheet. Later that night, >> after the correction period, the Canadians discovered >> that they were due 1700, not only 1100. > >Good memory! I thought it was only a one-trick difference (1400), but >either way, it was enough to swing the match. > >The problem was complicated by that CoC having specified _two_ >correction periods. One was the normal one for appeals, and there was >another, much later, expiration for correction of "obvious errors" or >words to that effect. (Anybody remember the exact language?) IIRC: The second period was for correction of "manifestly incorrect" scores, which the AC interpreted to mean scores such as +50 with the opponents vulnerable (impossible scores), or "4H making, +650". The Germans were down 6 not vul, and the Canadian pair knew this but miscomputed the score, using the old scale, while the Germans recorded the score as down 5; both agreed on the 1100, and it was only in the middle of the night that the Canadian player realized what had happened. The next morning, the German team agreed that down 6 was correct, but the committee decided that since "down 5 not vul -1100" was not incorrect on the face of it, it could no longer be changed. _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 03:45:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:45:45 +1000 Received: from clmout3.prodigy.com (clmout3-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14399 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:45:23 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout3.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA94448 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:43:37 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id NAA05768 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:40:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199804221740.NAA05768@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:40:21, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Use of BLML Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >What do you think? I happen to like the method of submitting a problem and then telling what actually happened. I realize there are only about 225 people on the list, most of them more experienced than I. Back in our Prodigy bulletin board days, we had good players posting problems and then telling us in a few days whether we got the ruling or committee action correct. This was how we learned. This is one of the reasons I read the laws list, to learn. This is also why I do a lot more reading than posting. In order to be a good laws or committee person you must read a lot of case books; learn from your own experiences and learn from people posing problems for you to try to get right, just the same as if I had asked you what lead do you make from this hand and why. -Chyah -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 03:46:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:46:41 +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 DAA14411 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:46:28 +1000 Received: from default (client8537.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.55]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA13612; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:45:43 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Grant C. Sterling" Cc: "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:45:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6e16$6112cd80$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" 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: Dany Haimovici To: Grant C. Sterling Cc: Bridgelaws Date: 17 April 1998 00:43 Subject: Re: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players >Dear and Sincere friend > >1. Commentaries to the 97 Laws: >Sir Grattan Endicott published the commentaries for the 1987 >laws , somewhere in the early 90.........I think it was a very >helpful book ...and I believe some people >will convince him to do that marvelous job again . \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ >P.S. - Your Excellency , the WBF non-cat Laws' committee >secretary , Sir Grattan ..... do you agree ??? > >> \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ .and Grant Sterling took us to Philososphy!..... >> > >> [FWIW, Plato recommends this proceedure for _all_ >> lawmaking--accompanying the actual text of the law with a description of >> how and why the law was made.] >> ### Now, what do I say?. Well, first of all the Knighthood is a few rungs up the ladder as yet, and would be unexpected. The Parchment on my wall says that I have been granted "the Dignity of an Ordinary Officer of the Civil Division of the Order of the British Empire" - that allows me, if I am being ostentatious or formal, to add the letters OBE after my name. More importantly, David Stevenson and I have agreed a collaboration on an updating of the European Bridge League 'Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge'; Panos Gerontopoulos is looking up the electronic copy of the 1987 book for us to work with; I believe Ton Kooijman is asking for a budget for the production. We are open minded (as yet) about the nature and style of our efforts (aren't we David?*) and will listen (Won't we David?*) to any views ! (*There, you see, "Collaboration"! - David only lives a mile or two from me, which may help.) ### O.K.? - Grattan ### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 05:16:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:16:41 +1000 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (eris.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA14775 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:16:35 +1000 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:16:35 +1000 Received: (qmail 12520 invoked from network); 22 Apr 1998 19:16:45 -0000 Received: from pm02-d082.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.82) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 22 Apr 1998 19:16:45 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980422141619.386f1ca4@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It looks to me as the 4H side is trying for a famous double shot when they didn't notice any infraction during the time the hand was played and probably later figured out that they are making 4H. If there had been a break in tempo i would like to get the attention to it before they have got to figure out they have a game as well. Otherwise it looks too me lets try and see how good defense is going to be and if it is wrong call the cops. They didn't protect there rights with calling director when the infraction occured and they have forfeited the right to get an assigned score in my opinion. Since they would NOT have called director if defense turned out to be right.. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 05:20:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:20:14 +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 FAA14783 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:20:03 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h28.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id XAA10965; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:20:09 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <353EDEB9.455B@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:24:57 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Use of BLML References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Stevenson wrote: > > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the > answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others > had the same view, or whether I had missed something. SNIP Why not, David? It was funny - and usefull. There is an old cinema's proverb: Spectators vote by feet. That means - the more posters, the more interesting thread Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 05:27:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:27:02 +1000 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (eris.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA14820 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:26:55 +1000 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 05:26:55 +1000 Received: (qmail 12751 invoked from network); 22 Apr 1998 19:27:05 -0000 Received: from pm02-d082.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.82) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 22 Apr 1998 19:27:05 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980422142639.386fb030@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It looks to me as the 4H side is trying for a famous double shot when they didn't notice any infraction during the time the hand was played and probably later figured out that they are making 4H. If there had been a break in tempo i would like to get the attention to it before they have got to figure out they have a game as well. Otherwise it looks too me lets try and see how good defense is going to be and if it is wrong call the cops. They didn't protect there rights with calling director when the infraction occured and they have forfeited the right to get an assigned score in my opinion. Since they would NOT have called director if defense turned out to be right.. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 06:49:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 06:49:08 +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 GAA15111 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 06:48:57 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA18674 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:48:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 99.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.99) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018657; Wed Apr 22 15:48:09 1998 Received: by 99.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6E0E.6F73CEE0@99.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net>; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:48:11 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6E0E.6F73CEE0@99.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Use of BLML Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:48:04 -0400 Encoding: 52 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How can you ever learn what others really think about a matter if you poison the well? Perhaps it might be reasonable as a number of rgb posters do to withhold your opinion/the actual result pending comment, while letting the group know you have such an opinion/information. I have difficulty believing you would post in bad faith. Tongue-in-cheek is of course another matter. This problem is somewhat aggravated (as it is for several on group) by your position in the bridge world and the general respect you possess as expert in matters of law and tournament direction. It would be somewhat more difficult to give an unbiased opinion on a matter if we already knew the gospel according to DWS. :-) I for one consider it commendable that you want to put your view of a situation to such an unbiased test and have retained the open-mindedness to do so. This is how one can develop and learn, rather than become rigidly entrenched in inaccurate or outdated beliefs. One of the primary advantages of a group such as this is that we can learn from each other (though lesser lights such as myself may have a lot more to learn) and have the game benefit from the discussion. -- Craig Senior ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 9:48 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Use of BLML In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others had the same view, or whether I had missed something. I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that has occurred. I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good faith. What do you think? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 07:07:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:07:18 +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 HAA15261 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:07:05 +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 OAA00745; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804222106.OAA00745@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOT! Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:04:20 -0700 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 ---------- > David Martin wrote: >Marvin French wrote: > > > > > > > L47B says that a card played illegally may be withdrawn, with > > > > penalties applying only to defenders. > > > > > > ####OLD#### The card has been played (Law 45) prematurely but IMO > > not > > > illegally and therefore I do not think that Law 47 allows it to be > > > retracted. ####OLD#### > > > > L44B requires that cards be played "in turn." It is therefore illegal > > to play a card out of turn. > > > > ####### HOLD ON - The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws states > > that "A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("... dummy > > spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure > > **without any suggestion that a violation be penalised**" The "**" > > are mine. Reading Law 44B carefully ("each other player in turn plays > > a card") clearly shows that *it does not require anything* but is > > merely establishing correct procedure and that does not of itself make > > declarer's premature play from dummy illegal although, as it is a > > failure to follow correct procedure, a Law 90 procedural penalty could > > be applied (but I doubt that any TD would normally dream of doing so). > > All other plays out of turn that are illegal and that are penalised > > are therefore covered by other Laws that specifically make them > > illegal and specify the penalty to be paid. ######### > > Well, David Martin's arguments look persuasive to me. Declarer can follow suit from the wrong hand first, then from the right hand, or both at once, and this is not illegal, just incorrect procedure. Such plays are more frequently seen in rubber bridge. Declarer can't retract any card so played, because the play is a legal play. The TD need not be called, because no law has been broken. One might call the TD to protest the failure to follow correct procedure, and the TD might possibly (after a warning, no doubt) apply a procedural penalty. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 08:29:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:29:06 +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 IAA15514 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:28:51 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2028131; 22 Apr 98 22:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:59:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <199804221606.MAA19495@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >David Stevenson writes: > >> JApfelbaum wrote: > >>> This was the first board of a two-board round. After the round was finished >>> and the round was called, my opponents called for the director. They stated >>> that my partner had broken tempo before doubling. > >Nobody has brought this up, but should any correction have been allowed >at this point? Law 16A2 specifies that the director "should" be >summoned as soon as the non-offender has reason to believe there was an >infraction. Does he forfeit his right after the round ends, or does the >"should" mean only that he may jeopardize his rights but hasn't done so >here? The balance of proof tends to shift. But *if* there definitely was UI then the players still retain the right to an adjusted score. This is a common problem in various guises: how to reconcile the Director must be called part of L9 and the right to request a ruling until the end of the Correction Period of L92. [s] >Law 82C doesn't apply here; it only applies if a director's error >prevents normal scoring of the board. If the director had been called >at the right time, he would have ruled an adjusted score or no adjusted >score, and the committee would have ruled in the same way, determining a >normal result in the adjusted or original contract. That is not what L82C says. No rectification will allow the board to be scored normally. Still, I am not sure about its applicability in this case. >Also, if Law 82C were applied, the score should have been A+/A+, not >A+/A-, since both sides were non-offending. When a score has been obtained on a board, and it is later amended under L82C, then it should be an AssAS, not an ArtAS. > If Law 82C were not >applied. the score should have been +690/-690 or -500/+500, since there >is a definite result in whichever contract the committee assigns. Assigned scores would be correct whether L82C applies or not. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 09:52:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:52:40 +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 JAA15757 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:52:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005051; 22 Apr 98 23:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:48:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players In-Reply-To: <01bd6e16$6112cd80$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >The Parchment on my wall says >that >I have been granted "the Dignity of an Ordinary Officer of the Civil >Division >of the Order of the British Empire" - that allows me, if I am being >ostentatious >or formal, to add the letters OBE after my name. Very impressive! > More importantly, David Stevenson and I have agreed a collaboration >on an >updating of the European Bridge League 'Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate >Bridge'; Panos Gerontopoulos is looking up the electronic copy of the 1987 >book >for us to work with; I believe Ton Kooijman is asking for a budget for the >production. We are open minded (as yet) about the nature and style of our >efforts (aren't we David?*) Yes Grattan! > and will listen (Won't we David?*) Yes Grattan! > to any views >! > (*There, you see, "Collaboration"! - David only lives a mile or >two from >me, which may help.) ### O.K.? - Grattan ### > -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 09:58:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:58:36 +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 JAA15774 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:58:21 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client25ea.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.234]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA09581 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:58:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re Use of BLML Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:00:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd6e4a$c9fbce80$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 David wrote.. < I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect Anne I From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 10:20:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:20:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA15883 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:20:11 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yS9kO-00002n-00; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:20:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:59:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Use of BLML In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the >answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others >had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that >has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect >that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so >as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them >the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good >faith. > > What do you think? > When I am called to the table and am given a problem by the players such as you posted I have generally formed a tentative opinion by the time I have heard the facts. I will then wander off about it, read the laws and make up my mind. I will then go and pose the problem to another competent director such as yourself, David. If your view is the same as mine I will go ahead and rule. If you are in disagreemnt I will reconsider my position, maybe try to argue you around, and failing this will go and find some-one else. By now I will have a three person view and will rule the majority view (even if I disagree). Thus Posting as you did, when you already have a view is an *excellent* idea. I contribute to some threads and just follow the developing arguments on others. Both ways are valid in terms of increasing one's understanding of the laws, their interpretation and application. Do it again David -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 10:59:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:59:01 +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 KAA16011 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:58:54 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-14.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.118]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA21272 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <353E92CD.B13D7ABC@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:01:01 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Use of BLML References: <3.0.5.16.19980422121130.2d174a40@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 02:48 PM 4/22/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the > >answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others > >had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that > >has occurred. > > > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect > >that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so > >as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them > >the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good > >faith. > > > > What do you think? > > I can't imagine people getting upset about this. This mailing list is > supposed to be used for discussion of issues of Laws, is it not? And, your > post appears to have generated some appropriate discussion. Next time, > maybe you should include a disclaimer: "Beware, I have an opinion on this > matter." > > Now, as for the discussion of cats.... > > Tim Ditto, Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 11:30:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:30:21 +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 LAA16100 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:30:15 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-14.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.118]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA24822 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:30:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <353E9A18.A295F30@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:32:09 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'BLML'" Subject: Re: Too many aces. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kryst, Jack wrote: > In a weekly club game - playing the second board of a three board round > - N/S reach a game contract with S as declarer. West leads a small > diamond. Dummy follows small and East cashes the DA milliseconds before > declarer plays his DA. > > With the Director quickly summoned it is determined that E has taken his > hand from the next board. Director rules that the current board is > fouled and awards A+/A-. Director further rules that since DA has been > exposed W is barred from the auction when the third board is bid. DA > becomes a penalty card. > > As W, it seems to me that the ruling for the third board was appropriate > but that we got off too easily with an A-. > > Comments? > > ----jk > > jack.kryst@mcda.org This is interesting to me as I had this happen at the club last week and had considered posing the question here. On the second board of a three board round, I was called to the table by East, declarer, after the opening lead and before playing to the next trick, declarer noted that there were two jacks of diamonds. One in her hand and one played by North. Upon investigating the problem, I found the dummy's hand was the hand from the third board and West's proper hand was in the third board to be played. I ruled that both boards had been fouled and gave the players who played the board on the previous round an ave- and left the result for the previous pair (N/S) as the score on the two boards. I then gave the current pairs an average for the two fouled boards, we then returned the hands to the proper pockets and carried on. I didn't think that these boards could be saved as everyone had seen the West hand from the third board and a trick had been played from the second board. The east/west pair involved were a Silver life (east) and a beginner (west). They had had a discussion of the hands but did not believe they had put the hands in the wrong pockets. Was I wrong????? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 02:16:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:16:19 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA13671 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:16:13 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA04907 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:13:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804221613.LAA04907@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Use of BLML [personal] To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:13:31 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Apr 22, 98 02:48:37 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the > answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others > had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that > has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect > that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so > as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them > the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good > faith. > > What do you think? I don't see anything wrong with what you did. I think that you should give your opinion once the discussion has gotten going, since although I don't always agree with you I always take seriously your answer. But to give that opinion within the text of the question might very well have defeated your purpose, since you would never have known if others would have agreed with you had they not known your view in advance. I would only regard your actions as an abuse of this List if the answer was something very obvious that we shouldn't have bothered to waste our time on. But I can't imagine why you would have wanted to post a question like that in the first place. Besides, I don't think the List should have different rules for different contributors. I am sure many people who ask questions on this List already have their own answers in mind. Why should you be any different? > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 02:07:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:07:16 +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 CAA13577 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 02:07:09 +1000 Received: from default (hdn93-038.hil.compuserve.com [209.154.55.38]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA25266 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980422160758.00c2fd5c@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 11:07:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Use of BLML Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the >answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others >had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that >has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect >that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so >as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them >the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good >faith. > > What do you think? I agree with you, David. In that situation I think you're right to hold back your own opinion, since it could sway others; it shows a willingness to be persuaded to change your mind. And I, at least, learn from the discussions here, so I wouldn't call asking for opinions a waste of our time. Just MHO, of course. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 12:03:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:03:08 +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 MAA16196 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:03:01 +1000 Received: from default (207-172-54-149.s149.tnt16.brd.erols.com [207.172.54.149]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA01307 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: Use of BLML Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:02:36 -0400 Message-ID: <000001bd6e5b$e320d160$9536accf@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David > Stevenson > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 9:49 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Use of BLML > > > > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the > answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others > had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that > has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect > that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so > as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them > the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good > faith. > > What do you think? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > I have no problem with this approach. It can be very useful to think about a problem without necessarily thinking about the way the original poster thought about the problem, and may lead in directions the original poster did not expect. In this format, responses are to the problem, rather than your particular opinion of it. I cannot see how this could be construed as wasting peoples' time, or not in good faith (unless it was a trick question etc. etc.). If an individual does not like this type of post, there's always the delete key. As for me, keep the posts coming! Best wishes, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 12:07:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:07:56 +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 MAA16226 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:07:50 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-14.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.118]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA29272 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:08:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <353EA2F7.D6FC0452@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:09:59 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick'n'easy References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I play an opening "Pass" as 0 to 9 HCP, and an opening "No bid" as 10 > or 11 HCP. Good convention - I recommend it. > > What do you mean, I can't? Which Law stops me? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ Another convention you might want to consider and seems to be used by lots of players is presented very nicely on the ACBL pages, in the Library under bridge humor. It is called "Weasel over Preempts". I am not sure if you are familiar with this. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 14:38:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:38:22 +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 OAA16530 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:38:17 +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 VAA02436; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804230438.VAA02436@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:35:00 -0700 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 > > In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. > The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in > full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes > three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law > has been misapplied. > > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction > Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a > narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, > for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was > not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the > first two places in the competition. > > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the > team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help > on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. > The ACBL has different correction periods for scoring errors and TD errors. For individual, pairs, board-a-match, and teams of two pairs, the correction period for scoring errors expires at the completion of play of the session following the one in which the error occurred and, for the last session, thirty minutes after that session. The correction period for TD errors does not expire until 24 hours after the event is concluded, or 1 hour after the entire tournament has concluded, whichever is earlier. This regulation is not well known, but appears in a TECH file of the ACBLScore program. For qualifying events the score correction period for both scoring and TD errors expires one hour before the announced starting time of the first final session. For Swiss Teams and Knockouts, errors are necessarily handled somewhat differently. Don't know if this helps at all, but there is a valid point here: Correction periods for TD errors should be longer than those for scoring errors. As a side note, I installed the ACBLScore program in my computer, even though I had no intention of doing any scoring with it. I was surprised to find what a wealth of information is included in the program's TECH files, and I would encourage everyone interested in the administration of sectional and higher tournaments to use ACBLScore as a source of good information that is not included on the ACBL web site. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 14:38:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:38:19 +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 OAA16525 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:38:13 +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 VAA02439 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804230438.VAA02439@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:37:08 -0700 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 > > In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. > The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in > full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes > three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law > has been misapplied. > > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction > Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a > narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, > for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was > not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the > first two places in the competition. > > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the > team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help > on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. > The ACBL has different correction periods for scoring errors and TD errors. For individual, pairs, board-a-match, and teams of two pairs, the correction period for scoring errors expires at the completion of play of the session following the one in which the error occurred and, for the last session, thirty minutes after that session. The correction period for TD errors does not expire until 24 hours after the event is concluded, or 1 hour after the entire tournament has concluded, whichever is earlier. This regulation is not well known, but appears in a TECH file of the ACBLScore program. For qualifying events the score correction period for both scoring and TD errors expires one hour before the announced starting time of the first final session. For Swiss Teams and Knockouts, errors are necessarily handled somewhat differently. Don't know if this helps at all, but there is a valid point here: Correction periods for TD errors should be longer than those for scoring errors. As a side note, I installed the ACBLScore program in my computer, even though I had no intention of doing any scoring with it. I was surprised to find what a wealth of information is included in the program's TECH files, and I would encourage everyone interested in the administration of sectional and higher tournaments to use ACBLScore as a source of good information that is not included on the ACBL web site. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 16:28:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA16860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:28:10 +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 QAA16855 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:28:05 +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 XAA08886 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804230627.XAA08886@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw: Convention Card (long) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:27:02 -0700 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: Marvin L. French > Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge > Subject: Convention Card (long) > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 11:22 PM > > This is the second draft of a pending article to appear in Table Talk, > the bimonthly publication of the La Jolla and Beach Unit 526 of the > ACBL. It is not copyrighted, if anyone wants to use any of it. I would > appreciate comments and suggestions, as I want to avoid any goofs or > important omissions. > > CONVENTION CARDS > > The ACBL has a newly designed convention card, which should be used by > everyone. The instructions for filling out the card are well-written, > but completeness required 15 pages of text. The instructions are > available at all unit games. Those with internet access can download > the instructions from the ACBL web site, which includes a wealth of > other information, at www.acbl.org. A computer program for generating a > personalized card is available at > www.209.45.144.70/convcard/edwards.stm > > The ACBL requires that each partnership have two fully completed, > identical, and legible cards on the table at all times. The cards > should be oriented for easy reading by the opponents. For sectional and > higher-rated events, the full names of the pair must be provided, but > we urge this for unit events also. Let people know who you are. > > The card is designed to be folded, and should not be left flat. There > are three reasons: (1) There is not room on the table for four bidding > boxes and four unfolded cards, (2) folding provides a degree of > security when entering scores, and (3) the card is more easily carried > in pocket or purse. Those who put multiple cards in a single plastic > holder, making folding difficult or impossible, should instead have one > holder for each partner. Why carry the other cards around? > > The convention card's main purpose is to communicate an overview of a > pair's conventions and special agreements to the opponents. It should > also display partnership style whenever possible. For instance, if you > play 15-17 HCP 1NT openings, but routinely open with 14 HCP in third > seat, the range should be marked as (14)15-17. > > Players with adequate eyesight should not ask about the meaning or > range of a call if the answer is clearly provided on the convention > card. The opposing card should be consulted regularly, not just when > holding a good hand. Never read an opponent's card aloud when referring > to it. When an opponent seeks information from your card, do not > volunteer the information orally unless asked to do so. > > Except for Alerted calls, it is preferable to postpone the questoning > of calls until the auction is over, unless there is an earlier "need to > know." Moreover, the Laws (L20F1) require that we avoid questioning > individual unAlerted calls. The proper words are "Please explain your > auction," after which the opponents each explain the calls of his/her > partner that are conventional or the subject of a special partnership > agreement, skipping other calls (an explanation of the auction is not a > review of the auction, which must be explicitly requested). Only a > declarer may explain his/her own calls. Asking a question for partner's > benefit constitutes an illegal communication with partner. > > To inquire about an Alerted call, one says "Please explain." The > response should be short, but should usually express what the call > means, not the name of the convention or treatment. It should also > indicate whether more detailed information might be helpful. For > instance, a 2C Drury response should be explained as "Artificial, > inquiring about my opening bid. Would you like to know more?" If the > opponent says yes, then one must provide every detail of the > partnership's agreements regarding the call. > > If you need to know more about an opposing call, Alerted or not, merely > say to the bidder's partner, "Would you tell me more about your style?" > When asked to explain an unAlerted call or play, a player is required > to disclose all special information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not > disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. An > exception should be made for inexperienced players whose knowledge may > be limited, or for foreign visitors who may not be familiar with > American bidding. > > When asking for further clarification of a particular call during an > auction explanation, or when soliciting additional information about an > Alerted call, one must be careful not to inadvertently give > unauthorized information (UI) to partner about one's hand. Anyone > taking advantage of UI is subject to penalty. One way to avoid this > possibility is to ask partner to leave the table before asking a > revealing question. Consult the director if necessary. > -- > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 17:46:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:46:31 +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 RAA17056 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:46:25 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id DAA26798; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:49:29 -0400 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow via smap (4.1) id xma026770; Thu, 23 Apr 98 03:49:00 -0400 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA19630; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 03:44:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199804230744.DAA19630@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 08:36:50 GMT Subject: Re: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > More importantly, David Stevenson and I have agreed a collaboration >on an >updating of the European Bridge League 'Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate >Bridge'; Panos Gerontopoulos is looking up the electronic copy of the 1987 >book >for us to work with; I believe Ton Kooijman is asking for a budget for the >production. We are open minded (as yet) about the nature and style of our >efforts (aren't we David?*) and will listen (Won't we David?*) to any views Excellent news! I wonder if, as and when the electronic version of the Commentary on the 1987 laws appears, it might be made available on someone's web-site. Whilst it is to some extent out of date (and, dare I say it, of questionable accuracy in one or two places) it is still useful. Well I find it useful anyway. Since, from recollection, it is now long out print, I would hope no-one is going to complain too much about breach of their copyright. Of course I have a paper copy, but it is rather heavy, and to carry it round in electronic form would be very helpful, at least to me, and I dare say to some others too. I suggest this mainly because, with the best will in the world, it will be quite a long time before your Commentary on the 1997 laws appears. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 17:53:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:53:46 +1000 Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA17074 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:53:36 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA15877 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804230753.AAA15877@prefetch.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Disclosure Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:52:28 -0700 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 LeBendig quoted me as follows: > > > the methods that Alice and I use to fully > > disclose our partnership agreements are designed to avoid the > > creation or communication of UI, all in accordance with ACBL > > regulations. > > There is no such regulation! We clearly allow oral disclosure of > agreements. > If UI results, we have Laws to deal with that. The ACBL has published a Principle of Full Disclosure (PFD), included in its ACTIVE ETHICS publication. We act in accordance with that principle, which has the appearance of a "regulation." We give oral disclosure of agreements when requested, what did I say that made you believe otherwise? To continue: > > > By avoiding (but not refusing) oral communication of > > what is clearly on the convention card, we ensure that our > > agreements > > are accurately communicated. We ourselves always look at > > opponents' > > cards rather than ask for the information that is printed there, > > and wish everyone would do the same. > > You're entitled to that opinion. But it is totally unrealistic to > think that the details of all agreements can possibly be disclosed > on an ACBL convention card. Of course they can't. Did I say that? Please read my words more carefully..."what is clearly on the convention card" and "information that is printed there." If people need to know more than what is on the convention card, then of course we provide full disclosure as required by the PFD. If they don't want to read the card, or have a visual problem, we readily give the information orally. You can't open 1NT these days without LHO asking "What range?" With the announcement of weak notrump ranges, this question should be made illegal. If there is no announcement, it's strong, and if 15-17, 16-18, or 16-19 makes a difference to an opponent, a glance at the card will give him that information. You can't open a two-level suit bid without LHO asking "Weak or strong?" or "Is that natural?" or "Is that Flannery?" Two bid specs are clearly shown on the convention card, there is no need for these questions, except perhaps to make sure partner is paying attention. A similar practice is the unnecessary questioning of unAlerted bids. You can't make an unAlerted jump takeout response or jump raise without LHO asking "Is that weak?" or "Is that a Bergen raise?" Hey, if it's not Alerted, it's strong and natural. Keep quiet and let us bid! > > ensures accurate knowledge of > > opponents' agreements, and precludes the common practice of > > asking > > questions mainly for the benefit of one's partner. This was a partial quote, here is the whole statement: We ourselves always look at opponents'cards rather than ask for the information that is printed there, and wish everyone would do the same. This policy avoids selective questioning based on one's hand, ensures accurate knowledge of opponents' agreements, and precludes the common practice of asking questions mainly for the benefit of one's partner. > > > > The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. > > And methinks that Marvin French doth protest too much! It is > common practice > to verbally ask questions about agreements. And it is common > practice to > receive answers to those questions. By verbally, I assume you mean orally. Of course the questioning is common practice, but so was slavery. Such questions should be in accordance with L20F1, which requires that individual calls not be questioned. Let me quote Grattan Endicott, who drafted that law in conjunction with Edgar Kaplan: "It is also important to recognise that no one during the auction, and only declarer during the player period, has a right to ask about a specific call -- the question must otherwise address the whole auction." This is analogous to the requirement that one must ask for a review of the entire auction, even when interested in only one of the calls. Just because players routinely violate the law does not make the violation legal. > I personally rarely look at a convention > card to receive information. Aren't you worried that your needless question, one clearly answered by the card, may be of help to your partner? > I remember Bobby Goldman making the same > disclosure in a Board of Governors meeting. Bobby Goldman didn't even have a convention card in his posession when I played against him last week. His "pupil" pulled one out of her purse when I insisted on seeing their card. That people of his stature can get away with violating ACBL convention card regulations is a continuing mystery to me. Who's in charge, anyway? > What's more, I am well aware of > the practice in NABC open events. Verbal disclosure and > explanations is the > practice used by the vast majority of the players. If Alice gets > confused and > can't explain agreements, perhaps it is because Alice doesn't > understand the > agreements. She does pretty well, but she's not perfect. Is anyone? The opponents have a right to know our agreements, not what our possibly erroneous interpretation of a bid might be. The improper question, "How do you take that bid?" does not deserve an answer, as any good TD will rule. > If there is confusion, the opponents certainly have a right to > know about it. Not during the auction, and maybe not ever, in the absence of UI. People have a right to make mistakes. It often happens that the explanation of a call is different on each side of the screen during a high-level team match. Does anyone claim this difference should be made known to the opponents before the auction is over? > I have a set of notes for Tom Clarke and I [sic] that is roughly 15 > pages in length to explain most of our agreements. Should I force > the > opponents to read these notes to get the information they want? > Of course not. You have misunderstood me. My fault, no doubt. We don't "force" the opponents to do anything. We merely encourage them to get convention card information from the card itself. That's what it's for. > Our regulations CLEARLY allow me to ask about your agreements at > the table, > Marvin. Whether it is on your card or not, I may ask for an > explanation of > your agreements. If you don't want to read the card, I'll gladly oblige. If it's not on the card, just ask for clarification during your request for a full explanation of the auction. No problem, you'll get it. > Whats more, I'm sure you're aware that the Laws > specifically > allow me to ask. Sure, but please adhere to L20F1, even though I won't insist on your doing so. You can lead a horse to water, but... > in WBF events > the participants practice verbal disclosure and RARELY consult a > card. > WBF practices have no pertinence in a discussion of what is proper in ACBL-land. > It may be time to examine your practices and recognize that you're > out of step > with reality. Probably so, but I'm just trying to do what is right. Reality is pretty ugly these days. > As your opponent, I assure you that I will be asking > questions > if the need arises... Ask away, if you have a need to know. And please have two convention cards on the table. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 19:03:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:03:25 +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 TAA17231 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:03:16 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:02:49 +0100 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 KAA25984 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:01:29 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: RE: Use of BLML In-Reply-To: <01BD6E0E.6F73CEE0@99.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:59:35 +0100 (BST) 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 Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:48:04 -0400 Craig Senior wrote: > How can you ever learn what others really think about a matter if you > poison the well? Perhaps it might be reasonable as a number of rgb posters > do to withhold your opinion/the actual result pending comment, while > letting the group know you have such an opinion/information. I have > difficulty believing you would post in bad faith. Tongue-in-cheek is of > course another matter. > This problem is somewhat aggravated (as it is for several on group) by > your position in the bridge world and the general respect you possess as > expert in matters of law and tournament direction. It would be somewhat > more difficult to give an unbiased opinion on a matter if we already knew > the gospel according to DWS. :-) > I for one consider it commendable that you want to put your view of a > situation to such an unbiased test and have retained the open-mindedness to > do so. This is how one can develop and learn, rather than become rigidly > entrenched in inaccurate or outdated beliefs. One of the primary advantages > of a group such as this is that we can learn from each other (though lesser > lights such as myself may have a lot more to learn) and have the game > benefit from the discussion. Hear, hear! Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 19:26:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:26:40 +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 TAA17299 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:26:34 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-121.uunet.be [194.7.13.121]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03777 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:26:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <353F0627.FC5D7621@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:13:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.16.19980422141619.386f1ca4@pop3.iag.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claire LeBlanc (well, signed Robert) wrote: > > It looks to me as the 4H side is trying for a famous double shot when they > didn't notice any infraction during the time the hand was played and > probably later figured out that they are making 4H. > > If there had been a break in tempo i would like to get the attention to it > before they have got to figure out they have a game as well. > > Otherwise it looks too me lets try and see how good defense is going to be > and if it is wrong call the cops. They didn't protect there rights with > calling director when the infraction occured and they have forfeited the > right to get an assigned score in my opinion. > > Since they would NOT have called director if defense turned out to be right.. > > Robert This is a common type of argument but it does not hold ! When really going for a double shot, players will certainly call the director to point out the hesitation, then do the double-shot-bidding and then call the director when this turns out wrongly. So not calling the director does not mean you are going for the double shot. Quite the reverse. Not calling the director can be due to the fact that you are quite aware that opponent has also noticed the hesitation, and that you assume he is going to bid ethically. Only after the hand do you discover that his bid was unethical and now you call director. As someone else has pointed out, this course of action jeopardizes your rights (as proving the hesitation will be more difficult), but it does not forfeit them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 19:57:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:57:54 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA17374 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:57:43 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ySIlO-0005fP-00; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:57:57 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:58:04 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Too many aces. Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:58:02 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy wrote: SNIP > This is interesting to me as I had this happen at the club last week > and > had considered posing the question here. On the second board of a > three > board round, I was called to the table by East, declarer, after the > opening lead and before playing to the next trick, declarer noted that > there > were two jacks of diamonds. One in her hand and one played by North. > Upon > investigating the problem, I found the dummy's hand was the hand from > the > third board and West's proper hand was in the third board to be > played. I > ruled that both boards had been fouled and gave the players who played > the > board on the previous round an ave- and left the result for the > previous > pair (N/S) as the score on the two boards. I then gave the current > pairs an > average for the two fouled boards, we then returned the hands to the > proper > pockets and carried on. I didn't think that these boards could be > saved as > everyone had seen the West hand from the third board and a trick had > been > played from the second board. The east/west pair involved were a > Silver > life (east) and a beginner (west). They had had a discussion of the > hands > but did not believe they had put the hands in the wrong pockets. Was > I > wrong????? Nancy > > > > ########## It is not correct to adjust the score of a properly > completed board for the previous players because they have > subsequently committed an irregularity by failing to return the > correct hands to the correct boards. It would be correct to adjust > their scores if they had actually played the boards in this fouled > format but this is extremely unlikely. What I almost certainly would > consider doing (unless there were extenuating circumstances) is to > issue a Law 90 PP of 10% to the relevant previous players if their > passing on of an incorrect set of 13 cards caused the board to become > unplayable at the next table. I would normally give both pairs Av+ at > the next table for each unplayable board unless they contributed to > the problem by failing to check their curtain cards (assuming that the > SO normally requires this to be done) and as result prevented the > boards from being rescued. In this latter case the careless player(s) > at the next table will get Av or, occasionally, Av- if they have > previously been warned for similar offences. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 20:57:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:57:57 +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 UAA17494 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:57:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2011233; 23 Apr 98 10:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:27:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Convention Card (long) In-Reply-To: <199804230627.XAA08886@proxyb1.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >I >would >> appreciate comments and suggestions, as I want to avoid any goofs >or >> important omissions. >> >> CONVENTION CARDS [s] >> Players with adequate eyesight should not ask about the meaning or >> range of a call if the answer is clearly provided on the convention >> card. This is not correct. Questions are often the best method of eliciting the required information and the right to ask questions is granted by the Laws. [s] >Moreover, the Laws (L20F1) require that we avoid questioning >> individual unAlerted calls. There is disagreement about this. The majority of people on BLML seem to think that is not what the Law says. Furthermore, it is a completely impractical reading of the Law: it creates difficulties: because of UI Laws it is an unnecessary reading of the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 23 22:45:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 22:45:41 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA17796 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 22:45:34 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA14536 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:45:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Fw: Convention Card (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I > >would > >> appreciate comments and suggestions, as I want to avoid any goofs > >or > >> important omissions. > >> > >> CONVENTION CARDS > [s] > > >Moreover, the Laws (L20F1) require that we avoid questioning > >> individual unAlerted calls. > > There is disagreement about this. The majority of people on BLML seem > to think that is not what the Law says. Furthermore, it is a completely > impractical reading of the Law: it creates difficulties: because of UI > Laws it is an unnecessary reading of the Law. > I'm sure others do this too, but in areas where I know there is confusion or insufficient guidance in the ACBL alert regulations (and I think they cover most things adequately) I will ask just to avoid the problems with misinformation if opponents don't know the alerting rules or I've got them wrong. Usually I'll leave it to the end of the auction, but not always. -- Richard Lighton Wood-Ridge NJ USA Next stop England. See you soon, David! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 00:58:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:58:06 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20519 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:57:58 +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 KAA06384 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16715; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:58:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:58:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804231458.KAA16715@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Correction periods for TD errors should be longer than those for > scoring errors. Why? This seems backwards, if anything. A possible TD error requires reconsideration and often consultation, which takes time, but a simple scoring error can be fixed instantly if the facts are agreed. (Even scoring by hand, fixing a single error takes very little time.) Simplicity argues for making the time limits the same for these two situations. Personally, that's what I'd advocate. Judgment appeals that require a committee may need an earlier deadline, of course. It would be reasonable to limit "TD error" appeals to the same deadline in case the correct ruling would lead to an appeal. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 01:01:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 01:01:36 +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 BAA20543 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 01:01:13 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ERV008W3GE9TH@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:01:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA00394; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:00:35 +0200 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:00:34 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Use of BLML In-reply-to: ; from "David Stevenson" at Apr 22, 98 2:48 pm To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ERV008W4GE9TH@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > In a recent post I put a question where i had a particular view of the > answer. I did not give my answer because I wanted to see whether others > had the same view, or whether I had missed something. > > I also dressed it out into a full problem since it was something that > has occurred. > > I have been criticised for this approach. I have been told in effect > that I should have told everyone what I thought in a particular case so > as to save people time, and that I wasted people's time by giving them > the full problem. I have been told that I did not post it in good > faith. > > What do you think? > ------------------------------------------------------------- Hi David, I already read some of the reactions and I also have no problem with your approach. When I put problems on the list, I normally do'nt give my opinion. I wan't to know what other people think of the problems I put on the list. I think if I give my thinking together with the problem then people can be too much focussed on my solution. And that is normally not where I am interested in. I hope that people will forgive me if they do'nt agree. Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 01:39:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 01:39:10 +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 BAA20775 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 01:39:02 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0ySO3l-0007KVC; Thu, 23 Apr 98 10:37 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:39:13 +0000 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Cc: In-Reply-To: <199804230438.VAA02436@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:35 AM 4/23/98 , Marvin L. French wrote: >The correction period for TD errors does not expire until 24 hours >after the event is concluded, or 1 hour after the entire tournament >has concluded, whichever is earlier. This regulation is not well >known, but appears in a TECH file of the ACBLScore program. What a wonderful place to publish regulations! The ACBL is in desperate need of someone to organize their regulations so that we mere mortals can find them. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 02:26:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:26:32 +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 CAA21142 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:26:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013450; 23 Apr 98 16:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:56:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POOT! In-Reply-To: <199804222106.OAA00745@proxyb2.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Well, David Martin's arguments look persuasive to me. Declarer can >follow suit from the wrong hand first, then from the right hand, or >both at once, and this is not illegal, just incorrect procedure. Such >plays are more frequently seen in rubber bridge. Declarer can't >retract any card so played, because the play is a legal play. The TD >need not be called, because no law has been broken. One might call >the TD to protest the failure to follow correct procedure, and the TD >might possibly (after a warning, no doubt) apply a procedural >penalty. This looks fine to me, except about the PP: it is generally to the opponent's benefit when declarer or dummy plays OOT now that we have established that he cannot withdraw it. Note that it may not be "illegal" but it is an "irregularity" so we could always apply L72B1 if declarer was trying to swindle his opponents in some way. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 02:42:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:42:36 +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 CAA21250 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:42:28 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013468; 23 Apr 98 16:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:49:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: <199804231458.KAA16715@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> Correction periods for TD errors should be longer than those for >> scoring errors. >Why? This seems backwards, if anything. A possible TD error requires >reconsideration and often consultation, which takes time, but a simple >scoring error can be fixed instantly if the facts are agreed. (Even >scoring by hand, fixing a single error takes very little time.) > >Simplicity argues for making the time limits the same for these two >situations. Personally, that's what I'd advocate. > >Judgment appeals that require a committee may need an earlier deadline, >of course. It would be reasonable to limit "TD error" appeals to the >same deadline in case the correct ruling would lead to an appeal. It is rare to find something that is TD error and correctable. The normal limits are for appeals and rulings, as in L92B. Scoring errors are more interesting in one way, because they are provable and correctable. If you think you lost an event because of a bad TD ruling, then you appeal it immediately. It is abnormal for something to happen that leads to a problem later, and if it does it usually only a matter of opinion. However, a check of scores the next day could certainly discover that the wrong winner had been announced, as happened in a celebrated case in the Northeast of England a couple of years ago. As a result, the time limit for scoring errors is often longer not shorter. When I set this question I had an idea of the answer but I was not sure. I believe the arguments here have been fruitful. Given the original case, there was a perceived error in the Director's ruling that was discovered over half-an-hour after the final scores were promulgated: in fact it was the next day. It seems to me that there are two possibilities: first, the injured party could appeal; second, they could suggest to the Director that she reconsiders her ruling because it was wrong in Law. This is out of time for appeals per L92B since the 30 minutes have elapsed, and the SO did not specify a different time period. However, L82C [Directors Error] does not seem to be covered by L92B since it is neither a request for nor an appeal of a director's ruling. So could she change her ruling and the result? I believe not: if she has her attention drawn to her error I believe that it comes under L81C6: she is required "to rectify an error or irregularity of which she becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C", which is again 30 minutes, since the SO did not specify otherwise. It looks to me that as long as nothing was said within 30 minutes of the results being posted that the result stands, wrong or right. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 04:41:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:41:51 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA21764 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:41:44 +1000 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA08975 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199804231458.KAA16715@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:46:13 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can I extend the discussion of when a TD's error can be corrected to the question of when an AC's decision can be corrected? Earlier this year at the Unit Final of the Canadian National Teams Championship, I sat on an AC judging a hesitation situation; we supported the TD who disallowed the actual 5D* -300 contract and rolled back to 4S +620, since it seemed clear that 4S would make. This was after the evening session of the first day of a two-day round-robin, and in the morning, one of the committee members realized we had been too hasty, and that because of a subtle late entry problem, the 4S contract would in fact have been defeated by the only plausible opening lead and obvious defense thereafter (all parties to the original appeal agreed when the difficulty was pointed out). Because of the special nature of the event, we had no qualms about changing the score back to 5D* before the start of the next session; but what if this had been an ordinary tournament game? _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 05:31:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 05:31:52 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21969 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 05:31:41 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA78074 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:31:55 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id PAC15402 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:29:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199804231929.PAC15402@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:29:53, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Correction Periods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am still trying to get a hold of Tech file on ACBLscore and will post that if/when I get it. -Chyah ===================================== Here is the complete regulation on correction periods from the ACBL 1998 Handbook of Rules and Regulations, Chapter 7 General Tournament Information: ------------------------------------------------------ CORRECTION AND APPEAL PERIODS A. KNOCKOUT TEAMS In knockout team play, the score correction period for player and scorer errors expires thirty minutes after the completion of the match, at the start of play at either table of a playoff, or at the announced starting time of the next match, whichever is earlier. The appeal period for or of a director's ruling in knockout team events expires thirty minutes after the completion of the segment, at the start of play at either table in the next segment, or at the start of play at either table of a playoff, whichever is earlier. A segment of a match is completed when the teams have agreed upon a score. B. SWISS TEAMS In Swiss team events, the score correction period for players' errors is as follows; no increase in score will be granted unless the director's attention is called to the error prior to the announced starting time of the next match or thirty minutes after the completion of the match, whichever is earlier. For scorers' errors, decrease in score due to players' errors and misreporting the agreed result of a match: expires one hour prior to the announced starting time for play on the next day of the same event,twenty-four hours after completion of the event, or thirty minutes after completion of the last event of the tournament, whichever is earlier. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tournament director may decline to amend the overall rankings if the team could have known at the time that one or more pairings were made based on an incorrect cumulative total. In any case, all matches played prior to correction of an error stand as played. The appeal period for or of a director's ruling expires thirty minutes after the completion of the match or at the start of play in the next match, whichever is earlier. When an appeal will not be heard prior to the playing of one or more matches, each of the teams will be credited, for pairing purposes, with a score reflecting a favorable ruling. A Swiss team match ends for a pair when all boards scheduled for play are completed and they leave the table or meet with their teammates. C. INDIVIDUAL, PAIR, BOARD-A-MATCH TEAM, AND TEAM-OF-TWO PAIRS EVENTS For players' errors: for play-through events, no increase in score will be granted unless the director's attention is called to an error prior to completion of play of the session following the one in which the error occurred and, for the last session, thirty minutes after that session. Scorers' errors and decrease in score due to players' errors: for playthrough, single-session and the finals of qualifying events, the correction period expires twenty-four hours after the completion of the event or thirty minutes after the completion of the last event of the tournament, whichever is earlier. Qualifying events (other than final session(s)): the score correction period for scorer and player errors expires one hour before the announced starting time of the session following a qualification. The appeal period for or of a Director's ruling expires thirty minutes after the completion of the session or at the announced starting time of the next session, whichever is earlier. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 08:55:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:55:49 +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 IAA22540 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:55:42 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:56:42 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:56:00 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? 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 I am not quite clear as to what Herman is suggesting (see below). Is it = that the Director must be called whenever a (supposed) hesitation occurs? Laws 16A1 and 16A2 lay down the correct procedure for this situation. How = are you aware that an opponent has also noticed the hesitation? You = immediately announce you reserve your right to summon the Director LATER. = Your opponents may disagree, in which case they summon the Director = IMMEDIATELY to sort out what has happened. Alternatively, your opponents may agree that there was a hesitation. You = call the Director LATER (either when dummy appears or at the end of the = hand) if you believe the opponent has chosen an action that could have = been suggested by the hesitation. If you do this, what possible problem = could there be in =22proving the hesitation=22 (unless your opponents now = lie about agreeing to the hesitation in the first place=21). I have been in the situation (as Director) of almost taking the step of = warning a player for unsportsmanlike behaviour for an immediate =22Director= =21=21=22 call. I arrived at the table to a one word explanation - = =22hesitation=22. The opponents looked extremely surprised - they both = claimed no hesitation. The other opponent also said no hesitation, at = which point the player that called me said =22Ok, no problem=22=21=21=21 = All of this could have been avoided if the player had said =22I am = reserving the right to call the Director later=22. Their partner would = have said =22Don=27t be ridiculous=22 and that would have been that=21 Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> Herman De Wael 23/04/98 19:13:11 >>> Not calling the director can be due to the fact that you are quite aware that opponent has also noticed the hesitation, and that you assume he is going to bid ethically. Only after the hand do you discover that his bid was unethical and now you call director. As someone else has pointed out, this course of action jeopardizes your rights (as proving the hesitation will be more difficult), but it does not forfeit them. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html=20 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 08:57:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:57:43 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22562 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:57:36 +1000 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id SAA09083 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id SAA12062; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804232257.SAA12062@freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Can I extend the discussion of when a TD's error can be corrected to the >question of when an AC's decision can be corrected? Earlier this year at >the Unit Final of the Canadian National Teams Championship, I sat on an AC >judging a hesitation situation; we supported the TD who disallowed the >actual 5D* -300 contract and rolled back to 4S +620, since it seemed clear >that 4S would make. This was after the evening session of the first day of >a two-day round-robin, and in the morning, one of the committee members >realized we had been too hasty, and that because of a subtle late entry >problem, the 4S contract would in fact have been defeated by the only >plausible opening lead and obvious defense thereafter (all parties to the >original appeal agreed when the difficulty was pointed out). Because of the >special nature of the event, we had no qualms about changing the score back >to 5D* before the start of the next session; but what if this had been an >ordinary tournament game? > > _________________________________________________________________________ >| Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | >|________________________________________________________________________| > A similar (though far less important!) situation occurred at a club game.The details of this situation hace previously been discussed on rgb. The upshot of it was, according to Gary Blaiss(sp?), head director of the ACBL, once a committee has rendered its decision, and dissolved itself, it cannot reconstitute itself to make a new decision, regardless of how poor its initial decision was. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 09:19:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:19:35 +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 JAA22676 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:19:28 +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 TAA30412 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17235; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:19:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:19:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804232319.TAA17235@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jens & Bodil" > Ruling against the non-offender in a case that the TD thinks should > be appealed is unorthodox, but Jens Ulrik has defended this decision > admirably elsewhere, and it is not the subject of this message. Is it necessary any longer, now that L81C9 allows the TD to initiate an appeal? > The NAC agreed that if E had not revoked on trick 4, S would have > been likely to play for the club finesse, using the principle of > restricted choice. This line would lead to 12 tricks, and it thus > seems likely that S would have won his contract if there had been no > revoke. What is the successful line? (The full hand is appended at the end.) After trick 4 (trump to hand, East follows), you can ruff another diamond, but then you must cash the second trump in dummy (not overtaking), cash C-K and take deep club finesse (not trying to return to hand with H-K), draw trumps and then overtake H-K to repeat the club finesse. It is not at all clear to me that declarer would have gotten it right. He must play East for 1651 with a club honor rather than any 2551 or some unlikely distributions like 1543. Why should he do that? Or am I missing something? > However, the information available to S after trick 6 gives S a > count of the hand: East has 6 hearts, 5 diamonds on the bidding, > and has shown his two black cards. At this point, S could play out > the hand double dummy, winning the contract with the 12th trick > awarded as the revoke penalty. As others have noted, the singleton club may not be a certainty, but the 6-1 heart break is. > Some members felt that S had not asked to be put in a situation > where he had to reconsider his plan twice because of the revoke, > and that the one-trick award therefore was "insufficient > compensation". > > Other members, who turned out to be the majority after a round of > deliberations, felt that at this high level (a player on S's > team is a junior world champion from 1997), a one-trick penalty > and full information allowing declarer to count East's hand is > sufficient compensation. The second view seems to be a version of the "egregious error" doctrine but here applied to "sufficient compensation" in L64C and not to the issue of "damage" in other laws. That makes it novel. Personally, I think it is better for the game (also simpler for everyone) if we apply the same standard consistently, but this is not mandated by the Laws as far as I can tell. > The NAC did not consider it important in this case just how quickly > after the end of play the right line of play was presented to the > director. One way you could look at this is that it helps you judge whether declarer would have played the right line if there had been no revoke. Or at least how easy the right line would have been for this declarer to find. After T-6 (West has ruffed H-K, East has now followed to trump lead), declarer is in principle in a better position than he would have been had there been no revoke. The 6-1 heart break has been revealed. Against that, declarer has been subject to mental fatigue, as the first group argue. There is, as you say, no obvious "right" way to weigh these factors. I think the decision boils down to deciding how likely declarer would have been to make his contract without the revoke and how likely afterwards (i.e. how likely in the same abstract likelihood the first question is answered). If the latter is much smaller than the former, you would adjust. So my answer would be: 1) If declarer was unlikely to make had the revoke not occurred: no damage, no adjustment. If likely to make absent the revoke, then how likely afterwards? 2a) If likely (and he failed by an egregious error), then adjust for the OS but not for the NOS. 2b) If unlikely (and so failure was normal), adjust for both sides. My bridge analysis leads me to 1), but that could easily be wrong. Hmmm... I honestly didn't know where this was going when I started writing, but I seem to have talked myself into a position where the decision cannot have been right. The committee seems to have ruled 2a) but forgotten to adjust for the OS. No doubt I have overlooked something important. Perhaps they have said that "sufficient compensation" is not the same standard as "egregious error;" you can make a somewhat lesser error while still being sufficiently compensated. Anyway, quite a thought-provoking question! > 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. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 09:31:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:31:23 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22748 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:31:17 +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 TAA32723 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:31:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17249; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:31:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:31:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804232331.TAA17249@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Simon Edler" > I am not quite clear as to what Herman is suggesting (see below). > Is it that the Director must be called whenever a (supposed) hesitation > occurs? In North America, that has some validity. The L16A1 option of "reserving one's rights" is generally forbidden. (It is an option for the SO, so some clubs allow it, but it is not allowed in ACBL tournaments.) One may properly call the TD either when the hesitation occurs or when one sees the hand of the (alleged) user of UI. Many players improperly call the TD when a player makes a call that they suspect to have been based on UI, but that is insulting and pointless. Simon's suggestions are quite proper most everywhere else the world. I wish they would be adopted here. Note to Grattan: "reserving one's rights" is a terrible phrase! One always has the right to call the TD (well, almost always); there is no need to reserve it. What one is doing under L16A1 is agreeing on the existence of UI. Could the Laws Commission consider different wording in 2007? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 12:26:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:26:31 +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 MAA23250 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:26:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020792; 24 Apr 98 2:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 01:35:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <199804232331.TAA17249@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Simon Edler" >> I am not quite clear as to what Herman is suggesting (see below). >> Is it that the Director must be called whenever a (supposed) hesitation >> occurs? >In North America, that has some validity. The L16A1 option of >"reserving one's rights" is generally forbidden. (It is an option for >the SO, so some clubs allow it, but it is not allowed in ACBL >tournaments.) > >One may properly call the TD either when the hesitation occurs or when >one sees the hand of the (alleged) user of UI. Many players improperly >call the TD when a player makes a call that they suspect to have been >based on UI, but that is insulting and pointless. It may or may not be insulting, but it is not pointless. It cuts the Director calls down by quite a large number, and the game of bridge flows better without Directors at the table. [s] >Note to Grattan: "reserving one's rights" is a terrible phrase! One >always has the right to call the TD (well, almost always); there is no >need to reserve it. What one is doing under L16A1 is agreeing on the >existence of UI. Could the Laws Commission consider different wording >in 2007? It is a very old *ahem* clause. I think it will flutter a lot of dovecotes to change it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 14:39:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:39:52 +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 OAA23552 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:39:44 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-20.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.186]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA13131 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:40:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35401821.83BB8B50@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:42:09 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: > At 04:35 AM 4/23/98 , Marvin L. French wrote: > > >The correction period for TD errors does not expire until 24 hours > >after the event is concluded, or 1 hour after the entire tournament > >has concluded, whichever is earlier. This regulation is not well > >known, but appears in a TECH file of the ACBLScore program. > > What a wonderful place to publish regulations! > > The ACBL is in desperate need of someone to organize their regulations so > that we mere mortals can find them. > > John S. Nichols My copy of the Tech files state 30 minutes, not 1 hour. All owners of ACBLScor received a copy of the Tech files which can be installed on the Club computer and all directors have ready access to this info. I have noted that some club folks don't bother installing this part of the program as it appears in the Tournament mode, perhaps the ACBL should point these files out to their club managers/owners. In fact, some should be reading them in their "down" time. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 17:47:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:47:22 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA24065 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:47:15 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA21915 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804240747.AAA21915@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > No, there is no gap: it [27B] deals with a bid which is definitely not >conventional, and it deals with any other case: that covers everything. > I don't want to argue if there is a gap or not (I still think so since 27B2 talks about if a bid *may have been* conventional). My main point, which I haven't seen addressed, is that an "incontrovertibly" not conventional bid is treated more "lenient" than one which is incontrovertibly conventional - and I don't think there can be any argument about that. My point is that it would make (bridge-)sense if they were treated the same way, *provided* it can be demonstrated that both bids (the insufficient and the subsequent sufficient correction) have *the same* conventional meaning. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 17:53:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:53:37 +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 RAA24091 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:53:32 +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 AAA03079 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804240753.AAA03079@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Convention Card Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:51:30 -0700 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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > [s] > > >> Players with adequate eyesight should not ask about the meaning or > >> range of a call if the answer is clearly provided on the convention > >> card. > > This is not correct. Questions are often the best method of eliciting > the required information and the right to ask questions is granted by > the Laws. Trouble is, selective questioning often gives UI that no TD would penalize. Many players tend (inadvertently, I assume) to ask about 1NT or two of a suit openings only when they have a good hand. What was that "European Defense" against weak notrumps that someone described? I think it went something like this: With 10 HCP or less, pass, don't ask. With 11-12, ask, then pass. With 13-14, ask, then double. With 15 or more, double, don't ask. Linda Weinstein cites the example of the client-partnered pro who, noticing that she plays top-and-bottom cue bids instead of the usual Michaels, inquires about the meaning of her cue bid. Cui bono? The Laws require that "special partnership agreements...must be fully and freely available." Players are free to ask questions about anything not clearly shown on the card, or not shown on the card, so what's the problem? Why should anyone find it necessary to inquire about notrump range, cue bid meaning, etc., when the answer is "freely available," staring them in the face? Why does the ACBL require that each parnership have two identical, legible, completed cards on the table at all times? For the convenience of the hearing-impaired? If we're going to have convention cards, let's use them. If not, abolish them. There must be a uniform policy. > [s] > > >> Moreover, the Laws (L20F1) require that we avoid questioning > >> individual unAlerted calls. > > There is disagreement about this. The majority of people on BLML seem > to think that is not what the Law says. I get the impression that the majority disagree with the law, rather than think it doesn't say what it says. If it's ambiguous (it wasn't to me, at first reading, although poorly worded), then we should go to the source to inquire about intent. Grattan Endicott, member of the Drafting Committee for the 1997 Laws, who worked on this particular law in conjunction with chairman Edgar Kaplan, has supplied that intent: "It is also important to recognise that no one during the auction, and only declarer during the player period, has a right to ask about a specific call -- the question must otherwise address the whole auction." This is analogous to the requirement that one must ask for a review of the entire auction, even when interested in only one of the calls. No one disagrees with that. > Furthermore, it is a completely > impractical reading of the Law: it creates difficulties: because of UI > Laws it is an unnecessary reading of the Law. > Questioning individual calls, e.g., "What did his 3D bid mean?" is what causes difficulties, and UI. Since Alerted calls can be questioned at the time they are made, in ACBL-land at least, I don't see how asking for an explanation of the auction instead of inquiring about an individual unAlerted call can be much of a problem. When further questioning is necessary about some individual call, then disclosure considerations take precedence over (but do not eliminate) UI considerations. I solve the problem by asking partner to leave the table for a moment when I want to ask (or answer!) a question that might lead to UI. That's a nice old-fashioned custom, out of vogue now. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 20:19:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 20:19:04 +1000 Received: from terminator2.xtra.co.nz (terminator2.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA24378 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 20:19:00 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p48-m1-ch7.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.179.48]) by terminator2.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA00617 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:18:08 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <354173E4.608A@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:25:56 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Equity Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I've been off line for some time due to renovations at home. Now have a heap of literature to read. Some of you are exceptionally prolific. Anyway to the point. Last week at local club game had a hand which 24/25 pairs played in 4S making 4 for 620. One pair played in 4S making five for 650 and top board. The hand is quite clear. There are three aces in defenders hands and no extra suits to throw losers on in declarers hands. A defender had revoked taking the revoke trick and a subsequent trick. Result was one down but on paying penalty contract now makes with an overtrick. Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about that) and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3 Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? Could not in such a situation the director at his discretion award 620 to the nonoffenders and -650 to the offenders??(LAw 12C2 or 12C3 if result appealled ? by who) This hand produced some lively debate amongst the directors at the club. To compound it we had another incident this week where 22/23 played 3NT making 5 and 1/23 played 3NT making 6 on a revoke. While I accept that current Laws appear to quite explicit on this situation is there a need for a small change in the next version or do you read that the director already has the power and discretion to mke such a change? Yours Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 22:00:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:00:05 +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 VAA24622 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:59:48 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:43:04 +0100 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 MAA13479 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:38:17 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <354173E4.608A@xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:36:23 +0100 (BST) 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 Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:25:56 -0700 B A Small wrote: > Anyway to the point. Last week at local club game had a hand which 24/25 > pairs played in 4S making 4 for 620. One pair played in 4S making five > for 650 and top board. The hand is quite clear. There are three aces in > defenders hands and no extra suits to throw losers on in declarers > hands. A defender had revoked taking the revoke trick and a subsequent > trick. Result was one down but on paying penalty contract now makes with > an overtrick. > > Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of > equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about > that) and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3 > Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the > ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe > or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a > trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the > newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? Yes. Playing club bridge against poor opposition, one often gets unearned tops through careless mistakes of the opposition. Should one be deprived of these tops because one "doesn't deserve them"? If not, why should it be any different when the careless mistake is a failure to follow suit? Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 22:17:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:17:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA24727 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:17:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004392; 24 Apr 98 12:15 GMT Message-ID: <2rx2+PAh0HQ1EwZ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:53:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <354173E4.608A@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of >equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about >that) and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3 >Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the >ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe >or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a >trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the >newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? It is considered the normal approach on historical grounds. >Could not in such a situation the director at his discretion award 620 >to the nonoffenders and -650 to the offenders??(LAw 12C2 or 12C3 if >result appealled ? by who) Certainly not. The revoke Law is automatic, and nothing to do with assigning scores. >This hand produced some lively debate amongst the directors at the club. >To compound it we had another incident this week where 22/23 played 3NT >making 5 and 1/23 played 3NT making 6 on a revoke. > >While I accept that current Laws appear to quite explicit on this >situation is there a need for a small change in the next version or do >you read that the director already has the power and discretion to mke >such a change? This sort of "injustice" tends to even up over time. I was told that the lawmakers considered doing away with revoke penalties during an earlier review of the Laws and decided that popular opinion required their retention. Of course this Law can be changed, but I do not believe the majority would wish it. It is easy to apply: to get rid of the revoke penalty will add considerably to Directors' duties, especially in clubs, and will notably slow the game down. In your average club, very few calls involve judgement decisions. Basically, when you are called to the table, someone has called out of turn, led out of turn, revoked, played the wrong board, got the wrong number of cards in his hand or mis-scored. No need to look at any hand except when someone claims the revoke penalty is not enough, and that's rare. But if you change it your way, suddenly every revoke needs you to look at the hand, taking time, and causing trouble if you are a playing Director. And what do you gain? You lose a tiny injustice which has been considered acceptable in Duplicate Bridge for over 60 years. No, let's keep the revoke penalty as is. Better still, let's take it back to two tricks whatever! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 22:30:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:30:47 +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 WAA24769 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:30:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004394; 24 Apr 98 12:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:38:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional insufficient bid corrected to same convention In-Reply-To: <199804240747.AAA21915@mh2.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> No, there is no gap: it [27B] deals with a bid which is definitely not >>conventional, and it deals with any other case: that covers everything. >> > >I don't want to argue if there is a gap or not (I still think so since 27B2 >talks about if a bid *may have been* conventional). L27B1 L27B2 L27B2 Definitely Possibly Definitely not conventional conventional conventional The whole idea of "may have been" is that it covers everything except "definitely not". >My main point, which I haven't seen addressed, is that an "incontrovertibly" >not conventional bid is treated more "lenient" than one which is >incontrovertibly conventional - and I don't think there can be any >argument about that. My point is that it would make (bridge-)sense if they >were treated the same way, *provided* it can be demonstrated that both bids >(the insufficient and the subsequent sufficient correction) have *the same* >conventional meaning. What do you want us to say? That we don't like L27B as currently drafted? OK, I don't. I don't believe whether the insufficient bid is conventional should affect whether you can correct it under L27B1. But we are stuck with it until 2007. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 22:44:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:44:10 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA24820 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:44:02 +1000 Received: from 145.18.125.142 (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21746; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:44:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804241244.OAA21746@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: B A Small Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:49:42 Subject: Re: Equity Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been off line for some time due to renovations at home. Now have a > heap of literature to read. Some of you are exceptionally prolific. > > Anyway to the point. Last week at local club game had a hand which 24/25 > pairs played in 4S making 4 for 620. One pair played in 4S making five > for 650 and top board. The hand is quite clear. There are three aces in > defenders hands and no extra suits to throw losers on in declarers > hands. A defender had revoked taking the revoke trick and a subsequent > trick. Result was one down but on paying penalty contract now makes with > an overtrick. > > Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of > equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about > that) and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3 > Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the > ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe > or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a > trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the > newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? > > Could not in such a situation the director at his discretion award 620 > to the nonoffenders and -650 to the offenders??(LAw 12C2 or 12C3 if > result appealled ? by who) > > This hand produced some lively debate amongst the directors at the club. > To compound it we had another incident this week where 22/23 played 3NT > making 5 and 1/23 played 3NT making 6 on a revoke. > > While I accept that current Laws appear to quite explicit on this > situation is there a need for a small change in the next version or do > you read that the director already has the power and discretion to mke > such a change? > > Yours > > Bruce Consider this: 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). Curious, isn't it? JP From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 22:48:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:48:13 +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 WAA24847 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:48:06 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp45.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.45]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA01418 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:48:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980424085018.006c6144@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:50:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) In-Reply-To: References: <199804211949.VAA28696@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:02 PM 4/21/98 -0800, G. wrote: >It seems as if this might technically be allowable, but it would a) be so >much trouble I doubt anyone would really do it and b) it smacks of >dishonesty to anticipate how one should take advantage of an infraction. >In the ACBL I have been told that my partner and I *cannot* make >agreements as to how we will handle insufficient bids -- though it is my >right to decide between 1S-1D-1S, 1S-1D-2S, and 1S-1D-fix it!-2S, partner >and I cannot assign different meanings to these sequences. Does the same >logic apply to bar one from planning how to take advantage of a revoke? I doubt that the same "logic" applies, since I don't see the ACBL's regulation on insufficient bid agreements as being particularly logical. Several years ago, I was discussing bridge theory with a friend at my home, and this very subject came up. We talked -- academically, not in any context of making future bidding agreements -- about how, in theory, the three auctions Gordon considers should be distinguished. (What would we have done if it had occurred to us at the time that we were, under ACBL policy, establishing an "implicit agreement", I can't say; it didn't.) Several weeks later we found ourselves playing in a tournament and, sure enough, an opponent made an insufficient bid. Partner called; I alerted and, on being questioned, recounted the discussion we had had to our opponents. They called the TD and contended that we were using an illegal agreement. Eventually this reached an AC (the TD made no adjustment, but encouraged the opponents to appeal). I argued that, whatever the regulations might be, the fact was that we had had such a discussion, and couldn't "un-have" it, so when the situation arose I had only two choices: either tell the opponents what I knew about our known shared theoretical view of the situation, or keep it to myself; I felt then, and still do, that the ethical and proper thing for me to do was give the opponents all the relevant information I could; should I, I asked the committee, really have taken the other choice and kept my mouth shut? Needless to say, the committee was stuck for an answer. They let the score stand, but told us that it was illegal to have agreements about actions over insufficient bids, and ordered us to "never do it again". When I asked them exactly what it was that we were to "never do again" (discuss theory? play in this partnership? play against opponents who make insufficient bids?), they responded that the proceedings were over and it was time to go home. 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 Apr 24 23:20:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:20:37 +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 XAA24964 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:20:21 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA19102 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:19:58 +0200 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:19:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: B A Small Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <354173E4.608A@xtra.co.nz> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, B A Small wrote: > Anyway to the point. Last week at local club game had a hand which 24/25 > pairs played in 4S making 4 for 620. One pair played in 4S making five > for 650 and top board. The hand is quite clear. There are three aces in > defenders hands and no extra suits to throw losers on in declarers > hands. A defender had revoked taking the revoke trick and a subsequent > trick. Result was one down but on paying penalty contract now makes with > an overtrick. Wow, at the clubs where I play, this hand would have been played in anything from 2S to 6S, making 8 to 1 tricks without any revoke :-) > Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of > equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about > that) and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3 > Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the > ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe > or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a > trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the > newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? Let's assume for the moment that 12B has been changed in such a way that the director can award 620 instead of 650. I now get a hand where there are 2 reasonable, pretty much equivalent lines, one for 620 and one for 650. My opponent revokes and the hand is down one. As the non-offender, do I deserve 650 when left to my own devices, I could have scored 620 as well. Or should I get 635? Or 620? Or?? Now make the hand a bit more complex. The director now has to analyze the hand, decide what would have been the score if there had not been a revoke and determine if the penalty was unduly advantageous to the non-offenders. I don't think that this is desirable for a simple technical mistake. 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: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 24 23:46:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:46:57 +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 XAA25045 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:46:49 +1000 Received: from default (cph49.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.49]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA00052 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:46:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804241346.PAA00052@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:47:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Equity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: > Anyway to the point. Last week at local club game had a hand which 24/25 > pairs played in 4S making 4 for 620. One pair played in 4S making five > for 650 and top board. The hand is quite clear. There are three aces in > defenders hands and no extra suits to throw losers on in declarers > hands. A defender had revoked taking the revoke trick and a subsequent > trick. Result was one down but on paying penalty contract now makes with > an overtrick. > > Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of > equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about > that) Many directors could have said that. This is a paraphrase of a sentence in the "Scope" section of the laws. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. > and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3. Yes, but specifically where there are grounds for adjusting the score; then L12C3 authorizes (ZAs to authorize) ACs to select other adjustments than those arrived at via L12C2. > Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the > ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe > or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a > trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the > newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? I'll evade the question by agreeing instead that the result is unduly advantageous to the non-offending side. That makes it easy to argue that L12B now specifically prohibits an adjustment back to what everyone else got. Whether it is fair? Well, if the declaring pair had instead clumsily passed the 1S opening due to some mental block, the defenders would have gotten a top from a stupid mistake by the opponents. I suppose almost all bridge players agree that such tops are part of the game; we don't need the laws to decide that for us. In the case of the revoke, there seems to be more discussion whether the stupid mistake should benefit the opponents; fortunately, the laws go out of their way to tell us that this is indeed part of the game. It is thus "fair" in the sense that these rules apply to everyone who plays duplicate bridge. I will concede that the automatic penalties for revokes sometimes can seem at odds with the scope of the laws. Rest assured that the lawmakers knew this when they last revised the laws. > Could not in such a situation the director at his discretion award 620 > to the nonoffenders and -650 to the offenders? Certainly not. That would be a clear infraction of L12B. ?(LAw 12C2 or 12C3 if > result appealled ? by who) Anyone involved in a ruling can appeal it. And so can the TD in a sense (L83). > This hand produced some lively debate amongst the directors at the club. > To compound it we had another incident this week where 22/23 played 3NT > making 5 and 1/23 played 3NT making 6 on a revoke. > > While I accept that current Laws appear to quite explicit on this > situation is there a need for a small change in the next version or do > you read that the director already has the power and discretion to mke > such a change? The director does not have that power. IMHO, the director should not be given this power by weakening L12B. If the rules were to be changed to make the revoke penalty less draconic to the revoker, I would much rather see this done by replacing the entire L64 with the following: When the director finds that an established revoke damaged the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score (L12C). The main drawback to this approach is one of logistics: Established revokes are quite frequent, so the TD will be adjusting the score much more often. At the highest level of play, this might not really be a problem. At lower levels of play, the TD would go from almost never adjusting a score to very often adjusting a score. In some places, this might be considered untenable. I wouldn't mind, but then I am a pervert who enjoys adjusting the score. Other directors might not see it that way. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 00:00:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:00:03 +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 XAA25090 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:59:57 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp45.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.45]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA02619 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:00:14 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980424100209.006cfcc8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:02:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) In-Reply-To: <199804221545.LAA18504@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199804212127.RAA15381@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:45 AM 4/22/98 -0400, David wrote: >The ACBL's regulation, as written, deals with conventional agreements >over insufficient bids, which it does have the authority to regulate. On >the other hand, the convnetion chart is ambiguous in this situation. >For example, if you normally play negative doubles, is a negative double >of an insufficient overcall allowed? I apologize for being unable to dig out the reference, but I'm pretty sure that the ACBL's regulation, as reported a while back in the ACBL Bulletin, prohibits *any* partnership agreements about calls over insufficient bids. Problems arise because the ACBL considers the application of a general agreement about fundamental bidding principles to a specific case to be the same as a specific agreement about that case. For example, if you agree that a jump always shows a better hand than a non-jump, you can conclude from this general principle that partner's choice of 1S-1H-2S (a jump, strong perforce) shows a better hand than had he required that the insufficient bid be corrected and subsequently bid 2S (a normal competing action). The ACBL considers this line of reasoning to be an illegal agreement. 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 Apr 25 00:07:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:07:43 +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 AAA25114 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:07:37 +1000 Received: from prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA15661 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804241407.KAA11852@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199804241244.OAA21746@hera.frw.uva.nl> (J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl) Subject: Re: Equity Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J.P.Pals writes: > 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same > contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? > Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted > score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was > inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke not subject to penalty. Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT would have made without the revoke. Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? 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. That seems to be fair, since the revoke, unlike other infractions, caused a line of play which would be impossible without the infraction and which wasn't the result of the infraction being accepted by the non-offenders. (In contrast, if there is a bid out of turn, either the bid is accepted by bidder's LHO or it is not accepted and becomes UI.) On the other hand, we have Law 12B: B. No Adjustment for Undue Severity of Penalty The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. The header suggests that the rule should be applied when then penalty is unusually severe to the non-offenders, as in the examples given earlier in this discussion in which a defender revoked and declarer was awarded a trick which he couldn't have won otherwise. I would interpret "unusually advantageous" to cover those cases in which the penalty helps the offenders but they could not have known. For example, West opens 1NT out of turn, barring East. When he does open, he bids 3NT and plays there, getting a top because the field is taking the same nine tricks in 4S. This score should stand. In most cases, there is a "could have known" rule which allows director to award an adjusted score if the offender could have known that the penalty would work to his advantage. As with Law 12A1, the principle seems to be that a penalty can be increased in severity to restore equity, but can never be reduced. This is reasonable even though it appears not to make sense, as it gives the non-offending side the benefit of the doubt. If N-S act on UI to get to 4S for +420 rather than 3NT, the score could be adjusted to +400 if that is likely even if +430 was a more likely result in 3NT. Likewise, if East bids out of turn, it is not normally necessary to see what would have happened had East bid in turn befor imposing a penalty. -- 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 Apr 25 00:23:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:23:25 +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 AAA27419 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:23:17 +1000 Received: from cph55.ppp.dknet.dk (cph55.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.55]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA02997 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:23:22 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:23:22 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35459d2b.7979564@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3543f769.2887862@pipmail.dknet.dk> <353E10B7.E01AFDF3@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <353E10B7.E01AFDF3@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:45:59 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> In that case I don't think there is any legal way in which you >> can change the result the following day. > >Why not ? > >You just change it ! L81C6 says that the director has a duty to rectify "an error or irregularity of which be becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C". A director's error is also such an irregilarity, and the director's duty to rectify it thus ends with the correction period. L92B says that a contestant's right to request a ruling ends after a (possibly different) period which is normally 30 minutes. I believe this also goes for the right to request a ruling that a former ruling was wrong. I'm convinced that we have to stop _all_ kinds of changes when the period expires (and there is no outstanding appeal or ruling) because we do need some well-defined time limit, and there are no well-defined limits available other than the ones of L79C and L92B. If there is no defined time limit, where would it stop? If a player suddenly realizes that only a scoring error resulted in his team losing the final of a national championship 20 years ago, and his opponent agrees, should we change the score and redistribute prizes? >We do that all the time with appeals, superior appeals to the national >authority and so on ... It is quite a different matter when there is an outstanding appeal that has been requested before the period expired. When the appeal result is given, there is a new official score and therefore a new correction period in which to take the appeal further. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 00:54:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:54:08 +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 AAA27578 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:54:02 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp45.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.45]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA03686 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:54:20 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980424105616.006bf920@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:56:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980422142639.386fb030@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:26 AM 4/23/98 +1000, Claire wrote: >It looks to me as the 4H side is trying for a famous double shot when they >didn't notice any infraction during the time the hand was played and >probably later figured out that they are making 4H. > >If there had been a break in tempo i would like to get the attention to it >before they have got to figure out they have a game as well. > >Otherwise it looks too me lets try and see how good defense is going to be >and if it is wrong call the cops. They didn't protect there rights with >calling director when the infraction occured and they have forfeited the >right to get an assigned score in my opinion. > > >Since they would NOT have called director if defense turned out to be right.. While I would not have permitted the adjustment in Jay's case given the facts he reported, I think Claire goes too far. A break in tempo is not an infraction. L16A2: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director forthwith." The hesitation itself does not provide "substantial reason to believe that an opponent has chosen..." -- indeed, the opponent in question has not yet chosen any action at all, much less one which "could have been suggested". So calling the director (or, in the ACBL, which has exercised its option to prohibit immediate announcement as specified in L16A1, doing anything at all) at the time of the break in tempo is premature and inappropriate. 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 Apr 25 00:54:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:54:44 +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 AAA27595 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:54:37 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0ySjqK-0007OjC; Fri, 24 Apr 98 09:52 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:54:48 +0000 To: Nancy T Dressing From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <35401821.83BB8B50@pinehurst.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:42 AM 4/24/98 , Nancy T Dressing wrote: >> At 04:35 AM 4/23/98 , Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >The correction period for TD errors does not expire until 24 hours >> >after the event is concluded, or 1 hour after the entire tournament >> >has concluded, whichever is earlier. This regulation is not well >> >known, but appears in a TECH file of the ACBLScore program. >> >> What a wonderful place to publish regulations! >> >> The ACBL is in desperate need of someone to organize their regulations so >> that we mere mortals can find them. >> >> John S. Nichols > > My copy of the Tech files state 30 minutes, not 1 hour. All owners of >ACBLScor received a copy of the Tech files which can be installed on the Club >computer and all directors have ready access to this info. I have noted that >some club folks don't bother installing this part of the program as it >appears in the Tournament mode, perhaps the ACBL should point these files out >to their club managers/owners. In fact, some should be reading them in their >"down" time. Nancy Some of the directors at my club have enough trouble entering scores in ACBLScore that they probably don't know the Tech files exist. Electronic docummentation is great if you are a computer user, but it still falls way short of being good for general distribution of information. In addition, shouldn't the ACBL regulations for such things be easily available to players? I realize a great many of them haven't even read the Laws (any version), but they still should have reasonable access. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 01:00:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:00:24 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27626 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:00:09 +1000 Received: from [130.15.118.69] (U69.N118.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.69]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14649 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <354173E4.608A@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:04:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Equity Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: >Anyway to the point. Last week at local club game had a hand which 24/25 >pairs played in 4S making 4 for 620. One pair played in 4S making five >for 650 and top board. The hand is quite clear. There are three aces in >defenders hands and no extra suits to throw losers on in declarers >hands. A defender had revoked taking the revoke trick and a subsequent >trick. Result was one down but on paying penalty contract now makes with >an overtrick. > >Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of >equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about >that) and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3... Many of the laws are based on the principle of restoring equity, but the revoke law never has been - an established revoke almost always costs the revoker's side at least one trick compared to the normal result. Originally, I believe, the penalty was much more savage (I seem to recall reading that in a very early version, an automatic three-trick penalty was in force). For a long time, the penalty was an automatic two tricks (providing the revoker's side had taken that many tricks after the revoke), which meant that if the revoke gained a trick against equity, the revoker was being penalized a full trick, while if the revoke gained nothing the penalty was actually two tricks. The new laws make an effort at mitigating this paradox (for this reason I respectfully disagree with DWS's suggestion to bring back the automatic 2-trick penalty), mandating a two-trick penalty only in the two cases where the revoke is likely to gain a trick; when the revoker wins the revoke trick (ruffing an opponent's winner), and when the revoker wins a later trick with a card of the revoke suit (saving a card which would otherwise have been drawn by an opponent's winner). So the intention of the law is clearly this: if the revoke gains a trick, return that trick and penalize one trick; if the revoke does not gain a trick, penalize one trick anyway; in the rare cases when the revoke gains more than one trick, just restore equity (still a paradox, in my view - the offense that gains the most gets no penalty). Because of this penalty element, I have always assumed that the revoke law was one of the unpublicized anti-cheating provisions of the Laws. If the goal after a revoke were to restore equity, what would prevent an unscrupulous player from occasionally revoking deliberately in positions where the revoke will gain a trick if it passes unnoticed, but will cost nothing if "equity is restored" after the revoke is noticed? Certainly, as a director, I wouldn't want to have to worry about distinguishing such occasions from the type of situation you have discussed. _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 01:41:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:41:11 +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 BAA27872 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:40:23 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0ySkYh-0007OXC; Fri, 24 Apr 98 10:38 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:40:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <354173E4.608A@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:25 AM 4/25/98 , B A Small wrote: >Anyway to the point. Last week at local club game had a hand which 24/25 >pairs played in 4S making 4 for 620. One pair played in 4S making five >for 650 and top board. The hand is quite clear. There are three aces in >defenders hands and no extra suits to throw losers on in declarers >hands. A defender had revoked taking the revoke trick and a subsequent >trick. Result was one down but on paying penalty contract now makes with >an overtrick. > >Some one once stated that the directors job involved restoration of >equity ( I think it was a chap in NZ named Ari but could be wrong about >that) and the laws talk about restoration of equity 12C3 >Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the >ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe >or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a >trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the >newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? > >Could not in such a situation the director at his discretion award 620 >to the nonoffenders and -650 to the offenders??(LAw 12C2 or 12C3 if >result appealled ? by who) > >This hand produced some lively debate amongst the directors at the club. >To compound it we had another incident this week where 22/23 played 3NT >making 5 and 1/23 played 3NT making 6 on a revoke. > >While I accept that current Laws appear to quite explicit on this >situation is there a need for a small change in the next version or do >you read that the director already has the power and discretion to mke >such a change? I think the Laws make it clear that the director may never reduce the penalty for revoke (or award an adjusted/assigned score) because the prescribed penalty is too severe. It is equally clear that the director may increase the penalty (or award an adjusted/assigned score) if the penalty does not provide at least equity to the NOS. Should the Law be changed? I don't think so. The Law as currently worded attempts to avoid giving the non-revokers a two trick penalty when that would clearly be a windfall. Currently it can be applied quite objectively until you reach the part where the director can award additional trick(s) if the NOS has not received at least equity (In my experience this increase is very rare). To also require the director to determine if the standard penalty was too severe would put an undue burden on the director for a very small gain in equity. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 02:09:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:09:08 +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 CAA28169 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:08:58 +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 JAA00345; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804241608.JAA00345@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: POOT! Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:07:08 -0700 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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Well, David Martin's arguments look persuasive to me. Declarer can > >follow suit from the wrong hand first, then from the right hand, or > >both at once, and this is not illegal, just incorrect procedure. Such > >plays are more frequently seen in rubber bridge. Declarer can't > >retract any card so played, because the play is a legal play. The TD > >need not be called, because no law has been broken. One might call > >the TD to protest the failure to follow correct procedure, and the TD > >might possibly (after a warning, no doubt) apply a procedural > >penalty. > > This looks fine to me, except about the PP: it is generally to the > opponent's benefit when declarer or dummy plays OOT now that we have > established that he cannot withdraw it. > > Note that it may not be "illegal" but it is an "irregularity" so we > could always apply L72B1 if declarer was trying to swindle his opponents > in some way. > For example, some declarers play from both hands simultaneously in order to induce the defenders to play at a faster than normal tempo, hoping they will make a mistake. This should not be tolerated. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 03:19:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:19:47 +1000 Received: from pm03sm.pmm.mci.net (pm03sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28624 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:19:36 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr21-dialup7.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM03SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27035) with SMTP id <0ERX00MX5HH2NN@PM03SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:19:52 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:15:35 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: Equity To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <00e001bd6fa4$9b9cb4e0$071837a6@uymfdlvk> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Long ago and far away, when I was a callow lad trying to understand the ways of the world, I asked a very senior director when a harmless revoke should be penalized at all. He explained that the one immutable law of the game is "You must follow suit" and that lacking penalties for violating the prime directive, the game would inevitably devolve into chaos. It works for me. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 03:31:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:31:56 +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 DAA28693 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:31:48 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA22216; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:31:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.36) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma022144; Fri Apr 24 12:30:55 1998 Received: by 36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6F85.302B00A0@36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net>; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:30:46 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6F85.302B00A0@36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" , "'David Martin'" Subject: RE: Too many aces. Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:30:38 -0400 Encoding: 10 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suspecting that I may not be the only one ignorant of the term, what do you mean by "curtain cards"? ---------- From: David Martin[SMTP:DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk] I would normally give both pairs Av+ at > the next table for each unplayable board unless they contributed to > the problem by failing to check their curtain cards (assuming that the > SO normally requires this to be done) and as result prevented the > boards from being rescued. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 04:02:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:02:19 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28802 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:02:12 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ySmnu-0000vf-00; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:02:30 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:02:01 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Too many aces. Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:01:59 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: > Suspecting that I may not be the only one ignorant of the term, what > do you mean by "curtain cards"? > > > ########## In EBUland and even elsewhere, eg. Wales?, a small > (curtain) card is included in each wallet of the board that has that > hand written out in order that once a player has counted their cards > face down to ensure that they have exactly 13, they can then check > that they actually have the correct 13 cards. This enables > misboarding to be spotted quickly and easily. ######### > > > ---------- > From: David Martin[SMTP:DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk] > > I would normally give both pairs Av+ at > > the next table for each unplayable board unless they contributed to > > the problem by failing to check their curtain cards (assuming that > the > > SO normally requires this to be done) and as result prevented the > > boards from being rescued. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 04:37:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:37:36 +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 EAA28960 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:37:30 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA00907 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:18:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17675; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:57:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:57:20 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804241557.LAA17675@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > L81C6 says that the director has a duty to rectify "an error or > irregularity of which be becomes aware in any manner, within the > correction period established in accordance with Law 79C". What I hadn't appreciated until this discussion is that there are _two_ relevant periods specified in the Laws: the appeals period (L92B) and the correction period (L79C). By default, both end 30 minutes after "the official score has been made available for inspection," but both can be changed by the SO (subject to slightly different rules) and thus may differ. No doubt the above was obvious to nearly everybody else on the list, but it may be worth pointing out in case there was somebody else who didn't know it. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 04:37:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:37:34 +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 EAA28956 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:37:27 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA00957 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:18:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17649; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:11:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:11:18 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804241511.LAA17649@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >One may properly call the TD either when the hesitation occurs or when > >one sees the hand of the (alleged) user of UI. Many players improperly > >call the TD when a player makes a call that they suspect to have been > >based on UI, but that is insulting and pointless. > From: David Stevenson > It may or may not be insulting, but it is not pointless. It cuts the > Director calls down by quite a large number, and the game of bridge > flows better without Directors at the table. This appears to be an argument against calling the TD every time a hesitation occurs. I agree with that, especially outside North America where there is a perfectly sensible alternative. What I don't see is the point of calling the TD when an action that may have been based on UI is taken. Nothing is lost by waiting until one sees what hand the putative offender holds. Perhaps the action in question was perfectly legal, and there is no need for the TD. If not, the action has already been taken, and there is nothing the TD can do anyway until the hand is over. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 06:00:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 06:00:36 +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 GAA29329 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 06:00:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012132; 24 Apr 98 19:44 GMT Message-ID: <5iFl8uBxjOQ1EwpI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 20:33:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <199804241407.KAA11852@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >J.P.Pals writes: >> 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same >> contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? >> Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted >> score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was >> inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). >Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke not >subject to penalty. No, it doesn't. It tells the Director to restore equity if ***the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated*** by the revoke penalties. Nothing about the Os or the rest of the field [snarl]. > Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT would >have made without the revoke. So? >Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? The guiding principle is that simple book rulings should be read from the book and applied without fear or favour. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 06:21:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 06:21:32 +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 GAA29432 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 06:21:26 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA19374; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:21:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.36) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019332; Fri Apr 24 15:20:33 1998 Received: by 36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6F9C.E08C14E0@36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net>; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:20:20 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD6F9C.E08C14E0@36.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Simon Edler'" Subject: RE: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:20:18 -0400 Encoding: 53 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk But is this permitted in all areas? I was under the impression that such a reservation of right was now unlawful in ACBL territory. Does anyone know which SO's actually prohibit the 16A1 procedure? (FWIW I like the right to reserve...it does seem to speed the game if all consent.) If 16A1's specific allowance of the right to call does NOT apply I can see that Law 11A could bar penalty if NOS is ignorant, but at higher levels where knowledge of the laws and ethical responsibilities should be presumed this might be less likely to apply. However Law 9B1a appears to be violated by calling attention to an (alleged) irregularity without summoning the Director. This "reservation of rights" unless specifically permitted seems conceptually similar to adjusting revokes or LOOT's at the table. The difference would seem to be that it does not, as those cases do, violate Law 10A. As for the original case, I'm astounded that Jay and his partner were treated so shabbily by the tournament director, regardless of the merits of the case. Adjusting without speaking to them and hearing their side of the story was not only improper and incompetent, it was rude. I would not think it improper for someone in Jay's position to insist that the Director at least be educated. It is bad enough to treat a board member like this...imagine the effect on a developing player and his dozen friends who could be driven away from the game by such highhandedness. Don't be such a gentleman in this case, Jay, that you fail to protect this Director's next unwitting victim (as opposed to you who are only his unwilling victim). For what it is worth, with all but one partner, I would pull (but then my agreement would be neg thru 4H in most of those partnerships). With the one, where the double is an etched-in-stone-I-mean-it-and-that's-final agreement of penalty on the sequence, I would pass to keep the peace and expect a 2 on the board at best. -- Craig Senior ---------- From: Simon Edler[SMTP:Simon.Edler@forestry.tas.gov.au] Laws 16A1 and 16A2 lay down the correct procedure for this situation. How are you aware that an opponent has also noticed the hesitation? You immediately announce you reserve your right to summon the Director LATER. Your opponents may disagree, in which case they summon the Director IMMEDIATELY to sort out what has happened. Alternatively, your opponents may agree that there was a hesitation. You call the Director LATER (either when dummy appears or at the end of the hand) if you believe the opponent has chosen an action that could have been suggested by the hesitation. If you do this, what possible problem could there be in "proving the hesitation" (unless your opponents now lie about agreeing to the hesitation in the first place!). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 06:46:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 06:46:49 +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 GAA29513 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 06:46:42 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA29884 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:47:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804242046.QAA04422@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <5iFl8uBxjOQ1EwpI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Fri, 24 Apr 1998 20:33:05 +0100) Subject: Re: Equity Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > David Grabiner wrote: >> J.P.Pals writes: >>> 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same >>> contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? >>> Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted >>> score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was >>> inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). >> Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke not >> subject to penalty. > No, it doesn't. It tells the Director to restore equity if ***the > non-offending side is insufficiently compensated*** by the revoke > penalties. Nothing about the Os or the rest of the field [snarl]. This is what I intended. >> Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT would >> have made without the revoke. > So? The Law is ambiguous. The non-offending side is inadequately compensated, but the adjusted score seems to be deserved by both sides. I believe this is what Kaplan did in his Bridge World article, awarding an adjusted score to both sides for a revoke which was brought to the director's attention after the round had ended. And it's certainly used in other Law 64C cases. Suppose dummy has AKQxxx of clubs with no side entries, and East has a spade in with his Jxx of clubs. Declarer is in 3NT, and can take only six tricks after losing to East's jack. The normal penalty would be two tricks, which is -100/+100, but since there were three tricks of damage, declarer is entitled to +600, and I would expect director to give -600 to the revokers. >> Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? > The guiding principle is that simple book rulings should be read from > the book and applied without fear or favour. This is obviously true, but why is the book written in this way? What is the general principle that is used in adjusting the basic penalties? That's the principle behind both Law 12A1 and Law 64C, and it doesn't appear that equity is restored by a +100/+1440 ruling. -- 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 Apr 25 08:09:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:09:50 +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 IAA29862 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:09:43 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0ySqdU-0007OkC; Fri, 24 Apr 98 17:08 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:09:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <199804242046.QAA04422@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <5iFl8uBxjOQ1EwpI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:46 PM 4/24/98 , David Grabiner wrote: > .................. Suppose dummy has >AKQxxx of clubs with no side entries, and East has a spade in with his >Jxx of clubs. Declarer is in 3NT, and can take only six tricks after >losing to East's jack. The normal penalty would be two tricks, which is >-100/+100, but since there were three tricks of damage, declarer is >entitled to +600, and I would expect director to give -600 to the >revokers. I agree. In this case I would award the three tricks of damage to Declarer giving a +600/-600 score. A question: Is there any circumstance in which the +/- scores would not balance on a revoke? I am talking about an untentional/accidental revoke. An intentional revoke, if proven to be intentional, would certainly need to be dealt with by an Ethics Committee. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 08:21:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:21:43 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29922 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:21:37 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA15345 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:21:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18048; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:21:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:21:57 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804242221.SAA18048@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John S. Nichols" > A question: Is there any circumstance in which the +/- scores would not > balance on a revoke? A case like the one in the other thread comes to mind. The NOS is damaged by the revoke but should get their equity back from the penalty. But they make an egregious error -- one related somehow to the occurrence of the revoke -- and toss away the contract. They keep their score (and the revoke penalty), but the OS have their score adjusted to the result without the egregious error. Not every jurisdiction accepts the above doctrine, but I think many do The prior suggestion of +100 for OS, +1440 for NOS (giving both sides the benefit) is one I don't understand at all. If declarer would have made the slam without the revoke, and he didn't make it after the revoke plus its penalty, and there was no egregious error (or the jurisdiction does not accept this doctrine), then the score should be +1440/-1440 under L64C. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 08:26:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:26:40 +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 IAA29943 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:26:34 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026913; 24 Apr 98 22:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:10:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <199804242046.QAA04422@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> David Grabiner wrote: >>> J.P.Pals writes: > >>>> 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same >>>> contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? >>>> Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted >>>> score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was >>>> inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). > >>> Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke not >>> subject to penalty. > >> No, it doesn't. It tells the Director to restore equity if ***the >> non-offending side is insufficiently compensated*** by the revoke >> penalties. Nothing about the Os or the rest of the field [snarl]. > >This is what I intended. > >>> Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT would >>> have made without the revoke. > >> So? > >The Law is ambiguous. The non-offending side is inadequately >compensated, but the adjusted score seems to be deserved by both sides. >I believe this is what Kaplan did in his Bridge World article, awarding >an adjusted score to both sides for a revoke which was brought to the >director's attention after the round had ended. > >And it's certainly used in other Law 64C cases. Suppose dummy has >AKQxxx of clubs with no side entries, and East has a spade in with his >Jxx of clubs. Declarer is in 3NT, and can take only six tricks after >losing to East's jack. The normal penalty would be two tricks, which is >-100/+100, but since there were three tricks of damage, declarer is >entitled to +600, and I would expect director to give -600 to the >revokers. > >>> Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? > >> The guiding principle is that simple book rulings should be read from >> the book and applied without fear or favour. > >This is obviously true, but why is the book written in this way? What >is the general principle that is used in adjusting the basic penalties? > >That's the principle behind both Law 12A1 and Law 64C, and it doesn't >appear that equity is restored by a +100/+1440 ruling. My apologies: I read and answered your post, without worrying about JPP's post, to which you were replying. No, JPP is wrong, I am afraid. the ruling would be one off, +100/-100. That is what L64C means. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 08:31:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:31:48 +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 IAA29968 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:31:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026912; 24 Apr 98 22:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:03:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: <199804241557.LAA17675@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> L81C6 says that the director has a duty to rectify "an error or >> irregularity of which be becomes aware in any manner, within the >> correction period established in accordance with Law 79C". > >What I hadn't appreciated until this discussion is that there are _two_ >relevant periods specified in the Laws: the appeals period (L92B) and >the correction period (L79C). By default, both end 30 minutes after >"the official score has been made available for inspection," but both >can be changed by the SO (subject to slightly different rules) and thus >may differ. > >No doubt the above was obvious to nearly everybody else on the list, >but it may be worth pointing out in case there was somebody else who >didn't know it. It was a deliberate change in the 1997 Laws to fall in line with the practice that was being followed. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 08:32:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:32:04 +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 IAA29982 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:31:58 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026911; 24 Apr 98 22:26 GMT Message-ID: <5E3ZjLAUvQQ1EwKC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:01:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <199804241511.LAA17649@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> >One may properly call the TD either when the hesitation occurs or when >> >one sees the hand of the (alleged) user of UI. Many players improperly >> >call the TD when a player makes a call that they suspect to have been >> >based on UI, but that is insulting and pointless. > >> From: David Stevenson >> It may or may not be insulting, but it is not pointless. It cuts the >> Director calls down by quite a large number, and the game of bridge >> flows better without Directors at the table. > >This appears to be an argument against calling the TD every time a >hesitation occurs. I agree with that, especially outside North >America where there is a perfectly sensible alternative. > >What I don't see is the point of calling the TD when an action that may >have been based on UI is taken. Nothing is lost by waiting until one >sees what hand the putative offender holds. Perhaps the action in >question was perfectly legal, and there is no need for the TD. If not, >the action has already been taken, and there is nothing the TD can do >anyway until the hand is over. What is lost is the acceptance of whether there is UI at all. If you call the TD every time an oppo hesitates in a situation that provides UI to his pd then you probably call the TD to the table about ten times per session. This delays the game considerably, and if everyone really did it would probably make the game unplayable. Certainly more Directors would be needed. However, the good side is that it would be decided immediately whether there was UI, and it would be easier for players to know what to do because the Director would explain the effects of UI. In NAmerica you should probably call the Director in such a way, but presumably people don't always since the game is actually continuing. If the Director is called later then it is more difficult to decide whether there is UI. In GBritain the Director is normally called when there is a call after the UI that can easily be affected by it: pd taking out a slow double is typical. That is two calls later, and if the Director is called at this time then he has nearly as good a chance of deciding whether there was any UI. This suffers from the fact that the player who took it out was not warned of the effects of the Law, but this is not very serious. In effect this is a slightly less good method theoretically than the NAmerican method, but far fewer situations lead to Director calls. If pd *passes* a slow penalty double, for example, why call the Director? If the Director is not called to the end of the hand, then people do not remember the situation nearly so well, and it is *far* more difficult to decide whether there is UI. It is the English view, and my personal view, that no-one is better able to get right whether there has been UI than a Director called to the table shortly after the alleged UI occurred. English ACs just about never overturn the Director on this particular point. Of course, there is an alternative, and that is for the players to agree amongst themselves that there has been UI. This appears to be illegal in the ACBL, whatever that means. In England we are told we should call the Director unless it is a playing Director. Knowledgeable players frequently ignore this instruction. When I make a slow double, I tend to say something like "Not my quickest ever call, I'm afraid" and an oppo usually smiles and says "Well, I only drank two cups of coffee while you were thinking". No Director is called , but the fact of the UI has been established. English Directors don't seem to worry that the instruction has not been followed if asked to rule where facts have been agreed. In my personal view "Reservation of rights" speeds the game up, and is desirable amongst experienced players, whatever the EBU and ACBL say. However, the moment either a player disagrees with whether there was UI, or seems not to understand what is going on, the Director should be called. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 09:17:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:17:30 +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 JAA00234 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:17:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000308; 24 Apr 98 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:47:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <199804242221.SAA18048@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "John S. Nichols" >> A question: Is there any circumstance in which the +/- scores would not >> balance on a revoke? > >A case like the one in the other thread comes to mind. The NOS is >damaged by the revoke but should get their equity back from the >penalty. But they make an egregious error -- one related somehow to >the occurrence of the revoke -- and toss away the contract. They keep >their score (and the revoke penalty), but the OS have their score >adjusted to the result without the egregious error. > >Not every jurisdiction accepts the above doctrine, but I think many do > >The prior suggestion of +100 for OS, +1440 for NOS (giving both sides >the benefit) is one I don't understand at all. If declarer would have >made the slam without the revoke, and he didn't make it after the >revoke plus its penalty, and there was no egregious error (or the >jurisdiction does not accept this doctrine), then the score should be >+1440/-1440 under L64C. The revoke was by dummy, so I think you mean +100/-100. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 09:20:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:20:45 +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 JAA00253 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:20:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000304; 24 Apr 98 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 23:45:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: >A question: Is there any circumstance in which the +/- scores would not >balance on a revoke? I am talking about an untentional/accidental revoke. Good question: I can't think of one offhand. >An intentional revoke, if proven to be intentional, would certainly need to >be dealt with by an Ethics Committee. I am not sure about this. I think a smart smack [**] from a TD is often the best way for an apparent first offence. If the player finds an adjustment against him via L72B1 and a teensy-weensy fine as well then he knows better than to try again. The EBU had an incident at Brighton some years ago before I was on their L&EC. I was the more junior of the two TDs involved. The L&EC said that they felt we had handled it badly by not using the powers given to TDs in Disciplinary matters. They suggested that in less serious cases summary justice on site by TDs would often be better than letting matters drag on through Committees. They gave EBU Panel TDs the right to disqualify under L91B, ie the SO gave their approval in advance. [**] Not literal, unfortunately! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 09:22:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:22:11 +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 JAA00269 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:22:04 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA04468; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804242322.TAA28025@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199804242221.SAA18048@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Equity Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: "John S. Nichols" >> A question: Is there any circumstance in which the +/- scores would not >> balance on a revoke? > A case like the one in the other thread comes to mind. The NOS is > damaged by the revoke but should get their equity back from the > penalty. But they make an egregious error -- one related somehow to > the occurrence of the revoke -- and toss away the contract. They keep > their score (and the revoke penalty), but the OS have their score > adjusted to the result without the egregious error. > Not every jurisdiction accepts the above doctrine, but I think many do Without an egregious error, the scores might not balance because of the likely/probable distinction, just as they might not balance after an ordinary adjustment. For example, consider the 3NT example in which East revokes with Jxx to stop dummy's AKQxxx suit, causing the contract to go down three. If dummy had been allowed to run the AKQxxx suit, it is possible but not likely that East would get pseudo-squeezed and declarer would make four. An adjusted score of +600/-630 could be awarded. -- 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 Apr 25 10:04:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:04:37 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA00392 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:04:33 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA20004 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:04:54 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:04:54 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Too many aces. In-Reply-To: <199804221620.MAA15885@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Kryst, Jack" > > With the Director quickly summoned it is determined that E has taken his > > hand from the next board. Director rules that the current board is > > fouled and awards A+/A-. > > Even though the auction period has ended, I'd be tempted to apply L17D. > The headers are not part of the Laws, and L17D says nothing about > applying only during the auction period. I agree > In other words: East looks at his correct hand. If his call at each > turn would have been the same as the call he made, the board is played > normally. Not "would have been", but "is" the same. In other words a new auction begins. > > Director further rules that since DA has been > > exposed W is barred from the auction when the third board is bid. DA > > becomes a penalty card. > > It looks to me as though the ruling should have been under L24B with > West barred only for one round. Also check L23 and any UI implications > of having played D-A (probably denies the D-K, for example). The > penalty card part is right if EW become defenders. With regard to the other board, I don't think any of the above is correct. The D-A was exposed before the auction period for this board. This is surely extraneous information from other sources (Law 16B). While the initial infraction (withdrawing the cards from the wrong board) may be addressed under 17D for both boards, the exposure of the D-A would lead me to give an adjustment under 16B3. The D-A can't be a penalty card nor will partner be barred since Law 24 only applies to the auction period for the board in question. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 10:41:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:41:03 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00460 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:40:57 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ySt1m-0007d0-00; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:41:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:26:39 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <2rx2+PAh0HQ1EwZ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <2rx2+PAh0HQ1EwZ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > And what do you gain? You lose a tiny injustice which has been >considered acceptable in Duplicate Bridge for over 60 years. No, let's >keep the revoke penalty as is. Better still, let's take it back to two >tricks whatever! > My 1914 Laws make it 3 tricks. Presumably in the Victorian era, if you were an Officer it was summary execution :) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 11:53:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:53:23 +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 LAA00637 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:53:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2009429; 25 Apr 98 1:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:42:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <2rx2+PAh0HQ1EwZ3@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >> >> And what do you gain? You lose a tiny injustice which has been >>considered acceptable in Duplicate Bridge for over 60 years. No, let's >>keep the revoke penalty as is. Better still, let's take it back to two >>tricks whatever! >> >My 1914 Laws make it 3 tricks. Presumably in the Victorian era, if you >were an Officer it was summary execution :) Shows how long Probst has been around! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 12:24:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:24:48 +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 MAA00701 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:24:42 +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 TAA08282 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804250224.TAA08282@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:23:23 -0700 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 Tony wrote:- > A similar (though far less important!) situation occurred at a club > game.The details of this situation hace previously been discussed on rgb. > The upshot of it was, according to Gary Blaiss(sp?), head director of the > ACBL, once a committee has rendered its decision, and dissolved itself, > it cannot reconstitute itself to make a new decision, regardless of > how poor its initial decision was. > But an AC decision can be appealed to "the national authority." In these days of fast e-mail communication, the time factor should not be a problem. Before the ACBL had e-mail access, an Associate National Director ruled that I, as dummy, could not point out that a defender's claim was erroneous (the claimer could have been stripped-squeezed), and an AC agreed with that ruling. I appealed successfully to Memphis, and the TD had to write a letter of apology to me. Of course it was too late to change the results. Today I hope that a successful appeal could be returned within the 24-hour correction period time. That is why it's a good idea to have a longer period of time for TD error corrections than for scoring corrections. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 12:28:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:28:41 +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 MAA00722 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:28:35 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22966; 24 Apr 98 19:28 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: High, middle, low Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:28:12 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804241928.aa22966@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Regarding a thread that's going on on r.g.b: : At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, : JT9543 : 72 : 5 : KT52 : And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a : 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. : The auction continues: South North : 2S X 3S P : P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation : ? Robert Lipton argued: > The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in > some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility > that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick > on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is > clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the only allowed call. (We'll assume for the sake of argument that partner could have been thinking about saving, and that 4S by South is a LA.) My response was that pass is a "middle" action between 4S and double. 4S says "they're definitely making 4H", double says "they're definitely not making 4H", pass is an in-between action. I didn't see how, if there are a High, Middle, and Low action, that the High and Low actions could both be suggested by the hesitation, and the Middle action would therefore be the only LA allowed by the Laws. I'd like to ask BLML if my reasoning makes sense, or if it's from another planet. Here's my thinking: Partner's hesitation means he could have been thinking about doubling, or he could have been thinking about saving. If he was thinking about doubling, this means that doubling by South would be more likely to work than passing. But wouldn't this also suggest that passing would be more likely to work than 4S? Similarly, if partner was thinking about saving, it would mean that 4S could be suggested over passing; but wouldn't it also mean that passing would be more likely to work than doubling? If all calls are therefore suggested over each other, then L16A cannot apply, since no call can be considered to be demonstrably suggested over another. In other words, if the hesitation could indicate two things at opposite ends of the spectrum, no calls can be disallowed by the Laws. To me, it's similar to the situation where you open 1NT and partner hesitates and bids 2NT (natural). The hesitation means he could be at the low end of the 2NT bid, or it means he could be at the high end of the bid, so how can any call be demonstrably suggested by the hesitation? I'd appreciate some feedback on all this. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 13:44:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:44:46 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00963 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:44:40 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ySvta-0000Wf-00; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:44:58 +0100 Message-ID: <7$W3NeBktVQ1EwYU@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:41:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: High, middle, low In-Reply-To: <9804241928.aa22966@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9804241928.aa22966@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Regarding a thread that's going on on r.g.b: > >: At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, >: JT9543 >: 72 >: 5 >: KT52 >: And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a >: 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. >: The auction continues: > >South North >: 2S X 3S P >: P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation >: ? > >Robert Lipton argued: > >> The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in >> some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility >> that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick >> on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is >> clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. > >I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the >argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested >by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the >only allowed call. (We'll assume for the sake of argument that >partner could have been thinking about saving, and that 4S by South is >a LA.) My response was that pass is a "middle" action between 4S and >double. 4S says "they're definitely making 4H", double says "they're >definitely not making 4H", pass is an in-between action. I didn't see >how, if there are a High, Middle, and Low action, that the High and >Low actions could both be suggested by the hesitation, and the Middle >action would therefore be the only LA allowed by the Laws. > >I'd like to ask BLML if my reasoning makes sense, or if it's from >another planet. > I don't think it's another planet, i've a lot of sympathy with this line of argument. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 16:54:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:54:16 +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 QAA01394 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:54:07 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-56.uunet.be [194.7.13.56]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA15918 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:54:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3540693B.D1F7C376@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:28:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Simon Edler wrote: > > I am not quite clear as to what Herman is suggesting (see below). Is it that the Director must be called whenever a (supposed) hesitation occurs? > I am not suggesting that. The Laws authorize a player to summon the director later. > Laws 16A1 and 16A2 lay down the correct procedure for this situation. How are you aware that an opponent has also noticed the hesitation? You immediately announce you reserve your right to summon the Director LATER. Your opponents may disagree, in which case they summon the Director IMMEDIATELY to sort out what has happened. > I am quite aware of this. > Alternatively, your opponents may agree that there was a hesitation. You call the Director LATER (either when dummy appears or at the end of the hand) if you believe the opponent has chosen an action that could have been suggested by the hesitation. If you do this, what possible problem could there be in "proving the hesitation" (unless your opponents now lie about agreeing to the hesitation in the first place!). > I am quite aware of this. > I have been in the situation (as Director) of almost taking the step of warning a player for unsportsmanlike behaviour for an immediate "Director!!" call. I arrived at the table to a one word explanation - "hesitation". The opponents looked extremely surprised - they both claimed no hesitation. The other opponent also said no hesitation, at which point the player that called me said "Ok, no problem"!!! All of this could have been avoided if the player had said "I am reserving the right to call t What I meant with my reaction was to point out to the original poster that he was wrong in assuming that calling the director at this late stage was tantamount to going for a double shot. Quit the reverse. Exactly the player going for a double shot would call the director at the earliest opportunity. Which does not mean either that calling the director late is proof of NOT going for a double shot. I was only commenting on their being no link whatsoever between moment of calling and double shot. Clear now ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 21:36:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:36:11 +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 VAA02091 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:36:03 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-54.access.net.il [192.116.198.54]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA10937; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:36:10 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3541CB46.63228179@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:38:46 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) References: <199804232319.TAA17235@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Steve Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Jens & Bodil" > > Ruling against the non-offender in a case that the TD thinks should > > be appealed is unorthodox, but Jens Ulrik has defended this decision > > admirably elsewhere, and it is not the subject of this message. > > Is it necessary any longer, now that L81C9 allows the TD to initiate > an appeal? > < snip > Law 81C9 was "alive" in 87 laws , but it doesn't deal with appeal !!! It was there in order to let TD to refer some "disciplinary" or ethical or whatever problems to a committee , not the AC !!. The new Law 83 , specific to the right to appeal , allows the TD to appeal himself (herself!) . I was told by some people that the main lawmakers' reason for this renewal was : "when some people are not interested to appeal , because they don't mind the result , BUT this result may influence strongly other contestants (teams or pairs) winning the prize, either qualifying or disqualifying ,etc. then TD will appeal ....". I am allowed to agree or not that this was the incentive for the law's change BUT , IMHO it is not relevant ; the moment the "adjusted" law is applying I believe I am allowed to refer my decisions to the AC overtime I think it is appropriate. Maybe there should be ZO regulations for Law 83's interpretation ; my personal opinion is that for very delicate bridge judgments the TD will refer his/her decision to the AC in order to remove a "bitter" taste from players' mouth or soul .......who don't appeal from many different reasons . What is your opinion please ???? Friendly and sincerely Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 21:37:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:37:57 +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 VAA02105 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:37:51 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-54.access.net.il [192.116.198.54]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA11251; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:37:57 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3541CBB4.8D87BB27@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:40:36 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens & Bodil CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity References: <199804241346.PAA00052@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > B A Small wrote: > < snip > > > Law 12B states that the director may not award an adjusted score on the > > ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe > > or advantagous to either side. Yet the non offenders have been awarded a > > trick they could not possibly have won even if they had been playing the > > newest of beginners. Is this equitable or fair? < snip .> > I'll evade the question by agreeing instead that the result is > unduly advantageous to the non-offending side. That makes it easy > to argue that L12B now specifically prohibits an adjustment back to > what everyone else got. > > Certainly not. That would be a clear infraction of L12B. > > ?(LAw 12C2 or 12C3 if > > result appealled ? by who) > > Anyone involved in a ruling can appeal it. And so can the TD in a > sense (L83). > > > This hand produced some lively debate amongst the directors at the club. > > To compound it we had another incident this week where 22/23 played 3NT > > making 5 and 1/23 played 3NT making 6 on a revoke. > > > > While I accept that current Laws appear to quite explicit on this > > situation is there a need for a small change in the next version or do > > you read that the director already has the power and discretion to mke > > such a change? > > The director does not have that power. IMHO, the director should not > be given this power by weakening L12B. > AGREE for 101% .... otherwise I think that from that moment up there will be no TD able to manage a tournament !!!!! > If the rules were to be changed to make the revoke penalty less > draconic to the revoker, I would much rather see this done by > replacing the entire L64 with the following: > > When the director finds that an established revoke damaged the > non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score (L12C). Oh Jens - now you rubbed off your very clever opinion I agreed with you above !!!!!! I don't want to make the TD a "soul investigator " . The Bridge and Logic basic ideas for the "Revoke Laws" are that for a non beginner player the cards' distribution is the basis for the hand play ... the moment you gave him a wrong information - inadvertently of course - you mislead him (inadvertently too ) and he makes mistakes using the right logic but false data ..........The logic is that he must not be damaged and get a compensation for that irregularity. We know that life is more complicated than any "theory" but..... that's life !!!!!! I had a best issue for this case - playing 7D without Ace D ... (doesn't matter how they arrived there....); and .....someone revoked , ruffing the opening lead ...what now ??? I don't like to be the old Kato ...... but I am very upset with the new - practically nonexistent - Law 23 , but it is a worse unfair situation , when people must bid in a "poker" way deliberately and the results are "poker" by definition (and worse - by Law !!!!) , but this will be the subject for another thread. Conclusion - the laws for this case are the best possible (in spite of the fact they are not perfect or divine ....) Dany > The main drawback to this approach is one of logistics: Established > revokes are quite frequent, so the TD will be adjusting the score > much more often. At the highest level of play, this might not really > be a problem. At lower levels of play, the TD would go from almost > never adjusting a score to very often adjusting a score. In some > places, this might be considered untenable. I wouldn't mind, but > then I am a pervert who enjoys adjusting the score. Other directors > might not see it that way. > > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 21:38:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:38:31 +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 VAA02113 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:38:24 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-54.access.net.il [192.116.198.54]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA11377; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:38:34 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3541CBDC.246A8500@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:41:16 +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: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David ----- YES SIR ...... I saw a TV series "yes minister"..isn' it ??? But I believe that your "YES SIR" is coming from the heart ... I"ll do the best to help your fulfilling the job . Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >The Parchment on my wall says > >that > >I have been granted "the Dignity of an Ordinary Officer of the Civil > >Division > >of the Order of the British Empire" - that allows me, if I am being > >ostentatious > >or formal, to add the letters OBE after my name. > > Very impressive! > > > More importantly, David Stevenson and I have agreed a collaboration > >on an > >updating of the European Bridge League 'Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate > >Bridge'; Panos Gerontopoulos is looking up the electronic copy of the 1987 > >book > >for us to work with; I believe Ton Kooijman is asking for a budget for the > >production. We are open minded (as yet) about the nature and style of our > >efforts (aren't we David?*) > > Yes Grattan! > > > and will listen (Won't we David?*) > > Yes Grattan! > > > to any views > >! > > (*There, you see, "Collaboration"! - David only lives a mile or > >two from > >me, which may help.) ### O.K.? - Grattan ### > > > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 21:39:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:39:21 +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 VAA02127 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:39:14 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-54.access.net.il [192.116.198.54]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA11470; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:39:16 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3541CC03.87E027B6@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:41:55 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws and Ethical Codes for Players References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bon soir Laval I apologize I didn't answer for a long while , because my main business and duties. First of "firsts" : I think you are doing a very important and blessed work , teaching and educating people to play in a fair and "by the laws" bridge , not only the game's secrets. I have no doubt it helps them to enjoy more the play , when there is a correct and clear "atmosphere". Go on this way and I believe it will promote a "healthy" and pleasant bridge and you"ll collect the best benefits. 1. I don't mind and I am not bothered that players find mistakes or some problems when TDs rule . As a TD in many clubs and in national events , I met the "trouble" that some "junior" directors came and told me they were "insinuated" that their decision is wrong because mister X , a senior TD , decided something else in "the same case" ; but when checked the stories (with people who came to me after the session end , in a friendly and constructive manner) I could find and explain them that there was a slight or more difference between the two cases .. Only then they agreed and cooled down .... For sure there were cases when the TD made a wrong decision , but this is a part of life .. I don't know a serious person who never made a mistake . I always tell people with a false modesty , that 5% at least of my "doing" is wrong , the problem is I don't know a priori where I am wrong .....But seriously not this is the main issue. 2. As much as my experience teaches me , the problem isn't with "mechanical" irregularities ,but with "etiquette ? " problems : hesitations , "long" thoughts and what partner's action was according to the first "thinking" person did and so on , or disclosure problems , etc ; I hope I defined it clear enough . In this field many TDs and myself had many troubles , even I (again with false modesty) appear as a "natural authority" person , not in bridge only, because people were not taught from the beginning what ethics and mannerism laws should be . 3. The danger with a more detailed "booklet" is , IMHO (again...) that after reading those 4-7 pages people think they know better than the Lawmakers , sure better than a non-professional TD.... I think that this is a mental problem and its intensity varies according to the self-apreciated IQ ..! Dany Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > Dany Wrote : > 2. Laws' s Booklet/Article for the players : > There are two main problems which still keep me opposite to your opinion > > 1. Even for the most experienced TDs there are a lot of troubles which > they must handle at the table , when an irregularity occurs and > especially a chain of them occur during one board. 2. Players like to " > explain " (or " teaching the TD a lesson "...) what other TD did , or > decided, or explained etc ..(btw: especially when the other TD was of a > higher rank ..!!) last evening (or last week or...) in the same position > .... ; from my experience I can swear that 85% it was a very different > " environment ".... The two issues above lead me to think that a > detailed booklet " for players " .. will lead to more troubles.... > I agree that players should be taught basic mannerism , during their > first topics on bridge and told to summon the TD always when she/he even > dreamt there was an irregularity... I don't mind if a " manifest " , > epistle or a very short guide ( not more than one page) will be provided > to the players , but not more. We must remember that the PLAYERS > themselves are interested more to play this fanatic game , not reading > laws' books or booklets ; they want them only when feel damaged ...and > want to see the explanations the way ^they^ wish....... > Dany > I am director for less than 5 years, but my short experience brings me > to an other position. My wife an I try to sell the idea in our bridge > community that every player must know not only etiquette and mannerism, > but basic Laws to play this game. They dont have to know how to solve > problems (they just have to call the TD), but must know when there is a > violation of Laws (most frequent cases like bid out of turn, > insufficient bid, lead out of turn, exposed card and lead penalities, > revoke and claim). We teach basic laws and etiquette in our school of > bridge (serie of 5 lessons, half an hour of theory followed by 2 hours > of bridge). I published a book illustrating chapters 4, 5 and 6 of Laws > by flow charts and we distribute some of these charts in our clubs. I > also write articles on Laws in a local bridge magazine, trying always to > think as a player instead of a director. > > Players knowing nothing about Laws will often be spoliate by more > experienced players. As an example, when such a defender expose a card > he will tell to declarer " no problem, I just have to play it at the > first legal occasion ", and " forget " to talk about lead penalities. > Beginning players will be shy to call the director againts old timers. > Not if they remember something about lead penalities. > > I know what you mean by " detailed booklet for players will lead to more > troubles ". Some players think, after reading my books or other material > on laws that they can use this information to their advantage and try to > find something wrong in our decisions. I often have to explain that > ruling is like bridge. At the beginning, it seems quite simple, but > there is a lot of exceptions, circonstances and other elements. I try to > be patient and explain, but it is not always easy to remain cool on the > fire of the action. > > Nevertheless, as time goes on, I think we took the good approach. > Players in our clubs know more and more about Laws ans become more and > more confident that the game is equitable for all players. We dont have > more but less troubles than 5 years ago. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 22:37:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:37:42 +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 WAA02242 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:37:38 +1000 Received: from xoigoynt (p45-max29.auck.ihug.co.nz [202.49.181.45]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA02024 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:37:58 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980426003722.00726788@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:37:22 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: hidden card on claim Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer claims with some winners in hand and two small diamonds opposite AK10xx in dummy. The opponents agree to the claim and enter the score. One of the opponents then notices the JD on the hand record, along with the other 2 diamonds and calls the director. Everyone agrees that the JD was never exposed and must therefore have been stuck behind another card. There is no question of any foul play here, as you have dealt with declarer over a number of years and consider his ethics to be good. The diamond situation is Qxx onside so it is very important which section you are ruling under: If this is treated as a ruling on a claim then it seems quite clear that the defenders will be given the benefit of the doubt as if the hand was played out declarer might either make the inferior play of AK or, if the card was still stuck, have played out AK before discovering the stuck card. If this is treated as withdrawing acquiescence to a claim then it appears a clearcut ruling in favour of declarer because declarer could finesse so it can hardly be said to be acquiescing to the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal line of play. My ruling at the table was that a claim had not been properly made because all cards had not been exposed. The statement of claim had been very brief, because it was 'obvious' what tricks were there if declarer had only two diamonds. Declarer thought he had said something like "all mine" or suchlike. Therefore I gave the defence a diamond trick. This is quite clearly a bit of a stretch, particularly as the lawbook doesn't require all the cards to be exposed, merely talking about a claim being an intention to win a certain number of tricks, however I felt very uncomfortable with the alternative of allowing declarer to profit from exposing his hand with a card hidden, no matter how innocent I believed it to be. Your comments please. Patrick Carter Director Auckland Bridge Club Chairman Laws& Ethics NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 25 23:56:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:56:58 +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 XAA02473 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:56:50 +1000 Received: from cph40.ppp.dknet.dk (cph40.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.40]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA29270 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:57:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:57:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3544e9dc.2752467@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199804241557.LAA17675@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199804241557.LAA17675@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:57:20 -0400, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >What I hadn't appreciated until this discussion is that there are _two_ >relevant periods specified in the Laws: the appeals period (L92B) and >the correction period (L79C). By default, both end 30 minutes after >"the official score has been made available for inspection," but both >can be changed by the SO (subject to slightly different rules) and thus >may differ. Yes, this is new in 1997. However, it is not consistently changed: L81C6 refers only to the L79C period, so there is a problem if a player tells the TD about an irregularity after the L92B period has expired but before the L79C period has expired: according to L92B this is too late to request a ruling, yet L81C6 tells the TD to rectify the irregularity. I suspect that this is an oversight in L81C6, which probably ought to describe the TD's duties in relation to the two periods separately. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 00:17:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:17:46 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04766 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:17:40 +1000 Received: from Goodwin.maine.rr.com (dt032n33.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.51]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA01763; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980425101240.39a7ed80@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:12:40 To: , From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Convention Card In-Reply-To: <199804240753.AAA03079@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:51 AM 4/24/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Linda Weinstein cites the example of the client-partnered pro who, >noticing that she plays top-and-bottom cue bids instead of the usual >Michaels, inquires about the meaning of her cue bid. Cui bono? I'm not convinced this is wrong. So long as the question does not convey any unauthorized information, is there really a problem? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 03:16:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:16:55 +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 DAA05734 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:16:43 +1000 Received: from default (cph15.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.15]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA10164 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:16:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804251716.TAA10164@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:17:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: High, middle, low Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > Regarding a thread that's going on on r.g.b: > > : At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, > : JT9543 > : 72 > : 5 > : KT52 > : And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a > : 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. > : The auction continues: > > South North > : 2S X 3S P > : P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation > : ? > > Robert Lipton argued: > > > The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in > > some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility > > that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick > > on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is > > clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. > > I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the > argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested > by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the > only allowed call. ============================================== My first feedback to Adam is probably disappointing to him. I see only two logical alternatives: pass and 4S. The double, as I see it, must surely be of the strength-showing variety, and there is no extra strength, or it is a penalty double, and there is no unexpected defensive value. The UI demonstrably suggests that 4S is more likely to be right than it would otherwise be. Hence 4S is illegal. The double is. like, far out. A player who doubles in this situation will know that it is less likely to be a catastrophe if view of the UI than otherwise. Pass is still a logical alternative. Hence the double is illegal. In a serious tournament like this, we would have to start thinking about a PP for the double. =============================================== My further feedback to Adam is maybe not so disappointing: Danish second division, 40-board imp-match. Dealer E, NS vulnerable. QJ953 S W N E 65 1H QJT - 1NT - - KT5 X XX ..- - K42 A 2S X - - AQ8 KT43 - 843 9765 J987 AQ64 S 2Sx 7 tricks EW 200 T876 J972 AK2 32 1NT shows 7-11 HCP. Everyone agreed that N tanked before his second pass. S later explained his reopening double as influenced by EW's unusual system (1H shows 11-16, at least 4 hearts). He further explained that playing 1NTxx would not be a logical alternative. The TD (that was me) ruled that passing 1NTxx was a logical alternative, especially with a view to the vulnerability. The TD was not really sure that the hesitation suggested demonstrably that 2S was superior to a pass, but gave EW the benefit of the doubt and adjusted the score to 1NTxx 9 tricks, EW 960. The TD fairly actively suggested to NS that they appeal this ruling. The AC (which is also the NA) upheld the ruling given by the TD, arguing that although each of the alternatives to passing might not individually be suggested as superior by the hesitation, the overall categories of passing and scrambling were indeed logical alternatives, and scrambling was demonstrably suggested by the hesitation; hence scrambling was illegal. The AC's reasoning is certainly different from mine, and I have no quarrel with the ruling. I am not still not sure whether I would have supported it if I had been on the committee. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 03:17:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:17:53 +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 DAA05743 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:17:44 +1000 Received: from default (cph37.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.37]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA10205 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:18:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804251718.TAA10205@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:17:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > Before the ACBL had e-mail access, an Associate National Director > ruled that I, as dummy, could not point out that a defender's claim > was erroneous (the claimer could have been stripped-squeezed), and an > AC agreed with that ruling. I appealed successfully to Memphis, and > the TD had to write a letter of apology to me. Of course it was too > late to change the results. Really? If you announce your intention to appeal the AC's ruling to the national authority at once, and the national authority overturns the AC's ruling, I would find it akin to highway robbery if the final result is not affected. Rest assured that rulings on appeals to the Danish National Authority affect the score. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 03:51:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:51:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05820 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:51:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019809; 25 Apr 98 17:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:06:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: <199804250224.TAA08282@proxyb1.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > >Tony wrote:- > >> A similar (though far less important!) situation occurred at a club >> game.The details of this situation hace previously been discussed >on rgb. >> The upshot of it was, according to Gary Blaiss(sp?), head director >of the >> ACBL, once a committee has rendered its decision, and dissolved >itself, >> it cannot reconstitute itself to make a new decision, regardless of >> how poor its initial decision was. >> >But an AC decision can be appealed to "the national authority." In >these days of fast e-mail communication, the time factor should not >be a problem. > >Before the ACBL had e-mail access, an Associate National Director >ruled that I, as dummy, could not point out that a defender's claim >was erroneous (the claimer could have been stripped-squeezed), and an >AC agreed with that ruling. I appealed successfully to Memphis, and >the TD had to write a letter of apology to me. Of course it was too >late to change the results. Today I hope that a successful appeal >could be returned within the 24-hour correction period time. That is >why it's a good idea to have a longer period of time for TD error >corrections than for scoring corrections. I do not think that appeals to the NA should be dealt with in this way. They should not be there just to do the same job as an on-site AC. They should consider evidence at their leisure. They should be looking at matters of principle, and only interfering in other matters where there is a clear error. You seem to be suggesting that Memphis should merely do the same job as the on-site AC, but without speaking to the players. This does not seem necessary or desirable. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 03:51:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:51:51 +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 DAA05827 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 03:51:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019810; 25 Apr 98 17:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 16:07:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) In-Reply-To: <3541CB46.63228179@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> > From: "Jens & Bodil" >> > Ruling against the non-offender in a case that the TD thinks should >> > be appealed is unorthodox, but Jens Ulrik has defended this decision >> > admirably elsewhere, and it is not the subject of this message. >> >> Is it necessary any longer, now that L81C9 allows the TD to initiate >> an appeal? >> < snip > > > >Law 81C9 was "alive" in 87 laws , but it doesn't deal with appeal !!! >It was there in order to let TD to refer some "disciplinary" or >ethical or whatever problems to a committee , not the AC !!. > >The new Law 83 , specific to the right to appeal , allows the >TD to appeal himself (herself!) . I was told by some people that >the main lawmakers' reason for this renewal was : "when some people are >not interested to appeal , because they don't mind the result , >BUT this result may influence strongly other contestants (teams or >pairs) winning the prize, either qualifying or disqualifying ,etc. >then TD will appeal ....". > >I am allowed to agree or not that this was the incentive for >the law's change BUT , IMHO it is not relevant ; >the moment the "adjusted" law is applying I believe I am allowed >to refer my decisions to the AC overtime I think it is appropriate. > >Maybe there should be ZO regulations for Law 83's interpretation ; >my personal opinion is that for very delicate bridge judgments >the TD will refer his/her decision to the AC in order to remove >a "bitter" taste from players' mouth or soul .......who don't >appeal from many different reasons . >What is your opinion please ???? The game of bridge is best played at the table not in the Committee room. If you make a ruling, try and get it right [within the confines of your SO's directives] and leave the players to consider whether to appeal. Only take things to appeal where you need to because it directly affects another pair winning. Any other method of using ACs is bad for the game of bridge, encouraging the BLs, which we do not want. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 04:05:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 04:05:52 +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 EAA05868 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 04:05:47 +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 LAA20356; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804251805.LAA20356@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , , Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:02:32 -0700 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 Steve Willner wrote: > What I don't see is the point of calling the TD when an action that may > have been based on UI is taken. Nothing is lost by waiting until one > sees what hand the putative offender holds. Perhaps the action in > question was perfectly legal, and there is no need for the TD. If not, > the action has already been taken, and there is nothing the TD can do > anyway until the hand is over. The Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors (in the back of the 1997 Laws) include the following: "Law 16A1: At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." In effect, this says to call the TD whenever there is an action following a break in tempo that could possibly be based on UI. However, L16A2, which remains in force, says that the TD should not be called until play ends, or in the case of dummy, when dummy is spread. I like the approach suggested to me by pro Mike Shuman. When there is a break, while the moment is fresh in everyone's mind, ask the question, "Are we all agreed that there was a break in tempo?" This is not accusatory, merely getting an agreement that a break occurred. If the opponents deny the break, and they are less likely to do so at this time than later, either forget about it or call the TD if you want to argue the matter. If the opponents agree there was a break, don't call the TD until evidence of action based on UI becomes clear. Per 16A2, that could be either when dummy is spread or when play ends. In my experience, the TD doesn't have to be bothered in the majority of cases. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 04:25:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 04:25:54 +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 EAA05948 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 04:25:48 +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 LAA23027; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804251824.LAA23027@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Cc: , , Subject: Re: Convention Card Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:21:56 -0700 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 Tim Goodwin wrote; > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Linda Weinstein cites the example of the client-partnered pro who, > >noticing that she plays top-and-bottom cue bids instead of the usual > >Michaels, inquires about the meaning of her cue bid. Cui bono? > > I'm not convinced this is wrong. So long as the question does not convey > any unauthorized information, is there really a problem? > When a player asks a question for partner's benefit, being well aware of the answer himself/herself, that is a violation of L73B1: "Players shall not communicate through...questions asked of the opponents." This law is also broken when players use selective questioning of the meaning or range of opposing bids, when that information is clearly shown on the convention card. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 06:10:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 06:10:08 +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 GAA06222 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 06:10:02 +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 NAA03676; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804252009.NAA03676@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Cc: Subject: Re: Law 64C (Was: Law 83) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:07:48 -0700 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 David Stevenson wrote: > > The game of bridge is best played at the table not in the Committee > room. If you make a ruling, try and get it right [within the confines > of your SO's directives] and leave the players to consider whether to > appeal. > > Only take things to appeal where you need to because it directly > affects another pair winning. Any other method of using ACs is bad for > the game of bridge, encouraging the BLs, which we do not want. > ACBL TDs seem to have a general practice these days of conferring with their "peers," as they call them, including the DIC, before making a ruling that concerns a non-elementary matter. That admirable procedure evidently works okay at NABCs, where the TDs seem to rule at least as well, if not better, than ACs. I don't know for sure about regionals, where less TD talent is available, but at sectionals the TDs and DIC are often weak on bridge matters, and would do well to defer complicated rulings in re assigned scores to an AC. Of course they don't often do that, preferring to illegally adjust with artificial scores as a panacea. I can't agree that potential winners deserve greater justice than the pair who hope to "scratch" with a sixth-place session award. In the U.S. our pledge of allegiance to the flag includes the words "with...justice for all," which we are supposed to take seriously, with no regard for rank. :) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 07:56:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 07:56:12 +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 HAA06385 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 07:56:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012744; 25 Apr 98 21:54 GMT Message-ID: <2nMqbFA5jjQ1Ew4N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:26:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: <199804251718.TAA10205@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >"Marvin L. French" wrote: > >> Before the ACBL had e-mail access, an Associate National Director >> ruled that I, as dummy, could not point out that a defender's claim >> was erroneous (the claimer could have been stripped-squeezed), and an >> AC agreed with that ruling. I appealed successfully to Memphis, and >> the TD had to write a letter of apology to me. Of course it was too >> late to change the results. > >Really? If you announce your intention to appeal the AC's ruling to >the national authority at once, and the national authority overturns the AC's >ruling, I would find it akin to highway robbery if the final result is >not affected. Rest assured that rulings on appeals to the Danish >National Authority affect the score. But you have made it clear that the Danish National Authority does run its Appeals system in a completely different manner. In many cases the real Appeal is to the DBF, is it not? In much of the rest of the world, the NA is a backup to provide major decisions in principle, rather than the real Appeal. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 10:00:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:00:01 +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 JAA06629 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:59:55 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021078; 25 Apr 98 23:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:07:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Simon Edler writes >All of this could have been avoided if the player had said "I am >reserving the right to call the Director later". Their partner would have said >"Don't be ridiculous" and that would have been that! A much better form of words would be: "Does everyone agree there was a hesitation?" To which the answer might in this case have been: "No one does" I think a good deal of confusion could be avoided if the procedure were explained in terms of agreeing facts, rather than in terms of reservation of rights. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 21:38:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:38:56 +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 VAA08603 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:38:50 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001847; 26 Apr 98 11:36 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Martin Pool To: Bridge Laws Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:35:23 +0100 Message-ID: <483cd05852bridge@timberlands.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Pluto 0.44f for RISC OS 3.7 Subject: Format Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just another plea for use of the exact subject line from previous threads. Please make sure the case is the same, the words & the spaces are all the same. It really helps with sorting. Thanks Martin From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 26 22:19:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:19:34 +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 WAA08720 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:19:27 +1000 Received: from cph16.ppp.dknet.dk (cph16.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.16]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA10507 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 14:19:45 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 14:19:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35442560.344375@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <2nMqbFA5jjQ1Ew4N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <2nMqbFA5jjQ1Ew4N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:26:49 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > But you have made it clear that the Danish National Authority does run >its Appeals system in a completely different manner. In many cases the >real Appeal is to the DBF, is it not? Yes. >In much of the rest of the world, >the NA is a backup to provide major decisions in principle, rather than >the real Appeal. L93C gives players the right to appeal to the national authority. Perhaps my English is not good enough, but when I see the word "appeal", I take it to mean an action that may actually change the score. If it cannot change the score, it is really only a complaint after the fact, and I do not believe that L93C was intended to just give a right to complain. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 03:38:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 03:38:59 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12169 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 03:38:49 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp34.ac.net [205.138.54.113]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA11208 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 13:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <354227FD.66C0@ac.net> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:14:21 -0400 From: Linda Weinstein Reply-To: lobo@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Convention Card References: <3.0.5.16.19980425101240.39a7ed80@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 12:51 AM 4/24/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Linda Weinstein cites the example of the client-partnered pro who, > >noticing that she plays top-and-bottom cue bids instead of the usual > >Michaels, inquires about the meaning of her cue bid. Cui bono? > > I'm not convinced this is wrong. So long as the question does not convey > any unauthorized information, is there really a problem? > > Tim Maybe there is nothing wrong technically, but it feels so slimy when you know full well at the table that the pro is asking (after you know he made a sideways glance at your convention card) so he can make sure his partner knows what the bid meant. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 08:48:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:48:17 +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 IAA12909 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:48:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001998; 26 Apr 98 22:47 GMT Message-ID: <1Ow6RCAKh6Q1Ewr1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:34:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Convention Card In-Reply-To: <354227FD.66C0@ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> At 12:51 AM 4/24/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >Linda Weinstein cites the example of the client-partnered pro who, >> >noticing that she plays top-and-bottom cue bids instead of the usual >> >Michaels, inquires about the meaning of her cue bid. Cui bono? >> >> I'm not convinced this is wrong. So long as the question does not convey >> any unauthorized information, is there really a problem? >> >> Tim > >Maybe there is nothing wrong technically, but it feels so slimy when you >know full well at the table that the pro is asking (after you know he >made a sideways glance at your convention card) so he can make sure his >partner knows what the bid meant. I believe it to be an infraction under L73B1, as Marvin said. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 14:28:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:28:15 +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 OAA13485 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:28:06 +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 VAA05301; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804270427.VAA05301@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:26:37 -0700 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 David Stevenson wrote, in re UI: > Of course, there is an alternative, and that is for the players to > agree amongst themselves that there has been UI. This appears to be > illegal in the ACBL, whatever that means. Agreeing about UI is not what is illegal, only failure to call the TD immediately. The ACBL ELECTION is: "L16A.1: At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." This is poorly worded for a number of reasons. An obvious one is that "calls or bids" is redundant, since a bid is a call. Another is that not only calls, but plays, are the subject of L16. Yet another is that the ELECTION contradicts L16A2, which says that the TD should be summoned when there is "substantial reason to believe" ("When play ends, or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed") that UI has affected an opposing action. L16A2 is not an option for SOs. The only option is whether one can immediately announce, before discussion of the alleged UI with the opponents, "I reserve the right to summon the director later." The ACBL did well to reject this snotty procedure, but need not have required an immediate call for the TD whether or not agreement is reached about the UI. I cannot imagine a TD imposing any penalty, procedural or other, on a pair who obtained agreement from the opponents that UI was available, but waited to call the TD until they had "substantial reason" to do so. It may be improper procedure per the ELECTION wording, but it won't be penalized. The word "should," according to the preface to the Laws, is not very strong, and failure to comply "will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." The ELECTION should be revised next time around, assuming that L16A1 isn't changed to make it unnecessary. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 17:30:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:30:48 +1000 Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA14977 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:30:40 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA13202 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804270730.AAA13202@prefetch.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: ACBL Statement on Conventions Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:29:26 -0700 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 I'd be interested in comments by BLML subscribers in re the following, which is included in the ACBL pamphlet entitled "Active Ethics." ### STATEMENT ON CONVENTIONS Part of the "right" to use a convention is the responsibility of deciding when it applies in probable auctions. The opponents may be entitled to redress if you did not originally have a clear understanding with your partner of when and how to use a convention you are playing. For example, a partnership that chooses to play Brozel is expected to have discussed at least the following: 1.Does it apply over strong notrumps? 2.Does it apply over weak notrumps? 3.Does it apply in the direct seat? 4.Does it apply in the balancing chair? 5.Does it apply when used by a passed hand? We all occasionally encounter situations where we are not sure what partner's bidding means. There exists an added responsibility if that uncertainty arises from a convention you and your partner have agreed to play. In these situations, you should tell your opponents all you know. (Sometimes, the director will even ask your partner to step away from the table so you can talk openly with the opponents.) The object is to bring your opponents back to even terms - to remove any possible disadvantage accruing to them from your failure to have a complete conventional understanding.### Is the "statement" reasonable? Is it clear enough? Is it legal? Under what circumstances would an opposing pair be "entitled to redress"? I've been fixed many times by convention-using pairs who didn't know what they were doing, but thought it was just bad luck. I've gained from those pairs much more often, and so do not expect redress for bad results. Should I start asking for it? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 17:32:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:32:28 +1000 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA14997 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:32:22 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-067.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.72]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA29932; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3542E76F.D4E@lightspeed.net> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:51:11 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: High, middle, low References: <9804241928.aa22966@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Regarding a thread that's going on on r.g.b: > > : At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, > : JT9543 > : 72 > : 5 > : KT52 > : And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a > : 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. > : The auction continues: > > South North > : 2S X 3S P > : P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation > : ? > Nothing on Earth could make me make any call other than pass now. If 3S was invitational (a stupid agreement, IMO) you had the chance to bid before. If, like on the planet where people don't preempt then bid again, 3S is obstructive, why are you even thinking? Maybe 4H is dead. Maybe 7H is cold. Maybe partner has x xxx KJT87432 x, and tried 3S as a tactical shot, intending to pull a double around to him to 4D. Bridge lesson: This is not a problem. If my partner yelled "Pass, you moron" at me while I was dawdling at my last turn, I think I could convince a competent committee that, indeed, pass was the only LA. --JRM (parts of previous arguments below) > Robert Lipton argued: > > > The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in > > some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility > > that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick > > on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is > > clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. >{Adam) > I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the > argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested > by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the > only allowed call. (We'll assume for the sake of argument that > partner could have been thinking about saving, and that 4S by South is > a LA.) My response was that pass is a "middle" action between 4S and > double. [SNIP] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 19:16:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:16:37 +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 TAA15209 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:16:29 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-117.uunet.be [194.7.13.117]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20066 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:16:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <354447A0.F7C644C3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:53:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: hidden card on claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.3.32.19980426003722.00726788@pop.ihug.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Patrick wrote: > > Declarer claims with some winners in hand and two small diamonds opposite > AK10xx in dummy. The opponents agree to the claim and enter the score. One > of the opponents then notices the JD on the hand record, along with the > other 2 diamonds and calls the director. Everyone agrees that the JD was > never exposed and must therefore have been stuck behind another card. > > Your comments please. > > Patrick Carter > Director Auckland Bridge Club > Chairman Laws& Ethics NZCBA Perfect table ruling IMHO. Maybe the laws do not fully cover this issue (as you pointed out) but then we can always baffle both parties with L82A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 21:01:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:01:55 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA15457 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:01:49 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yTlfl-0007nk-00; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:02:10 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:02:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:02:00 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > I like the approach suggested to me by pro Mike Shuman. When there is > a break, while the moment is fresh in everyone's mind, ask the > question, "Are we all agreed that there was a break in tempo?" This > is not accusatory, merely getting an agreement that a break occurred. > If the opponents deny the break, and they are less likely to do so at > this time than later, either forget about it or call the TD if you > want to argue the matter. If the opponents agree there was a break, > don't call the TD until evidence of action based on UI becomes clear. > Per 16A2, that could be either when dummy is spread or when play > ends. In my experience, the TD doesn't have to be bothered in the > majority of cases. > > ####### I like this approach too but unfortunately it appears to be at > variance with the regulations of both the ACBL and the EBU (unless the > TD is a playing Director). ########## From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 21:04:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:04:05 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA15473 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:03:59 +1000 Received: from 145.18.125.142 (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA13836; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:04:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804271104.NAA13836@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: David Grabiner Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:13:29 Subject: Re: Equity Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > J.P.Pals writes: > > > 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same > > contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? > > Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted > > score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was > > inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). > > Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke not > subject to penalty. Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT would > have made without the revoke. > > Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? > No, the guiding principle is Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders, but doesn't tell you to take away any good result from the offenders. JP From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 21:16:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:16:36 +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 VAA15496 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:16:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014807; 27 Apr 98 11:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:50:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: hidden card on claim In-Reply-To: <354447A0.F7C644C3@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Patrick wrote: >> >> Declarer claims with some winners in hand and two small diamonds opposite >> AK10xx in dummy. The opponents agree to the claim and enter the score. One >> of the opponents then notices the JD on the hand record, along with the >> other 2 diamonds and calls the director. Everyone agrees that the JD was >> never exposed and must therefore have been stuck behind another card. > >> Your comments please. >> >> Patrick Carter >> Director Auckland Bridge Club >> Chairman Laws& Ethics NZCBA > >Perfect table ruling IMHO. > >Maybe the laws do not fully cover this issue (as you pointed out) but >then we can always baffle both parties with L82A. > I think you mean all parties, Herman. OK, I'm baffled. What has L82A got to do with it? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 22:10:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:10:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15682 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:09:57 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yTmjj-0004iC-00; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:10:19 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:50:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Equity Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:50:27 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JP Pals wrote: > > J.P.Pals writes: > > > > > 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same > > > contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? > > > Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted > > > score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was > > > inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). > > > > Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke > not > > subject to penalty. Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT > would > > have made without the revoke. > > > > Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? > > > > No, the guiding principle is Law 64C: > > "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to > penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score." > > IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders, but doesn't > tell you to take away any good result from the offenders. > > ######### But doesn't Law 12 still apply, hence, once the decision to > assign a score is taken, it must be the most favourable > likely/unfavourable that is at all probable etc. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 22:33:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:33:53 +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 WAA15798 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:33:47 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic37.cais.com [207.226.56.37]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA27114 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:34:05 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980427083625.006912d4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:36:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <199804242221.SAA18048@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:21 PM 4/24/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >A case like the one in the other thread comes to mind. The NOS is >damaged by the revoke but should get their equity back from the >penalty. But they make an egregious error -- one related somehow to >the occurrence of the revoke -- and toss away the contract. They keep >their score (and the revoke penalty), but the OS have their score >adjusted to the result without the egregious error. > >Not every jurisdiction accepts the above doctrine, but I think many do Even if one fully accepts EK's notion of an egregious error "breaking the connection" between infraction and damage, it could never apply to an "ordinary" revoke situation (i.e. one in which further compensation to the NOs beyond the automatic one- or two-trick penalty is not at issue). The rationale for Kaplan's doctrine is that restoration of equity does not require that the NOs obtain at least as good a result as they would have had absent the infraction; it merely requires that they be placed in a position in which they would obtain such a result absent an egregious error. Once this happens, the TD need take no further action to restore equity, as its restoration subsequent to the infraction eliminates the consequent damage; further damage is the result of the NO's error and not connected to the infraction. But the penalty for a revoke is automatic. It is assessed without regard for considerations of equity; the TD must make the automatic adjustment whether or not the NOs were damaged by the revoke. Since the issue of damage doesn't affect the adjustment, neither can the question of whether whatever damage might have occured was or wasn't a direct consequence of the infraction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 22:56:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:56:06 +1000 Received: from legend.sat.txdirect.net (root@legend.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA15843 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:56:00 +1000 Received: from biigal2 (iits-01-69.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.71.69]) by legend.sat.txdirect.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA07414; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 07:56:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <35448066.5115@txdirect.net> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 07:56:06 -0500 From: "Albert \"biig-Al\" Lochli" Reply-To: biigal@txdirect.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gpeltier@worldchat.com, david@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: Joan Wiatrak , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Always... References: <1.5.4.32.19980414215343.0066e258@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Acting on suggestions received I have just updated and changed the Bridge Proprietories page: http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm The additions are under the 6-Diamonds and the 5-Spades near the end and are especially duplicate oriented. Finite wording changes or corrections accepted. Thanks. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli - POBox 15701 San Antonio TX 78212-8901 phone 210-829-4274 District 16 Internet Coordinator http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/ Webmaster Units 172, 173, 187, 209, 225 & 237 & OKBridge HMO From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 27 23:23:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:23:01 +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 XAA15957 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:22:55 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic37.cais.com [207.226.56.37]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA27903 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:23:13 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980427092534.006d3df0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:25:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: High, middle, low In-Reply-To: <9804241928.aa22966@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:28 PM 4/24/98 PDT, Adam wrote: >: At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, >: JT9543 >: 72 >: 5 >: KT52 >: And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a >: 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. >: The auction continues: > >South North >: 2S X 3S P >: P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation >: ? > >Robert Lipton argued: > >> The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in >> some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility >> that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick >> on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is >> clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. > >I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the >argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested >by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the >only allowed call. (We'll assume for the sake of argument that >partner could have been thinking about saving, and that 4S by South is >a LA.) My response was that pass is a "middle" action between 4S and >double. 4S says "they're definitely making 4H", double says "they're >definitely not making 4H", pass is an in-between action. I didn't see >how, if there are a High, Middle, and Low action, that the High and >Low actions could both be suggested by the hesitation, and the Middle >action would therefore be the only LA allowed by the Laws. > >I'd like to ask BLML if my reasoning makes sense, or if it's from >another planet. > >Here's my thinking: Partner's hesitation means he could have been >thinking about doubling, or he could have been thinking about saving. >If he was thinking about doubling, this means that doubling by South >would be more likely to work than passing. But wouldn't this also >suggest that passing would be more likely to work than 4S? Similarly, >if partner was thinking about saving, it would mean that 4S could be >suggested over passing; but wouldn't it also mean that passing would >be more likely to work than doubling? > >If all calls are therefore suggested over each other, then L16A cannot >apply, since no call can be considered to be demonstrably suggested >over another. In other words, if the hesitation could indicate two >things at opposite ends of the spectrum, no calls can be disallowed by >the Laws. To me, it's similar to the situation where you open 1NT and >partner hesitates and bids 2NT (natural). The hesitation means he >could be at the low end of the 2NT bid, or it means he could be at the >high end of the bid, so how can any call be demonstrably suggested by >the hesitation? I agree with Adam's line of reasoning, although, as an aside, I don't think it applies to this particular hand -- you would have a hard time convincing me that double is really an LA here. But let's suppose it is. Imagine, then, that we had additional UI beyond the mere hesitation: Suppose that North had visibly fumbled with the 4S card (or, conversely, the Double card) before deciding to pass. Clearly, a 4S bid (or, conversely, a double) would now be less risky than would have been the case without the UI, whereas a double (or 4S bid) would be more risky; the former would create a redressable infraction, while the latter would be perfectly acceptable. Indeed, an actively ethical player who doubled (or bid 4S) in this situation would be commended for going out of his way to "bend over backwards" to insure that he wasn't taking advantage of the UI. When a hesitation tells partner only that a particular action is, with rougly equal probability, more or less risky than it would have appeared to be absent the UI, I don't see how we can say that that action "could demonstrably have been suggested". Indeed, it is my understanding that the word "demonstrably" was used in the 1997 laws specifically to make this clear. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 00:00:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:00:17 +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 XAA16069 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:59:24 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:53:45 +0100 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 OAA10446 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:50:19 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: High, middle, low Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:48:27 +0100 (BST) 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 Jens & Bodil wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Regarding a thread that's going on on r.g.b: > > > > : At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, > > : JT9543 > > : 72 > > : 5 > > : KT52 > > : And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a > > : 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. > > : The auction continues: > > > > South North > > : 2S X 3S P > > : P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation > > : ? > > > > Robert Lipton argued: > > > > > The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in > > > some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility > > > that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick > > > on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is > > > clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. > > > > I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the > > argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested > > by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the > > only allowed call. > > ============================================== > > My first feedback to Adam is probably disappointing to him. I see > only two logical alternatives: pass and 4S. The double, as I see > it, must surely be of the strength-showing variety, and there is no > extra strength, or it is a penalty double, and there is no unexpected > defensive value. The UI demonstrably suggests that 4S is more likely > to be right than it would otherwise be. Hence 4S is illegal. But the question is whether the UI *does* demonstrably suggest that 4S is more likely to be right. Nobody suggested that double was a logical alternative, only that one possible interpretation of partner's hesitation would make doubling more attractive. I don't think anybody has yet really addressed the point Adam was making. I think the specific deal may be obscuring his question of principle, so maybe I could extract what I understand to be the salient points (apologies to Adam if I'm misrepresenting him): Suppose LHO has bid 4H, partner has hesitated before passing, and it is passed to you. You have two logical alternatives: pass or 4S. Assume for simplicity that it is clear that 4S won't make, but that it will be a good sacrifice if 4H is making. Assume also that it is clear that partner was either considering doubling or sacrificing in 4S, but that you have no information to indicate that either possibility is more likely than the other. Is your choice of action constrained by UI considerations? IMO, the answer is clearly "no": if there's a 50% chance that partner was thinking thoughts that make 4S more attractive and a 50% chance that he was thinking thoughts that make it less attractive, then I don't see how his hesitation can "demonstrably" suggest either action. Of course, you could reasonably (and probably correctly) argue that the original problem doesn't fit this simplified model. Some complicating factors, some or all of which might apply: (a) What if it's more (or less) likely than 50% that partner was considering 4S? (b) What if 4S might make? [So even if partner was considering a double, the fact that he has extra strength might increase the probability of 4S making.] (c) What if 4S might be more expensive than opponents' game? [The probability of this is presumably reduced by partner's hesitation, whether he was considering 4S or double.] Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 00:19:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:19:13 +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 AAA18407 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:19:07 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic37.cais.com [207.226.56.37]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA29047 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:19:27 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980427102148.006d9cb4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:21:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <199804251805.LAA20356@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:02 AM 4/25/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >The Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors (in the back of the 1997 >Laws) include the following: > >"Law 16A1: At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed >to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. >They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there >may have been extraneous information available to the opponents >resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their >side." > >In effect, this says to call the TD whenever there is an action >following a break in tempo that could possibly be based on UI. >However, L16A2, which remains in force, says that the TD should not >be called until play ends, or in the case of dummy, when dummy is >spread. I read the ACBL regulation as saying that the TD should be called whenever there is an action following a break in tempo which could possibly be based on UI *and* which could possibly result in damage. It is not appropriate (according to this regulation) to call the TD when there is an action following a break in tempo that could possibly be based on UI but could not result in damage. Therefore it is not appropriate to call the TD until this distinction, called for by the regulation, can be made. Perhaps coincidentally, this is (usually) the same point in time as is specified in the footnote to L16A2. >I like the approach suggested to me by pro Mike Shuman. When there is >a break, while the moment is fresh in everyone's mind, ask the >question, "Are we all agreed that there was a break in tempo?" This >is not accusatory, merely getting an agreement that a break occurred. >If the opponents deny the break, and they are less likely to do so at >this time than later, either forget about it or call the TD if you >want to argue the matter. If the opponents agree there was a break, >don't call the TD until evidence of action based on UI becomes clear. >Per 16A2, that could be either when dummy is spread or when play >ends. In my experience, the TD doesn't have to be bothered in the >majority of cases. I like it too. But I read the first sentence of the regulation Marv quotes as making it clearly illegal in ACBL events. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 00:40:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:40:27 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18493 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:40:20 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA14472 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:37:44 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804271437.JAA14472@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:37:43 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > "L16A.1: At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed > to announce that they reserve the right to summon the director later. > They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there > may have been extraneous information available to the opponents > resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their > side." > > This is poorly worded for a number of reasons. An obvious one is that [two problems snipped] It is poorly worded for another, very serious, reason. When does it say one should call the director? "[I]mmediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents", or after they see this information "resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side"? _Resulting_ is a terribly ambiguous word--it suggests that the calls or bids _have happened_. If the auction goes: 1H 1S [hesitation]Pass Do I call the director? There may have been extraneous information available, but it has not resulted in any calls or bids whatsoever as of yet. Had the Election been worded "...to the opponents which _might_ result in calls..." it would have been clear. [Illegal, as you point out, but at least clear.] Had it said "When they believe extraneous information _may have resulted_ in calls..." it would also have been clear, and arguably legal. > I cannot imagine a TD imposing any penalty, procedural or other, on a > pair who obtained agreement from the opponents that UI was available, > but waited to call the TD until they had "substantial reason" to do > so. It may be improper procedure per the ELECTION wording, but it > won't be penalized. The word "should," according to the preface to > the Laws, is not very strong, and failure to comply "will incur a > procedural penalty only seldom." > > The ELECTION should be revised next time around, assuming that L16A1 > isn't changed to make it unnecessary. Heartily agreed. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 00:44:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:44:20 +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 AAA18514 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:44:14 +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 KAA22430 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19986; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:44:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:44:36 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804271444.KAA19986@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Even if one fully accepts EK's notion of an egregious error "breaking the > connection" between infraction and damage, it could never apply to an > "ordinary" revoke situation (i.e. one in which further compensation to the > NOs beyond the automatic one- or two-trick penalty is not at issue). Agreed, and I'm sorry if I wrote so badly as to suggest otherwise. My reference was to a case where the issue was precisely whether or not to give further compensation under L64C. The automatic penalty is, as Eric says, automatic, and it suffices to restore equity (and more) in the vast majority of cases. I was merely suggestung that if you are in doubt about whether equity has been restored by the automatic penalty, the issue of egregious error needs to be considered, at least in jurisdictions that accept the Kaplan doctrine on the subject. Come to think of it, the same principle must apply to any other infraction that has an automatic penalty. Normally the automatic penalty will suffice, and there is no further problem, but if there is reason to consider further adjustment to restore equity, the "egregious error" issue should be considered if it is applicable. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 00:56:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:56:04 +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 AAA18560 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:55:58 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic37.cais.com [207.226.56.37]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA29907 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:56:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980427105840.006db974@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:58:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions In-Reply-To: <199804270730.AAA13202@prefetch.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:29 AM 4/27/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >I'd be interested in comments by BLML subscribers in re the >following, which is included in the ACBL pamphlet entitled "Active >Ethics." > >### STATEMENT ON CONVENTIONS > >Part of the "right" to use a convention is the responsibility of >deciding when it applies in probable auctions. The opponents may be >entitled to redress if you did not originally have a clear >understanding with your partner of when and how to use a convention >you are playing. Why not just have a regulation that says "If the TD (subject to appeal) determines that a partnership doesn't know how to bid, he may forbid them from using any conventions whatsoever"? The ACBL has made it clear that they believe that L40D gives them absolute carte blanche to make any regulations they choose regarding the use of conventions, so they would have no trouble with the legality of such a rule. I have a problem with any rule that makes an "infraction" out of not knowing how to play bridge. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 01:40:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:40:37 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18823 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:40:30 +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 LAA26684 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20094; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:40:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:40:54 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804271540.LAA20094@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: hidden card on claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Patrick > however I felt very > uncomfortable with the alternative of allowing declarer to profit from > exposing his hand with a card hidden, no matter how innocent I believed it > to be. Good ruling for exactly the reason you give. You could have cited L72B1 ("could have known") if there had been any dispute; this is a perfect case for it. There is not the slightest suggestion that declarer hid the card intentionally, but neither an innocent nor a guilty declarer should profit from what, in some hands, could be construed as sharp practice. Note to Grattan (and I hope your list isn't getting too long!): The idea of punishing revokes rather than just restoring equity might be considered for a revoke at trick 12. Right now, it's all too easy for a sharp character to revoke at trick 12 (say by ruffing an opponent's winner instead of following suit) and then conceal it by saying "and you get the last trick" without showing his last card. Even if the ruse is discovered, nothing is lost. Mind you, I don't think this occurs often, but usually it's better to avoid giving opportunities to the unscrupulous. Perhaps I'm just too cynical or (more likely) the LC has already discussed the matter. Not a high priority, certainly. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 01:45:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:45:55 +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 BAA18863 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:45:49 +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 LAA26900 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20105; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:46:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:46:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804271546.LAA20105@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Too many aces. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Laurie Kelso > With regard to the other board, I don't think any of the above is correct. > The D-A was exposed before the auction period for this board. Have another look at L17A. The auction period for his side began when the player looked at the face of his cards, even though the rest of the players at the table were looking at cards from another board. Yes, this auction period was running simultaneously with the auction and play periods for another board. Odd, but I don't see how you can read the Laws any other way. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 06:26:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:26:42 +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 GAA20100 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:26:33 +1000 Received: from default (cph31.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.31]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA16452 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:26:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804272026.WAA16452@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:27:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > I'd be interested in comments by BLML subscribers in re the > following, which is included in the ACBL pamphlet entitled "Active > Ethics." > > ### STATEMENT ON CONVENTIONS > > Part of the "right" to use a convention is the responsibility of > deciding when it applies in probable auctions. The opponents may be > entitled to redress if you did not originally have a clear > understanding with your partner of when and how to use a convention > you are playing. "May be" is not the same as "will be". IMO they are entitled to redress if you misinform them about your agreements. As I have stressed earlier, this includes situations where your written notes mention a convention, but your practical bridge shows that you don't really play it. Of course, the opponents have to be damaged by the misinformation as such. > For example, a partnership that chooses to play Brozel is expected to > have discussed at least the following: > > 1.Does it apply over strong notrumps? > 2.Does it apply over weak notrumps? > 3.Does it apply in the direct seat? > 4.Does it apply in the balancing chair? > 5.Does it apply when used by a passed hand? Right. Now if you explain "We play Brozel, but we have not agreed whether it applies after a passed hand, so he may have either ... or ...", then you have given a correct explanation of your partnership agreement, there is no misinformation, and the opponents are not entitled to redress. Of course, the regulation could be interpreted to mean that if this is your agreement, then you are playing an illegal convention, and your opponents are entitled to redress if damaged by that fact alone. I would find that interpretation unreasonable, contrary to my perception of the philosophy of the game, but perfectly legal. In practice, redress would probably be given in the same situations that I would give redress for damage caused by misinformation, but the ensuing procedural penalties (e.g., don't play this convention again) might be different. > We all occasionally encounter situations where we are not sure what > partner's bidding means. There exists an added responsibility if that > uncertainty arises from a convention you and your partner have agreed > to play. In these situations, you should tell your opponents all you > know. (Sometimes, the director will even ask your partner to step > away from the table so you can talk openly with the opponents.) I support this part 100%. > The object is to bring your opponents back to even terms - to remove > any possible disadvantage accruing to them from your failure to have > a complete conventional understanding. Here I would prefer an ending of the sort "from your failure to describe the extent of your conventional understanding." > Is the "statement" reasonable? Yes. Nits can be picked, but taken as a whole, quite reasonable. > Is it clear enough? Well, it is open for interpretation, but so are all regulations, and in a sense they are never clear enough. All in all, I think that the ACBL is better off with this regulation than without it. > Is it legal? I'll pass on this one. Discussions about the legality of regulations always frustrate me. > Under > what circumstances would an opposing pair be "entitled to redress"? When they are misinformed, and the misinformation damages them. Not when the confusion about the convention leads you to a contract that makes by a miracle for a top. > I've been fixed many times by convention-using pairs who didn't know > what they were doing, but thought it was just bad luck. Could be. Depends on the circumstances I think. > I've gained > from those pairs much more often, and so do not expect redress for > bad results. Should I start asking for it? If you think you would have made another, better decision if you had been informed along the lines "we play Brozel, but it is not clear if it applies in this situation", I think you should. If they gain a good result on their own after being confused by their own conventions, I think you should not. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 06:26:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:26:43 +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 GAA20099 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:26:33 +1000 Received: from default (cph31.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.31]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA16458 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:26:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804272026.WAA16458@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:27:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >"Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > >> Before the ACBL had e-mail access, an Associate National Director > >> ruled that I, as dummy, could not point out that a defender's claim > >> was erroneous (the claimer could have been stripped-squeezed), and an > >> AC agreed with that ruling. I appealed successfully to Memphis, and > >> the TD had to write a letter of apology to me. Of course it was too > >> late to change the results. > > > >Really? If you announce your intention to appeal the AC's ruling to > >the national authority at once, and the national authority overturns the AC's > >ruling, I would find it akin to highway robbery if the final result is > >not affected. Rest assured that rulings on appeals to the Danish > >National Authority affect the score. > > But you have made it clear that the Danish National Authority does run > its Appeals system in a completely different manner. In many cases the > real Appeal is to the DBF, is it not? True. But in most events, the real appeal goes to a local AC. Subsequently, there can be an appeal to the NA. Even the process goes like this: 1) TD ruling. 2) AC ruling. 3) NA ruling. the NA still exercises all the powers of the TD, including the right to change the result. We are currently debating the role of the NA in the DBF, including the possibility of changing our general approach so that the NA does not serve as the L93B3 AC in as many events, but no one has suggested (yet) that the NA should not have the ultimate say on rulings appealed to it. The interpretation of L93C is at issue here. The DBF precedent is that the NA exercises both the CTD and the AC powers listed in L93B. I have read an annual report from the Swedish NA a few years ago, and it is obvious that their approach is similar to ours. In at least some other parts of the world, the NA apparently exercises no direct judicial authority at all. When that is the case, the only ruling a party can get from an NA is a letter apologizing for the incident and a promise that a clarifying regulation will be made. Only the most tenacious, idealistic players like Marv and myself would go through all that trouble for such a meager reward. > In much of the rest of the world, > the NA is a backup to provide major decisions in principle, rather than > the real Appeal. Yes, I guess I knew that all along, but this thread is making it much clearer to me. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 07:56:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:56:47 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA20369 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:56:39 +1000 Received: from rolph.bu.edu (metcalf@ROLPH.BU.EDU [128.197.12.129]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id RAA03189; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:56:58 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by rolph.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id RAA01612; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804272156.RAA01612@rolph.bu.edu> Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199804232331.TAA17249@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Apr 23, 98 07:31:34 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: "Simon Edler" >>> Is it that the Director must be called whenever a (supposed) hesitation >>> occurs? >> >>One may properly call the TD either when the hesitation occurs or when >>one sees the hand of the (alleged) user of UI. Many players improperly >>call the TD when a player makes a call that they suspect to have been >>based on UI, but that is insulting and pointless. >> I disagree. I feel that calling the director when a call has been made by the partner of a hesitator which might have been suggested by UI is neither insulting nor pointless. I routinely do not call the director until this point. I do so for two reasons: (1) If I were to call whenever any kind of unauthorized information had been made available, the director would have to pull up a chair at my table. (2) Hesitating is not a violation of the law. Thus, there has been no possibility of a UI violation at the time of the hesitation. Only when the partner makes such a call might an infraction have occurred. I call the director ONLY when the call chosen is one which I feel was demonstrably suggested by the UI. This means that in the vast majority of UI situations, the director never needs to be summoned. He appreciates this. I call at this point because the ACBL requires/suggests that I do so to establish that there was UI as close to the time of its transmission as possible (before people forget). Note that, since I am not in a position to consider my opponents logical alternatives at this time, I am not claiming that the call was based on UI (I dont know). I know only that there was UI, and the call chosen happened to be one which was demonstrably suggested by the UI. This is the best time to determine this, since the only information I have to base my judgement on would be the auction and the UI. We will deal with whether there was actually a violation after the hand is played. Since I am not accusing anyone of a UI violation (merely establishing a fact), I fail to see why this should be considered "insulting". Since facts are harder to determine after the hand has been played, it does not feel "pointless" to call the director before the end of the hand. However, since these facts are only relevant if a UI violation did indeed occur, it seems more useful only to summon the director in a case where there is a possibility of a violation rather than in all cases. -- David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 10:01:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:01:56 +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 KAA20646 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:01:50 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.82] (mg4-82.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.82]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA22313 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:02:14 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:02:16 +1000 To: From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:29 AM 4/27/98, Marvin L. French wrote: >I'd be interested in comments by BLML subscribers in re the >following, which is included in the ACBL pamphlet entitled "Active >Ethics." > >### STATEMENT ON CONVENTIONS What legal standing has a "Statement on Conventions"? One supposes the ACBL would justify it in terms of the L40D right to regulate conventions. This Statement is more of an explanation of the existing onus on players to give a full description of their agreements or lack thereof. I don't see anything "new", and certainly nothing that would warrant Regulation status. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 10:20:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:20:12 +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 KAA20705 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:20:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010834; 28 Apr 98 0:13 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 01:11:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <199804271104.NAA13836@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >> J.P.Pals writes: >> >> > 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same >> > contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? >> > Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted >> > score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was >> > inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). >> >> Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke not >> subject to penalty. Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT would >> have made without the revoke. >> >> Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? >> > >No, the guiding principle is Law 64C: > >"When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to >penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is >insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, >he shall assign an adjusted score." > >IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders, but doesn't >tell you to take away any good result from the offenders. You are telling me that if I revoke and the revoke gains me three tricks, you will penalise me two or one tricks but let me keep the other one or two tricks that I gained? So if declarer is trying to run AKJT985 opposite x with no other entries to dummy it is to my advantage not to follow with Qx, but to keep it for later to stop the run of the suit? This play gains me five tricks, and you will only take two of them away from me? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 10:22:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:22:03 +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 KAA20722 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:21:57 +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 RAA23627 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804280021.RAA23627@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:20:09 -0700 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 David Metcalf wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > >>> From: "Simon Edler" > >>> Is it that the Director must be called whenever a (supposed) hesitation > >>> occurs? > >> > >>One may properly call the TD either when the hesitation occurs or when > >>one sees the hand of the (alleged) user of UI. Many players improperly > >>call the TD when a player makes a call that they suspect to have been > >>based on UI, but that is insulting and pointless. > >> > > I disagree. I feel that calling the director when a call has been made by > the partner of a hesitator which might have been suggested by UI is neither > insulting nor pointless. I routinely do not call the director until > this point. I do so for two reasons: > (1) If I were to call whenever any kind of unauthorized information > had been made available, the director would have to pull up a chair > at my table. > (2) Hesitating is not a violation of the law. Thus, there has been > no possibility of a UI violation at the time of the hesitation. > Only when the partner makes such a call might an infraction have occurred. > > I call the director ONLY when the call chosen is one which I feel was > demonstrably suggested by the UI. This means that in the vast majority > of UI situations, the director never needs to be summoned. He appreciates > this. > I call at this point because the ACBL requires/suggests that I do so > to establish that there was UI as close to the time of its transmission > as possible (before people forget). You can usually establish that without the aid of the TD. Why bother him/her if you can do that without help? > Note that, since I am not in a position to consider my opponents logical > alternatives at this time, I am not claiming that the call was based on UI > (I dont know). I know only that there was UI, and the call chosen > happened to be one which was demonstrably suggested by the UI. This is > the best time to determine this, since the only information I have to > base my judgement on would be the auction and the UI. We will deal with > whether there was actually a violation after the hand is played. > > Since I am not accusing anyone of a UI violation (merely establishing a > fact), I fail to see why this should be considered "insulting". > Since facts are harder to determine after the hand has been played, > it does not feel "pointless" to call the director before the end of > the hand. > However, since these facts are only relevant if a UI violation did indeed > occur, it seems more useful only to summon the director in a case where > there is a possibility of a violation rather than in all cases. > > Look, isn't it simpler to get the opposition's agreement on UI, and then call the TD when there is "substantial reason to believe" an action has been based on UI? Why do you want to call the TD when an action occurs that MAY have been based on UI? If the opposition doesn't agree there was UI, then call the TD if you want to argue the point. Otherwise forget it, because you won't get redress. This is in accordance with L16A2, which is well-written. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 12:17:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:17:45 +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 MAA20995 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:17:35 +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 TAA07036 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804280217.TAA07036@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 19:15:51 -0700 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 Eric Landau wrote, quoting me: > >I like the approach suggested to me by pro Mike Shuman. When there is > >a break, while the moment is fresh in everyone's mind, ask the > >question, "Are we all agreed that there was a break in tempo?" This > >is not accusatory, merely getting an agreement that a break occurred. > >If the opponents deny the break, and they are less likely to do so at > >this time than later, either forget about it or call the TD if you > >want to argue the matter. If the opponents agree there was a break, > >don't call the TD until evidence of action based on UI becomes clear. > >Per 16A2, that could be either when dummy is spread or when play > >ends. In my experience, the TD doesn't have to be bothered in the > >majority of cases. > > I like it too. But I read the first sentence of the regulation Marv quotes > as making it clearly illegal in ACBL events. > As I pointed out in another message, the ACBL ELECTION says that players "should" summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been information available to the opponents based on UI. The Preface to the Laws describes "should" as not a very strong word, and while failure to comply may be an infraction of law, it "will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." It is inconceivable that a TD would impose a procedural penalty because he was not called at the time UI occurred, when all are agreed about the UI. It is possible to interpret the ACBL election a little differently. I could claim that I had no idea UI "may" have influenced my very ethical opponents, but only came to "believe" it may have done so when the hand was over, or when I saw the dummy. Since a stricter interpretation tends to contradict what L16A2 ("substantial reason to believe") says, I'll stick to this one and hope that TDs go along. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 12:48:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:48:08 +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 MAA21068 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:48:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019724; 28 Apr 98 2:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 03:39:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions In-Reply-To: <199804272026.WAA16452@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >"Marvin L. French" wrote: >> Is it legal? >I'll pass on this one. Discussions about the legality of regulations >always frustrate me. Let us be practical here on BLML. L40D seems to give an SO complete freedom where conventions are concerned. The ACBL and the EBU consider this correct. The WBF, knowing that various major SOs used L40D for a very wide form of regulation, did not see fit to change L40D. As a practical matter, I think readers of BLML should accept that L40D allows a very wide interpretation of regulation of conventions, including *any* [1] regulation to do with it. [1] Excluding stupid ones -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 12:52:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:52:31 +1000 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA21087 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:52:26 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA31370 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:52:49 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:52:49 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Too many aces. In-Reply-To: <199804271546.LAA20105@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Laurie Kelso > > With regard to the other board, I don't think any of the above is correct. > > The D-A was exposed before the auction period for this board. > > Have another look at L17A. The auction period for his side began when > the player looked at the face of his cards, even though the rest of the > players at the table were looking at cards from another board. > > Yes, this auction period was running simultaneously with the auction > and play periods for another board. Odd, but I don't see how you can > read the Laws any other way. OK, I will accept that we have the auction periods for two boards running simultaneously for the offending pair at the table, but there is only one auction period in operation for their opponents. I would still rule under Law 16B because it says in part: "When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information about a board he is playing or has yet to play ..... by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins..." The auction period for the opponents has not begun when they see the D-A and the information could certainly interfere with normal play of the board - so both sides would get an adjusted score forthwith - from me at least. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 13:34:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA21189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:34:20 +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 NAA21184 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 13:34:14 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb138.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.138]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28077 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980427233416.0070ecd4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:34:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions In-Reply-To: References: <199804272026.WAA16452@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:39 AM 4/28/98 +0100, David S wrote: >Jens & Bodil wrote: >>"Marvin L. French" wrote: > >>> Is it legal? > >>I'll pass on this one. Discussions about the legality of regulations >>always frustrate me. > > Let us be practical here on BLML. L40D seems to give an SO complete >freedom where conventions are concerned. The ACBL and the EBU consider >this correct. The WBF, knowing that various major SOs used L40D for a >very wide form of regulation, did not see fit to change L40D. > > As a practical matter, I think readers of BLML should accept that L40D >allows a very wide interpretation of regulation of conventions, >including *any* [1] regulation to do with it. > >[1] Excluding stupid ones > Like the man said, that's some catch, that Catch-22. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 17:20:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:20:05 +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 RAA21638 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:19:58 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id DAA24856; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 03:23:07 -0400 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow via smap (4.1) id xma024791; Tue, 28 Apr 98 03:23:02 -0400 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA07547; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 03:18:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199804280718.DAA07547@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98 08:08:44 GMT Subject: RE: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French, and David Martin commented: >> I like the approach suggested to me by pro Mike Shuman. When there is >> a break, while the moment is fresh in everyone's mind, ask the >> question, "Are we all agreed that there was a break in tempo?" This >> is not accusatory, merely getting an agreement that a break occurred. >> If the opponents deny the break, and they are less likely to do so at >> this time than later, either forget about it or call the TD if you >> want to argue the matter. If the opponents agree there was a break, >> don't call the TD until evidence of action based on UI becomes clear. >> Per 16A2, that could be either when dummy is spread or when play >> ends. In my experience, the TD doesn't have to be bothered in the >> majority of cases. > > ####### I like this approach too but unfortunately it appears to be at > variance with the regulations of both the ACBL and the EBU (unless the > TD is a playing Director). ########## I am not sure that EBU guidance "is at variance with" it to such an extent that it would prevent anyone getting an adjusted score, or lead to a PP or warning. The relevant bit of the the EBU's Directives (Orange Book) says "it is better to call the TD" but adds "you may have no choice but to reserve your rights" if the TD is a playing TD. The words "it is better to" are very mild: deliberately so. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 18:28:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:28:34 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA21796 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:28:28 +1000 Received: from 145.18.125.142 (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA27753 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:28:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804280828.KAA27753@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:34:33 Subject: Re: Equity Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >> J.P.Pals writes: > >> > >> > 9 pairs go down in 6NT, one pair makes twelve tricks in the same > >> > contract on a revoke *by dummy*. What is the TD supposed to do? > >> > Solution: The TD is supposed to apply L64C and award an adjusted > >> > score, +100 to the NOS, +1440 to the OS (provided the revoke was > >> > inadvertent, but that is not an issue here). > >> > >> Law 64C says that the director should restore equity after a revoke not > >> subject to penalty. Equity is +100/-100, since that's what 6NT would > >> have made without the revoke. > >> > >> Is the guiding principle Law 12A1 here? > >> > > > >No, the guiding principle is Law 64C: > > > >"When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to > >penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is > >insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > >he shall assign an adjusted score." > > > >IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders, but doesn't > >tell you to take away any good result from the offenders. DS: > You are telling me that if I revoke and the revoke gains me three > tricks, you will penalise me two or one tricks but let me keep the other > one or two tricks that I gained? > > So if declarer is trying to run AKJT985 opposite x with no other > entries to dummy it is to my advantage not to follow with Qx, but to > keep it for later to stop the run of the suit? This play gains me five > tricks, and you will only take two of them away from me? No, certainly not. Your revoke is subject to penalty, the one by the guy who made 6NT was not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I should have typed: "IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders in case of a revoke not subject to penalty, but doesn't tell you to take away any good result from the offenders". JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 18:56:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:56:50 +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 SAA21839 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:56:42 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ES400I3K8UVQ7@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:56:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA02304; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:56:47 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:56:46 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: High, middle, low In-reply-to: <9804241928.aa22966@flash.irvine.com>; from "Adam Beneschan" at Apr 24, 98 7:28 pm To: adam@flash.irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ES400I3L8UVQ7@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > : At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, > : JT9543 > : 72 > : 5 > : KT52 > : And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a > : 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. > : The auction continues: > > South North > : 2S X 3S P > : P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation > : ? > > Robert Lipton argued: > > > The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in > > some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility > > that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick > > on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is > > clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. snip -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion South has only two alternatives. Pass and 4S. Double with such a hand asks for PP. The hesitation P(1) of partner North can only mean some- thing like a choise between pass, 4S and Double. South-player has already bid his hand. After 3S he/she could bid 4S, but passed. Now after the hesitation South must pass. Problem arises when 4H cann't be made and then perhaps EW will find that South passed because his partner hesitated.And then ? 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 Apr 28 19:59:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:59:06 +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 TAA21978 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:58:59 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:59:05 +0100 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 KAA18355 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:58:28 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:56:44 +0100 (BST) 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 David Stevenson wrote: > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >"Marvin L. French" wrote: > > >> Is it legal? > > >I'll pass on this one. Discussions about the legality of regulations > >always frustrate me. > > Let us be practical here on BLML. L40D seems to give an SO complete > freedom where conventions are concerned. The ACBL and the EBU consider > this correct. The WBF, knowing that various major SOs used L40D for a > very wide form of regulation, did not see fit to change L40D. Was there any pressure for the new Laws to clarify the more contentious aspects of L40D (e.g., is it proper for SOs to ban psyches of conventional bids?, discourage very weak openings by banning conventions over them?, etc.)? This would have given a more definitive idea of the "intent of the Laws" than deductions from the fact that they didn't see fit to change the (arguably ambiguous) present Law. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 20:17:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA22021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:17:23 +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 UAA22014 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:17:11 +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 LAA15682 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:17:20 +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 LAA25715 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:17:19 +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 LAA19553 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:17:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98 11:17:17 BST Message-Id: <3460.9804281017@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: High, middle, low Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > In my opinion South has only two alternatives. Pass and 4S. Double with such > a hand asks for PP. The hesitation P(1) of partner North can only mean some- > thing like a choise between pass, 4S and Double. > South-player has already bid his hand. After 3S he/she could bid 4S, but > passed. Now after the hesitation South must pass. > > Problem arises when 4H cann't be made and then perhaps EW will find that South > passed because his partner hesitated.And then ? > But this is surely the crucial point: South must be able to call in this position without all calls being illegal under law 16. If we assume the logical alternatives are 4S and Pass then we can not rule: if 4S makes then 4S is suggested over Pass by the hesitation, if 4H does not make then Pass is suggested over 4S by the hesitation, if etc. If we do not know what LA is suggested over another (without knowing the result of the hand) then no LA is suggested over another, and any LA is a L16-legal call. 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 Apr 28 20:53:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA22170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:53:22 +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 UAA22165 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:53:16 +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 LAA16549 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:53:37 +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 LAA00144 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:53:36 +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 LAA19837 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:53:36 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98 11:53:35 BST Message-Id: <3475.9804281053@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jeremy Rickard > Was there any pressure for the new Laws to clarify the more contentious > aspects of L40D (e.g., is it proper for SOs to ban psyches of > conventional bids?, discourage very weak openings by banning > conventions over them?, etc.)? This would have given a more definitive > idea of the "intent of the Laws" than deductions from the fact that > they didn't see fit to change the (arguably ambiguous) present Law. Perhaps they did not want to change (clarify) the 1987 law to clearly make such bans legal, in case this made people think the previously bans were illegal. :-) 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 Apr 28 22:11:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:11:13 +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 WAA22472 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:11:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005583; 28 Apr 98 12:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:40:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <199804280828.KAA27753@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk jp wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >No, certainly not. Your revoke is subject to penalty, the one by the >guy who made 6NT was not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I >should have typed: > >"IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders in case of a >revoke not subject to penalty, but doesn't tell you to take away any >good result from the offenders". OK, I'll try again. You revoke from dummy, thus making a completely impossible contract. You are saying that the Director does not rule it back? Why ever not? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 23:16:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:16:01 +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 XAA22669 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:15:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015249; 28 Apr 98 13:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:02:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited In-Reply-To: <199804272026.WAA16458@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: >> But you have made it clear that the Danish National Authority does run >> its Appeals system in a completely different manner. In many cases the >> real Appeal is to the DBF, is it not? >True. But in most events, the real appeal goes to a local AC. >Subsequently, there can be an appeal to the NA. Even the process >goes like this: > >1) TD ruling. >2) AC ruling. >3) NA ruling. > >the NA still exercises all the powers of the TD, including the right >to change the result. What is the point of this process? The TD has the closest contact with the players. He is usually going to be best at deciding issues of fact, so long as he is reasonably competent. Also, he is the one with the understanding of the Laws involved. For judgement decisions he should always consult before ruling. The AC gets a chance to hear from the players, and can deliberate without the rush that often affects TDs. By choosing good players to sit on ACs it becomes normal for the AC to be better than the TD in deciding matters of bridge judgement. Also they will often notice if the TD has made an error: partly perhaps because one of the players has pointed it out. Now there is an appeal to the NA: why? Are they likely to make better bridge decisions than an AC? Not really. Are they likely to make better decisions about what happened than the TD? No, certainly not, they are far too remote. Is there no reason for appealing to the NA? OH yes, there are excellent reasons. Suppose the AC has got it wrong, not the bridge judgement, but in the way the AC was conducted. Suppose they did not hear arguments from one side: suppose the TD made an error in his statement of the Laws, and the AC did not realise: suppose the AC themselves applied a bit of Law or regulation incorrectly: suppose there is an over-riding principle: suppose there are questions of regulation. The EBU L&EC discussed this long before I was on the Committee, and the following regulation sets out what they think is a suitable matter for the NA to consider. 7B3 The deposit will normally be returned only if the Laws & Ethics Committee considers the appeal to involve either a question of principle, an error of direction, or an error in the application of Law or Regulation. The Committee does not revise value judgements unless they are grossly inappropriate. The WBU wording is similar. More than anything else I see the NA as a backstop for totally inappropriate decisions. If the TD rules against you because he does not like you, and the AC are all drunk, at least the NA should consider it carefully! More probably if the TD and the AC do not know what they are doing, one hopes the NA will! >We are currently debating the role of the NA in the DBF, including >the possibility of changing our general approach so that the NA does >not serve as the L93B3 AC in as many events, but no one has suggested >(yet) that the NA should not have the ultimate say on rulings >appealed to it. The NA in the EBU/WBU clearly does have the final say: however, they will not use it in circumstances that they consider inappropriate. As far as times when the NA acts as the AC, players do not like ACs that they cannot talk to. Even if you follow this system - and I understood that you do in a fair number of cases - then perhaps you might split your National Appeals Committee from your National Authority. There have been cases in the EBU [especially where matches are played privately] where the EBU has had to arrange an AC at a later date. It seems wrong to use the L&EC [which is our NA]. Better is to arrange a three man AC with perhaps one or two L&EC members on it. When I played in the Grand Masters an appeal was heard during the weekend from a different national competition. By making your NA your AC on certain occasions, you also have rather taken away the players' rights to take such an appeal to the NA. As you will realise, I do not think there are many suitable cases for this procedure, but there are some. >The interpretation of L93C is at issue here. The DBF precedent is >that the NA exercises both the CTD and the AC powers listed in L93B. >I have read an annual report from the Swedish NA a few years ago, and >it is obvious that their approach is similar to ours. I heard that they have 50 or 60 cases a year: we look at about five, and consider maybe three. The question seems to be what effect the NA decision should have on the results of events. It does not seem a very good method where you either cannot declare winners on the day, or where there is a reasonable likelihood of the winners changing later - and it certainly seems wrong if the only reason for this is that a group of people who do not talk to the principals involved make a different value judgement. >In at least some other parts of the world, the NA apparently >exercises no direct judicial authority at all. When that is the >case, the only ruling a party can get from an NA is a letter >apologizing for the incident and a promise that a clarifying >regulation will be made. Only the most tenacious, idealistic players >like Marv and myself would go through all that trouble for such a >meager reward. Well, I am two for two in NA appeals that do not affect the results! cc: Hans-Olof Hallen -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 28 23:39:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:39:56 +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 XAA22761 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:39:43 +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 OAA20074 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:39:58 +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 OAA20937 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:39:56 +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 OAA21042 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:39:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98 14:39:54 BST Message-Id: <3889.9804281339@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > > jp wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >No, certainly not. Your revoke is subject to penalty, the one by the > >guy who made 6NT was not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I > >should have typed: > > > >"IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders in case of a > >revoke not subject to penalty, but doesn't tell you to take away any > >good result from the offenders". > > OK, I'll try again. You revoke from dummy, thus making a completely > impossible contract. You are saying that the Director does not rule it > back? Why ever not? > Beacuse JP wants to read L64C "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." as "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score to the non-offending side." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You (and I) do not want to read L64C this way. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 02:02:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 02:02:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA25930 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 02:02:31 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yUCqJ-0001Bc-00; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:02:51 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:02:17 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Correction Period revisited Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:02:16 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens wrote: SNIP > In at least some other parts of the world, the NA apparently > exercises no direct judicial authority at all. When that is the > case, the only ruling a party can get from an NA is a letter > apologizing for the incident and a promise that a clarifying > regulation will be made. Only the most tenacious, idealistic players > like Marv and myself would go through all that trouble for such a > meager reward. > > > In much of the rest of the world, > > the NA is a backup to provide major decisions in principle, rather > than > > the real Appeal. > > Yes, I guess I knew that all along, but this thread is making it much > clearer to me. > > > ######## In England and even in Britain, the NA does on certain > occasions exercise judicial authority and change results, fine people, > etc. so you are not entirely alone. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 02:23:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 02:23:58 +1000 Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25986 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 02:23:52 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA05604 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804281623.JAA05604@prefetch.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 09:21:52 -0700 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 David Stevenson wrote (in part): > The AC gets a chance to hear from the players, and can deliberate > without the rush that often affects TDs. By choosing good players to > sit on ACs it becomes normal for the AC to be better than the TD in > deciding matters of bridge judgement. Also they will often notice if > the TD has made an error: partly perhaps because one of the players has > pointed it out. > Rich Colker is the editor for a "Casebook" that is compiled for each ACBL NABC, in which a panel of experts examines and debates every AC case. The panel analyzes, commments on, and rates (0-100 range) the performance of the TD and AC in each case. The casebooks take a while to get out, so the last two are "Miami Vice" for the 1996 Summer NABC, and "The Streets of San Francisco, Crime and Punishment by the Bay" for the 1996 Fall NABC. In the Miami book, TDs averaged scores of 76.8, ACs 79.7. For San Francisco, it was TDs 85.4, ACs 76.0. Despite the fact that TDs must sometimes make hurried decisions without time for study, and ACs get to make their decisions at a leisurely pace in calm surroundings, the TDs seem to have improved relative to ACs. Either they are doing a better job, or ACs a worse job, depending on how you want to express it. The casebooks are very instructive, with complete, one could say extreme, frankness exhibited by all participants. The editorial comments are especially good. Every TD and potential AC member should read these books, which are available at a moderate price from the ACBL. I don't know whether the ACBL distributes these to its TDs and NABC AC members, but it should. Next to BLML, they constitute the best instructional material available in ACBL-land for applying the Laws and ACBL regulations. I think they would be very interesting to those in other zones also. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 02:46:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 02:46:49 +1000 Received: from hermes.dur.ac.uk (hermes.dur.ac.uk [129.234.4.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA26087 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 02:46:38 +1000 Received: from mercury by hermes.dur.ac.uk id (8.8.8/ for dur.ac.uk) with SMTP; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:47:00 +0100 (BST) Received: from vega by mercury id ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:46:59 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:46:58 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.aU Subject: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, which _isn't_ what he actually holds. He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences from his explanation. East-West claim, that he mislead them deliberately by his explanation. Indeed, since this bid is in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't clearly marked on the cc, so East-West may well claim that they have suffered from a deliberate misexplanation, rather than a psyche/tactical bid. What should North have done ? Arguably, his best pragmatic tactic, is to keep quiet about his partners misexplanation. This is of course, against the rules, but saves him from the scenario depicted above, since he won't get found out. What should he do, short of having a 10 volume convention card, never making tactical bids, or having a partner who never misexplains calls ? cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 04:54:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:54:40 +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 EAA26688 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:54:33 +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 OAA23905 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Apr28.144427.1189.203665; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:45:55 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.aU (bridge-laws) Message-ID: <1998Apr28.144427.1189.203665@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, 28 Apr 1998 14:45:55 -0600 Subject: Technology Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- One of the most important considerations which any organization needs to consider is the effects of technological change. Bridge is no exception to this rule. The formation of multi-player computerized bridge games on the Internet is easily the most significant event which has occurred in bridge in 30 years. Within a relatively short amount of time, it will be necessary for the Laws making bodies to consider some very significant issues. The most important of these will be what happens when a group of players on the Internet decides to form an organizational body. Much of the existing hierarchical structure for bridge is based on geographical affiliation. I would argue the nature of the game of bridge at on-line clubs such as OKBridge, Passport2 Bridge, and new offering from the Microsoft Game Zone is sufficiently distinct from face-to-face bridge that none of the existing geographically defined organizations is suitable as a legislative body. Question for this mailing list. Up front, I don't ever expect that their would be a entry from the "Internet" playing in the Bermuda Bowl. However, what status would an Internet Bridge organizing body have under the existing Laws? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 06:38:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:38:54 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@[205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA27167 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:38:21 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-26.access.net.il [192.116.198.26]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA25393; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:36:46 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35463E95.399E81DE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:39:49 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? References: <199804232331.TAA17249@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I answer to your message after I read all messages , including D. Metcalf's . Background ---------- As much as I understand , the scope of Law 16A1 was manifold : a. to establish facts as "fresh" as possible. b. to avoid inadvertent double-shots or ..."xxx" double-shots. c. to achieve the laws' spirit - let the game "flow as smooth and non-turbulent" as possible. d. to allow SO to elect to summon the TD always or agree on facts. We must remember that the laws' scope is to avoid damage ; if an irregularity occurred but there was no damage , nothing happened. Analysis -------- The law 16A1 allows players to call attention to an irregularity and agree about it before summoning the TD ; if facts not agreed the TD must be summoned. As pointed by Marv the ACBL decided not to let players to agree themselves but summon the TD always (I believe they had very good reasons..). The UI irregularity itself isn't "the crime" ; using the UI IS the crime ! As long as the UI wasn't used by the infractor's partner there is no problem. It is very difficult and non-fair to try to judge the partner of the offending player before you have all the data - and the most relevant data are the suspected criminal's cards. So you - the NO side - are able to make up your mind only when you see the cards (at the play's end or when dummy's cards lay on the table ..). A double-shot trial deems to exist either you call the attention or you don't call it ... it is a question of personal opinions. Pointing the irregularity and agree about facts always , will lower the suspicions of a Double Shot . Conclusion ---------- Law 16A1 , including the ACBL election is , IMHO , the best possible legislation to achieve the Laws' scope . If someone deems the wording isn't appropriate ,I suggest to change it to : "...the NO player is allowed to postpone summoning the TD , if facts agreed .......". Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Simon Edler" > > I am not quite clear as to what Herman is suggesting (see below). > > Is it that the Director must be called whenever a (supposed) hesitation > > occurs? > > In North America, that has some validity. The L16A1 option of > "reserving one's rights" is generally forbidden. (It is an option for > the SO, so some clubs allow it, but it is not allowed in ACBL > tournaments.) > > One may properly call the TD either when the hesitation occurs or when > one sees the hand of the (alleged) user of UI. Many players improperly > call the TD when a player makes a call that they suspect to have been > based on UI, but that is insulting and pointless. > > Simon's suggestions are quite proper most everywhere else the world. I > wish they would be adopted here. > > Note to Grattan: "reserving one's rights" is a terrible phrase! One > always has the right to call the TD (well, almost always); there is no > need to reserve it. What one is doing under L16A1 is agreeing on the > existence of UI. Could the Laws Commission consider different wording > in 2007? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 07:24:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:24:28 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA27261 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:24:16 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22477 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804282124.OAA22477@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Michaels wrote: >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on >misinferences from his explanation. > >East-West claim, that he mislead them deliberately by his explanation. >Indeed, since this bid is in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't >clearly marked on the cc, so East-West may well claim that they have >suffered from a deliberate misexplanation, rather than a psyche/tactical >bid. > >What should North have done ? > >Arguably, his best pragmatic tactic, is to keep quiet about his partners >misexplanation. This is of course, against the rules, but saves him from >the scenario depicted above, since he won't get found out. This is probably the action dictated by the "De Wael School". :-)) The rest of us will probably advocate following the Laws of the game (75D2) - ie correct pard's misexplanation at our earliest legal opportunity, rather than trying to second-guess what might be better for the opponents (72A6). Let's not forget that *intentially* breaking a rule is a serious infraction in itself (72B1+3). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 07:36:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:36:17 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA27300 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:36:11 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24739 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804282136.OAA24739@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: Technology Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >The most important of these will be what happens when a group of players >on the Internet decides to form an organizational body. Much of the >existing hierarchical structure for bridge is based on geographical >affiliation. I would argue the nature of the game of bridge at on-line >clubs such as OKBridge, Passport2 Bridge, and new offering from the >Microsoft Game Zone is sufficiently distinct from face-to-face bridge >that none of the existing geographically defined organizations is >suitable as a legislative body. > >Question for this mailing list. >Up front, I don't ever expect that their would be a entry from the >"Internet" playing in the Bermuda Bowl. However, what status would an >Internet Bridge organizing body have under the existing Laws? Two issues here: 1) Organisation - Why couldn't it be a seperate body within the WBF, not in the same subset as NCBOs? 2) Bridge Laws - Due to the inherent differences from F2F bridge, a new rules book needs to be created. Some laws might remain as they are, but others are redundant and yet others need such major rework that a fresh start will probably be best. Now *that's* a nice job for the WBF to delegate to BLML! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 08:55:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:55:00 +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 IAA27570 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:54:50 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (C5300-1-23.nt.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.25]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA02558 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:53:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:53:37 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199804282253.BAA02558@alpha.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@cmx.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: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:46 PM 28/4/98 +0100, you wrote: >Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. > >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences >from his explanation. snip> It really is a tricky situation. Last week my partner passed my 2C checkback stayman bid and when asked said it promised at least 4 clubs. (we definitely decided on checkback and it was on the cc.) I was about to correct his misexplanation when i realised I had (by chance) four clubs and my correction might imply that I had less. I decided not to correct. At the end of the play i informed opponenents of the misexplanation and why I had not corrected and that legally I should have corrected. Even though our score was slightly above average they accepted my explanation for non-explanation and even praised it.They thought that had I corrected they would have played me for less than four clubs and maybe misdefended giving me an extra trick. So I, a qualified TD, the offending side,intentionally break a rule, feel good about it, and get praised by the non-offending side. I should add that inferences that could perhaps have been drawn by knowing I had checkbacked were not considered significant, but had they been relevant then what? Yes, it really is a tricky situation. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 09:20:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:20:46 +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 JAA27636 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:20:39 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12005; 28 Apr 98 16:20 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:53:37 PDT." <199804282253.BAA02558@alpha.netvision.net.il> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:20:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804281620.aa12005@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: > Last week my partner passed my 2C checkback stayman bid and when asked said > it promised at least 4 clubs. (we definitely decided on checkback and it was > on the cc.) > I was about to correct his misexplanation when i realised I had (by chance) > four clubs and my correction might imply that I had less. I decided not to > correct. At the end of the play i informed opponenents of the misexplanation > and why I had not corrected and that legally I should have corrected. Even > though our score was slightly above average they accepted my explanation for > non-explanation and even praised it.They thought that had I corrected they > would have played me for less than four clubs and maybe misdefended giving > me an extra trick. > So I, a qualified TD, the offending side,intentionally break a rule, feel > good about it, and get praised by the non-offending side. > I should add that inferences that could perhaps have been drawn by knowing I > had checkbacked were not considered significant, but had they been relevant > then what? I agree with your last sentence. I would not have praised you for your non-correction, since it deprived me of other important information. Sometimes, some people (Wolff?) say that you should not correct a misexplanation if the explanation happens to be correct, but I think they're thinking about situations such as these: 1NT 2C 2D 2NT(1) (1) Does not promise a 4-card major; alertable in ACBL, but partner forgets to alert 3NT Presumably you use 1NT-2NT as some sort of artificial bid. Anyway, if the you, the 2NT bidder, happen to have a 4-card major, some say that you shouldn't correct the failure to alert, because that would mislead the opening leader. However, note that in this case, correcting the explanation would not provide any *additional* information to the opponents about your hand, nor would it provide any additional inferences about partner's hand. In your case, you must have had some reason for using checkback---most likely a 5-card major and an invitational hand---and this information was not conveyed by partner's misexplanation. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 09:52:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:52:20 +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 JAA27708 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:52:14 +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 TAA22889 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA21258; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:52:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:52:39 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804282352.TAA21258@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: High, middle, low X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the > argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested > by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the > only allowed call. (We'll assume for the sake of argument that > partner could have been thinking about saving, and that 4S by South is > a LA.) My response was that pass is a "middle" action between 4S and > double. 4S says "they're definitely making 4H", double says "they're > definitely not making 4H", pass is an in-between action. I didn't see > how, if there are a High, Middle, and Low action, that the High and > Low actions could both be suggested by the hesitation, and the Middle > action would therefore be the only LA allowed by the Laws. If the pass had been forcing, your argument would be standard. We can't tell what partner was thinking about, and so no action is suggested over another. In this case, I think double is clearly illegal. It caters to both extra defense or extra offense (when partner pulls). But since partner might well have a purely defensive hand, I don't see how 4S is suggested over pass. Thus I'd rule it bizarre (not a LA by a long shot) but legal (not suggested). On this hand, I think responder was far more likely to be thinking about double than about 4S. This doesn't change my ruling, but it may influence my thinking that double would be illegal. Here's another example: At IMPs, I think neither vul, the bidding goes: 1C-3D(weak)-3S-4D; 4S- P(slow)- P-? The pass took several seconds, an eternity in this position. But what does it suggest? You may assume that 5D and pass are both LA's for fourth hand. Does it make any difference how good the player who made the slow pass is? In this case, the player was a promising junior, capable of winning a large regional event (which this was) on a good day but not one of the top favorites. His partner was another junior, decent but erratic, perhaps of average skill in the field. Or do you want to see the slow passer's hand and rule that the hesitation showed the hand he actually held? I have been meaning to send this for a long time, and I'd love answers either to the list or to me alone. Thanks. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 09:57:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:57:12 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27767 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:57:06 +1000 Received: from Goodwin.maine.rr.com (dt032n33.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.51]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA04240; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980428195141.581f7a84@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:51:41 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Technology Cc: rwigdor@sprynet.com In-Reply-To: <199804282136.OAA24739@mh2.cts.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:36 PM 4/28/98 -0700, Jan Kamras wrote: >2) Bridge Laws - Due to the inherent differences from F2F bridge, a new >rules book needs to be created. Some laws might remain as they are, but >others are redundant and yet others need such major rework that a fresh >start will probably be best. >Now *that's* a nice job for the WBF to delegate to BLML! Someone (Robin Wigdor) has already indertaken some of this task. I believe he has modified (or is in the process of modifying) the Laws for use on OKBridge and has made them available at a website. Unfortunately, I don't know the address, maybe he'll provide you with it. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 10:10:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:10:07 +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 KAA27834 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:10:00 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2749.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.73]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA26941 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:10:22 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:10:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd72f2$723d1620$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: Robin Michaels Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 11:01 PM Subject: Re: Self Explanations >North, you have made a psychic/tactical bid. >Your duty is to tell the opponents what you should have held for your >bid. This will guide them to asses that your partner may have bid >according to what he believed you to hold. >I must admit I do not like this senario but it is the Law. Your >opponents are entitled to know what your system is, not what you hold. >I would recommend that you make sure that if you are going to behave in >this ultra legalistic fashion, you should make sure that you have >available system notes to back up your claim. > If you have made a psychic bid, for the pupose of developing your own >auction, not for the deceipt of you opponents, it is a by-product that >the defence "gets it wrong". As long as you have disclosed your actual >agreement I see no problem. The problem only arises when you have no >system notes to support your explanation. >You will win the argument but lose your popularity as an ethical player >in the eyes of your oponents. It is up to you. >Anne >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Michaels >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.aU >Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:34 PM >Subject: Self Explanations > > >>Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. >> >>North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps >alerted, >>and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. >> >>North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid >>was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system >interpretation, >>which _isn't_ what he actually holds. >> >>He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on >misinferences >>from his explanation. >> >>East-West claim, that he mislead them deliberately by his explanation. >>Indeed, since this bid is in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't >>clearly marked on the cc, so East-West may well claim that they have >>suffered from a deliberate misexplanation, rather than a >psyche/tactical >>bid. >> >>What should North have done ? > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 10:40:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:40:12 +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 KAA27959 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:40:05 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa17398; 28 Apr 98 17:39 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: High, middle, low In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:52:39 PDT." <199804282352.TAA21258@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:39:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804281739.aa17398@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Here's another example: At IMPs, I think neither vul, the bidding goes: > 1C-3D(weak)-3S-4D; > 4S- P(slow)- P-? > > The pass took several seconds, an eternity in this position. But what > does it suggest? You may assume that 5D and pass are both LA's for > fourth hand. Does it make any difference how good the player who made > the slow pass is? In this case, the player was a promising junior, > capable of winning a large regional event (which this was) on a good > day but not one of the top favorites. His partner was another junior, > decent but erratic, perhaps of average skill in the field. Or do you > want to see the slow passer's hand and rule that the hesitation showed > the hand he actually held? My first impulse is to rule that the hesitation suggests bidding 5D, and thus 5D by fourth hand is not allowed. The difference between this and the other hand is that here, the preemptor is hesitating; while in Robin's hand, the player who raised the preemptor is hesitating. To me, this makes a big difference in determining whether the hesitator could have been thinking about doubling. That just seems quite unlikely in this auction. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 10:45:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:45:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA27976 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:45:30 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yUL0Q-0000Cj-00; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:45:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:23:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Robin Michaels writes >Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. > >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences >from his explanation. > >East-West claim, that he mislead them deliberately by his explanation. >Indeed, since this bid is in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't >clearly marked on the cc, so East-West may well claim that they have >suffered from a deliberate misexplanation, rather than a psyche/tactical >bid. > >What should North have done ? > >Arguably, his best pragmatic tactic, is to keep quiet about his partners >misexplanation. This is of course, against the rules, but saves him from >the scenario depicted above, since he won't get found out. > >What should he do, short of having a 10 volume convention card, never >making tactical bids, or having a partner who never misexplains calls ? > >cheers, >Robin > sounds like the start of another entry in the probst bum ruling competition :) In an EBU event I'd rule MI and adjust. In the bear pit I may well believe you and let the other side appeal. I've had a few of these and the ACs have often supported my rulings. Mise on scene: Convention card says "Old fashioned Fireworks" nothing else. [This is a totally stupid system based on a hotch-potch of unsound conventions and designed to use the fullest range of allowable conventional opening bids possible. About 20 players play it fairly regularly including a couple of rgb posters]. It's not quite Robin's scenario but not entirely different either. The auction goes 1C (Modified Gurr), opponents silent, 1D (diamonds or negative), 2C (explained as GF any hand, but actually clubs, strongish because of the failure to open precision 2C, and probably is 8PT in C), 2S (explained as values with spades, but actually weak with spades and in the contention of the opponents probably showing diamonds as well, a not unreasonable interpretation) and the auction wanders along like this for a while and stops suddenly. The opponents call the director because they consider that the auction should have continued a bit further to a very profitable penalty double. I have to rule this one. Thanks Pam. It takes a while to find a fireworks player to consult with. Thanks Pam. After 15 minutes of thought you make up your mind. Thanks Pam. You decide that the sudden stop in the auction is justified. Ruling: Result stands. AC: (National standard) Upheld. Sorry Andy. Why do these things happen to me? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 10:45:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:45:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA27977 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:45:30 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yUL0Q-0002cP-00; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:45:50 +0100 Message-ID: <1t1U5aCuSnR1EwRr@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:30:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: <199804282136.OAA24739@mh2.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199804282136.OAA24739@mh2.cts.com>, Jan Kamras writes >Richard Willey wrote: > >>The most important of these will be what happens when a group of players >>on the Internet decides to form an organizational body. Much of the >>existing hierarchical structure for bridge is based on geographical >>affiliation. I would argue the nature of the game of bridge at on-line >>clubs such as OKBridge, Passport2 Bridge, and new offering from the >>Microsoft Game Zone is sufficiently distinct from face-to-face bridge >>that none of the existing geographically defined organizations is >>suitable as a legislative body. >> >>Question for this mailing list. >>Up front, I don't ever expect that their would be a entry from the >>"Internet" playing in the Bermuda Bowl. However, what status would an >>Internet Bridge organizing body have under the existing Laws? > >Two issues here: >1) Organisation - Why couldn't it be a seperate body within the WBF, not >in the same subset as NCBOs? >2) Bridge Laws - Due to the inherent differences from F2F bridge, a new >rules book needs to be created. Some laws might remain as they are, but >others are redundant and yet others need such major rework that a fresh >start will probably be best. >Now *that's* a nice job for the WBF to delegate to BLML! > and many serious blml contributors have considerable Internet Bridge experience. I'd be willing to serve. aside.. how about M2M Bridge - Modem-to-Modem. The dogs will keep count if we want a straw poll on an epigrammatic name. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 10:53:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:53:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28025 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:53:31 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025342; 29 Apr 98 0:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 00:52:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Equity In-Reply-To: <3889.9804281339@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3889.9804281339@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> From: David Stevenson >> >> jp wrote: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >No, certainly not. Your revoke is subject to penalty, the one by the >> >guy who made 6NT was not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I >> >should have typed: >> > >> >"IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders in case of a >> >revoke not subject to penalty, but doesn't tell you to take away any >> >good result from the offenders". >> >> OK, I'll try again. You revoke from dummy, thus making a completely >> impossible contract. You are saying that the Director does not rule it >> back? Why ever not? >> >Beacuse JP wants to read L64C > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score." >as > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score to the non-offending side." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >You (and I) do not want to read L64C this way. > Nor do I. It's taken Mr Stevenson 2 years of shouting at me to get me to do it *his* way and I am totally convinced he's right. Just because I made 6NT on a stupid lead and got a top is NO different from getting a top because an opponent can't follow suit. >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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 11:04:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:04:29 +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 LAA28084 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:04:25 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA07034 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:04:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980429110509.00953af0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:05:09 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Technology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Richard Willey wrote: >> >>>The most important of these will be what happens when a group of players >>>on the Internet decides to form an organizational body. Hmmm - The Internet Bridge Federation/Organisation ? The Federated Bridge Federation ? The World Wide Bridge Fed/Org. ? ;-) The Internet Bridge Architecture Board ? A very interesting question (besides the name, I mean). 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 Wed Apr 29 12:54:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA28397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:54:55 +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 MAA28392 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:54:51 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.82] (mg4-82.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.82]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA19636 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:55:16 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:55:17 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't see that these are tricky situations at all. Misinformation was given, and a correct explanation was given at the correct time. The content of that misinformation is now irrelevant. The bidder may or may not have a hand consistent with the misexplanation, but this is irrelevant. The bidder may or may not have a hand consisten with the correct explanation, but he's not likely to make friends with the opponents if he doesn't. But under no circumstances is failure to correct the explanation legal. If the opponents draw inference from the original false explanation, which they *know* to be incorrect, then that is their own problem if it causes them damage. To go beyond the call of duty, a corrected explanation could include a statement to the effect that the previous misexplanation is irrelevant, and, if applicable, that the bidder will only have described a hand consistent with the misexplanation if it just so happens that it is also described by the correct explanation. In the 1NT-2C-2D-2NT case, where in ACBLand failure to alert 2NT implies the 2NT bidder holds a 4-card major, the corrected explanation/alert leaves the opponents in exactly the same position as after a correct explanation/alert in the first place. The opponents have the knowledge that by agreement the 2NT bidder does not promise a four card major (either does not have one, or may not have one, doesn't matter which). It may be that he has one, it may be that he hasn't. The opponents draw inference from a correctly-explained auction at their own risk - to draw any from a misexplanation followed by a correct one is asking for trouble. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 13:18:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:18:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA28433 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:18:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002302; 29 Apr 98 3:17 GMT Message-ID: <2NDKhSADmpR1Ewyb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:07:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: <1t1U5aCuSnR1EwRr@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: >The dogs will keep count if we want a straw poll on an >epigrammatic name. D*gs can't count! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 13:18:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:18:46 +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 NAA28440 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:18:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002301; 29 Apr 98 3:17 GMT Message-ID: <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:05:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Michaels wrote: >Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. > >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences >from his explanation. > >East-West claim, that he mislead them deliberately by his explanation. >Indeed, since this bid is in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't >clearly marked on the cc, so East-West may well claim that they have >suffered from a deliberate misexplanation, rather than a psyche/tactical >bid. > >What should North have done ? > >Arguably, his best pragmatic tactic, is to keep quiet about his partners >misexplanation. This is of course, against the rules, but saves him from >the scenario depicted above, since he won't get found out. How does he know? I find this sort of comment amazing. You have no idea what will happen if you misinform the oppos! >What should he do, short of having a 10 volume convention card, never >making tactical bids, or having a partner who never misexplains calls ? You call the Director and explain the problem to him . ******************** ******************** Jan Kamras wrote: >Robin Michaels wrote: >>Arguably, his best pragmatic tactic, is to keep quiet about his partners >>misexplanation. This is of course, against the rules, but saves him from >>the scenario depicted above, since he won't get found out. >This is probably the action dictated by the "De Wael School". :-)) >The rest of us will probably advocate following the Laws of the game (75D2) >- ie correct pard's misexplanation at our earliest legal opportunity, >rather than trying to second-guess what might be better for the opponents >(72A6). Excellent Jan. ******************** ******************** Anne Jones wrote: >>North, you have made a psychic/tactical bid. >>Your duty is to tell the opponents what you should have held for your >>bid. This will guide them to asses that your partner may have bid >>according to what he believed you to hold. >>I must admit I do not like this senario but it is the Law. Your >>opponents are entitled to know what your system is, not what you hold. >>I would recommend that you make sure that if you are going to behave in >>this ultra legalistic fashion, you should make sure that you have >>available system notes to back up your claim. What planet are you on? Look, the Laws of the game apply at all levels. I recently was the TDic [DIC] for the Welsh Spring congress. How many players present had long system notes, out of the 250 who played? Four? The Laws apply to everyone. It is not a matter of "behaving in an ultra legalistic fashion". You either have to follow the Laws, or not. I realise that people who don't believe they are doing so either [a] for the oppos' benefit or [b] because they are too embarrassed to do the right thing. It does not matter. If you have a difficulty you follow the Laws. >> If you have made a psychic bid, for the pupose of developing your own >>auction, not for the deceipt of you opponents, it is a by-product that >>the defence "gets it wrong". As long as you have disclosed your >actual >>agreement I see no problem. The problem only arises when you have no >>system notes to support your explanation. Tell me, Anne: how many partners do you have system notes for? Do you take them to congresses? How often does anyone think you are lying? [My guess is that the answers to this are: None or one; no; never.] >>You will win the argument but lose your popularity as an ethical player >>in the eyes of your oponents. It is up to you. No, you will not. Reasonable players accept that there are problems in this area. ******************** ******************** Eitan Levy wrote: >It really is a tricky situation. >Last week my partner passed my 2C checkback stayman bid and when asked said >it promised at least 4 clubs. (we definitely decided on checkback and it was >on the cc.) >I was about to correct his misexplanation when i realised I had (by chance) >four clubs and my correction might imply that I had less. I decided not to >correct. At the end of the play i informed opponenents of the misexplanation >and why I had not corrected and that legally I should have corrected. Even >though our score was slightly above average they accepted my explanation for >non-explanation and even praised it.They thought that had I corrected they >would have played me for less than four clubs and maybe misdefended giving >me an extra trick. >So I, a qualified TD, the offending side,intentionally break a rule, feel >good about it, and get praised by the non-offending side. Well, you don't get praised by me. You were lucky. >I should add that inferences that could perhaps have been drawn by knowing I >had checkbacked were not considered significant, but had they been relevant >then what? Since you broke the Law deliberately and knowledgeably, I trust you would have been punished. ******************** ******************** Adam Beneschan wrote: >Sometimes, some people (Wolff?) say that you should not correct a >misexplanation if the explanation happens to be correct, but I think >they're thinking about situations such as these: [Irrelevant situation snipped] Look, the Law requires you to do something. Wolff and others may think it is a poor idea to follow the Laws, but unless you can foretell the future, why not just follow the Laws? How do you know what will benefit the oppos? ******************** ******************** Let's summarise. A number of posters to BLML are worried because, if they follow the Laws, someone may not believe they have acted in an ethical fashion. What should you do? You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 13:20:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:20:42 +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 NAA28462 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:20:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002306; 29 Apr 98 3:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:36:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: High, middle, low In-Reply-To: <199804282352.TAA21258@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Here's another example: At IMPs, I think neither vul, the bidding goes: > 1C-3D(weak)-3S-4D; > 4S- P(slow)- P-? > >The pass took several seconds, an eternity in this position. But what >does it suggest? You may assume that 5D and pass are both LA's for >fourth hand. Does it make any difference how good the player who made >the slow pass is? In this case, the player was a promising junior, >capable of winning a large regional event (which this was) on a good >day but not one of the top favorites. His partner was another junior, >decent but erratic, perhaps of average skill in the field. Or do you >want to see the slow passer's hand and rule that the hesitation showed >the hand he actually held? One rule-of-thumb I use is: what would I do if I was a cheat? I define a cheat [for this purpose] as someone who deliberately and knowledgeably uses UI. What would he do? If he does not know whether to call 5D or pass then I think that there is no problem if your player calls either. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 17:33:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA28994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:33:29 +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 RAA28989 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:33:22 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA19012 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:33:15 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:33:14 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Period revisited) In-Reply-To: <199804281623.JAA05604@prefetch.san.rr.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: Warning: it's election time here, so my usual sensitivity about the accuracy of numbers is at a maximum :-) > Rich Colker is the editor for a "Casebook" that is compiled for each > ACBL NABC, in which a panel of experts examines and debates every AC > case. The panel analyzes, commments on, and rates (0-100 range) the > performance of the TD and AC in each case. > In the Miami book, TDs averaged scores > of 76.8, ACs 79.7. For San Francisco, it was TDs 85.4, ACs 76.0. I have some objections to the implied accuracy of these scores. The panellists were not asked to rate the performance of the TD and AC on a 0 to 100 scale (which would be close to impossible), instead they were asked to rate the TD/AC on a 0 to 3 scale. The scores were then added up and expressed as a percentage. The casebook doesn't mention if the panellists were restricted to the 4 steps from 0 to 3 or were allowed intermediate scores (0, 0.5, 1.0,...), but anybody who has ever rated anything, knows that the ratings are always a bit arbitrary. To present these numbers with 3 significant digits, suggests an accuracy that they do not have. In fact, I wouldn't be too supprised if a more detailed error analysis showed that there was no significant difference between 79.7 and 76.0. > I don't know whether the ACBL distributes these to its TDs and > NABC AC members, but it should. Aha, another sensitive point ;-) The Dutch federation publishes the decisions of the national AC in a 3-monthly newsletter, to which anybody can subscribe for a nominal fee. I've suggested a couple of times that the ACBL does the same but, so-far, this doesn't happen. 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: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 17:47:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:47:37 +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 RAA29019 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 17:47:31 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ES6007C80BT0Q@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:47:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA09266; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:47:44 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:47:43 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Equity In-reply-to: from <"J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl"@Apr> To: j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ES6007C90BT0Q@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk snip a lot.> > DS: > > > You are telling me that if I revoke and the revoke gains me three > > tricks, you will penalise me two or one tricks but let me keep the other > > one or two tricks that I gained? > > > > So if declarer is trying to run AKJT985 opposite x with no other > > entries to dummy it is to my advantage not to follow with Qx, but to > > keep it for later to stop the run of the suit? This play gains me five > > tricks, and you will only take two of them away from me? > > > No, certainly not. Your revoke is subject to penalty, the one by the > guy who made 6NT was not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I > should have typed: > > "IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders in case of a > revoke not subject to penalty, but doesn't tell you to take away any > good result from the offenders". > > JP -------------------------------------------------------------- Hi JP, If the offenders could have known at the time of the offence that there offence would damage the non-offenders then you can give an AS (law 72B1). So the law covers such cases too. 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 Wed Apr 29 18:17:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:17:08 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29110 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:17:02 +1000 Received: from 145.18.125.142 (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA18498 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:17:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804290817.KAA18498@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:23:13 Subject: Re: Equity Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Robin Barker > > From: David Stevenson > > > > jp wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >No, certainly not. Your revoke is subject to penalty, the one by the > > >guy who made 6NT was not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I > > >should have typed: > > > > > >"IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders in case of a > > >revoke not subject to penalty, but doesn't tell you to take away any > > >good result from the offenders". > > > > OK, I'll try again. You revoke from dummy, thus making a completely > > impossible contract. You are saying that the Director does not rule it > > back? Why ever not? > > > Beacuse JP wants to read L64C > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score." > as > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > he shall assign an adjusted score to the non-offending side." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You (and I) do not want to read L64C this way. Thank you, Robin, that's exactly how I want to read L64C. Restore equity where, according to L64B3, punishment is impossible. JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 18:22:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:22:52 +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 SAA29134 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:22:44 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ES6007FI1YGPI@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:23:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA09570; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:22:54 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:22:53 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-reply-to: <199804282253.BAA02558@alpha.netvision.net.il>; from "Eitan Levy" at Apr 29, 98 1:53 am To: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ES6007FJ1YGPI@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. > > > >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, > >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > > > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid > >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, > >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > > > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences > >from his explanation. > > snip> > > It really is a tricky situation. > Last week my partner passed my 2C checkback stayman bid and when asked said > it promised at least 4 clubs. (we definitely decided on checkback and it was > on the cc.) > I was about to correct his misexplanation when i realised I had (by chance) > four clubs and my correction might imply that I had less. I decided not to > correct. At the end of the play i informed opponenents of the misexplanation > and why I had not corrected and that legally I should have corrected. Even > though our score was slightly above average they accepted my explanation for > non-explanation and even praised it.They thought that had I corrected they > would have played me for less than four clubs and maybe misdefended giving > me an extra trick. > So I, a qualified TD, the offending side,intentionally break a rule, feel > good about it, and get praised by the non-offending side. > I should add that inferences that could perhaps have been drawn by knowing I > had checkbacked were not considered significant, but had they been relevant > then what? > > Yes, it really is a tricky situation. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- Hi , I think you must follow rules, else where do we stop breaking rules because we think that it is better and we are doing good etc, etc. In the case of the checkback stayman you can always tell to the opponents that it is checkback but that it does not say anything about your holding in the other suits. And in the case of the tactical bid I would correct it also. If there are problems afterwards let TD decide. I suppose that the tactical bidder can prove that his explication was according his system. And I suppose that he did such a bid once in about six months. If he does such things more often then I as TD tend to believe that the tactical bid is part of there system and then the explanation should be according. 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 Wed Apr 29 19:02:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:02:45 +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 TAA29226 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:02:39 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0ES600A1A3T21O@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:03:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA09891; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:02:53 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:02:52 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: go back. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ES600A1B3T21O@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Bidding goes : N E S W 1S p 2S p 3S p p p And now South says "back to 2S" and W says alright then I bid 3C. What must the TD decide ? Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 19:42:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:42:34 +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 TAA29316 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:42:25 +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 KAA11173 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:42:36 +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 KAA09805 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:42:35 +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 KAA26812 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:42:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 98 10:42:33 BST Message-Id: <4169.9804290942@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another Robin (Michaels) writes: > Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. > > North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, > and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > > North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid > was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, > which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > > He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences > from his explanation. > > East-West claim, that he mislead them deliberately by his explanation. > Indeed, since this bid is in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't > clearly marked on the cc, so East-West may well claim that they have > suffered from a deliberate misexplanation, rather than a psyche/tactical > bid. > > What should North have done ? > > [snip] What was North going to do if South had correctly (alerted and) explained his call, and East-West claim there had been a mis-explanation? If "in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't clearly marked on the CC" then North will have difficulty convincing anyone that South did not forget the system. One thing North can do is to be very open and accept that because partner forgot the system, he (North) is not going to gain much form his tactical call (in the play). North should say that he thought his call meant something else but the call is not covered on the conventional card. He then _might_ say that his call had not been according to the system anyway. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 19:44:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:44:13 +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 TAA29317 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:42:29 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:39:10 +0100 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 KAA02679 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:35:47 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199804282253.BAA02558@alpha.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:33:52 +0100 (BST) 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 Eitan Levy wrote: > At 05:46 PM 28/4/98 +0100, you wrote: > >Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. > > > >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, > >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > > > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid > >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, > >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > > > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences > >from his explanation. > > snip> > > It really is a tricky situation. > Last week my partner passed my 2C checkback stayman bid and when asked said > it promised at least 4 clubs. (we definitely decided on checkback and it was > on the cc.) > I was about to correct his misexplanation when i realised I had (by chance) > four clubs and my correction might imply that I had less. I decided not to > correct. At the end of the play i informed opponenents of the misexplanation > and why I had not corrected and that legally I should have corrected. Even > though our score was slightly above average they accepted my explanation for > non-explanation and even praised it.They thought that had I corrected they > would have played me for less than four clubs and maybe misdefended giving > me an extra trick. > So I, a qualified TD, the offending side,intentionally break a rule, feel > good about it, and get praised by the non-offending side. > I should add that inferences that could perhaps have been drawn by knowing I > had checkbacked were not considered significant, but had they been relevant > then what? This particular situation doesn't seem at all difficult to deal with both legally and without causing ill-feeling. Why not just say something like "Actually, my 2C bid was checkback Stayman; it says nothing about my clubs, I may or may not have four of them." The situation Robin described, where your corrected explanation misdescribes your actual hand, seems much trickier (not legally -- it's clear what the Laws require -- but socially). I guess the real nightmare scenario is when partner's misexplanation coincidentally describes your actual hand perfectly! Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 20:38:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:38:31 +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 UAA29468 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:38:16 +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 LAA12323; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:37:06 +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 LAA16432; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:37:04 +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 LAA27227; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:36:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 98 11:36:58 BST Message-Id: <4193.9804291036@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl Subject: Re: go back. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "E.Angad-Gaur" > Subject: go back. > > Hi, > > Bidding goes : N E S W > 1S p 2S p > 3S p p p > And now South says "back to 2S" and W says alright then I bid 3C. What must > the TD decide ? > > Evert. Its not clear to me that "back to 2S" is a call, after all "is the contract 2S" is not a call. I think West has called (3C). If "back to 2S" is a call (i.e. 2S), then Law35D applies: both calls cancelled without penalty. Does Law 26 apply? If "back to 2S" is not a call, then does Law 25B apply to 3C? North has UI from "back to 2S", can he condone 3C by passing (L25B1) and avoid NS playing 3S? or can he let West decide: let pass stand and NS play 3S with L26 lead penalties for 3C, or bid 3C and get at most 40%. In this case, North's putative pass of 3C may be suggested by the UI, which is a further can of worms. I rule "back to 2S" is not a call, I apply L39 to 3C call by West. North declares 3S, and may require or may forbid a club lead. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 21:34:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:34:56 +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 VAA29660 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:34:44 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzlia-149-58.access.net.il [192.117.149.58] (may be forged)) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA18801; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:33:53 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354710C5.C61A4610@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:36:38 +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: ACBL Statement on Conventions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting ......... David Stevenson wrote: > > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >"Marvin L. French" wrote: > > >> Is it legal? > > >I'll pass on this one. Discussions about the legality of regulations > >always frustrate me. > > Let us be practical here on BLML. L40D seems to give an SO complete > freedom where conventions are concerned. The ACBL and the EBU consider > this correct. The WBF, knowing that various major SOs used L40D for a > very wide form of regulation, did not see fit to change L40D. I agree > > As a practical matter, I think readers of BLML should accept that L40D > allows a very wide interpretation of regulation of conventions, > including *any* [1] regulation to do with it. But ..... stupidity is a question of ...geography ..?? isn't it ... (I don't remember exactly the original sentence for this paraphrase) > > [1] Excluding stupid ones > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 21:40:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:40:50 +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 VAA29686 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:40:43 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzlia-149-58.access.net.il [192.117.149.58] (may be forged)) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id OAA19985 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:40:55 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3547126C.CADD54A4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:43:40 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Correction Period revisited References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk well , I read all remarks until today .... nice and interesting but... History ------- I appreciate Vitold's and Steve's stories . We all should remember : Happy..................................Poor MARADONA............................ PETER SHEALTON JEFF HERST ..........................OVERSEELER GERMAN bridge TEAM .................CANADIAN team and if will try to remember more ........... IMHO we should accept the fact that TD or Referees are part of the game.They should behave as much as possible in a way they will not be the "stars"..... A reasonable superior instance should avoid doing the same work as the lower instance .. I agree with David Stevenson's approach. Suggestions ----------- 1. The 3 instances existing in almost every country should be as defined ; TD and AC work according to the Laws' book , the NA or L&Ec committee (or whatever his name) appears only in the ZO or NO regulations . The Top instance should discuss, IMO, only : -Very complicated and delicate cases , in order to update regulations -Egregious errors of a TD ....(to teach him/her lessons,see below..!!) The National Federation should decide , A PRIORI, which tournaments/ligues/contests will be included in the regulations' paragraph allowing the change of results , after the Top instance changed the decisions (TD's or AC's). 2. For the case described I"ll be rude if TD would change results after the correction period ended : The TD will be asked to copy in a booklet : Law 79C - 79 times and Law 92B - 92 times..... 3. The correction period should be published on the club's notice board , generally and for the specific contests , including the results' destiny , if the decisions change during the published legal period..... Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > In a club teams competition an insufficient bid of 2C is made over 2H. > The Director is called but regrettably does not read the Law out in > full. As a result the 2C is changed to a double and 2H doubled goes > three off. None of the players nor the Director realise that the Law > has been misapplied. > > The competition ends: it is scored: half an hour later the Correction > Period ends, and the team of the player who doubled 2H has won by a > narrow margin - from their opponents on that hand. It is close enough, > for example, that if the player had passed on being told that double was > not permitted, and if 2H was passed out, then that would reverse the > first two places in the competition. > > The next day, on talking to someone else, one of the players in the > team that came second discovers the Law has been misapplied. Your help > on this one would be appreciated: it is live and real. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 21:59:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:59:20 +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 VAA29751 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:59:12 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-140.uunet.be [194.7.14.140]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19209 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:59:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35470FA1.2C429715@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:31:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804282253.BAA02558@alpha.netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: > > At 05:46 PM 28/4/98 +0100, you wrote: > >Here is a tricky situation I have observed several times. > > > >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, > >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > > > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid > >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, > >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > > > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on misinferences > >from his explanation. > > snip> > > It really is a tricky situation. > Last week my partner passed my 2C checkback stayman bid and when asked said > it promised at least 4 clubs. (we definitely decided on checkback and it was > on the cc.) > I was about to correct his misexplanation when i realised I had (by chance) > four clubs and my correction might imply that I had less. I decided not to > correct. At the end of the play i informed opponenents of the misexplanation > and why I had not corrected and that legally I should have corrected. Even > though our score was slightly above average they accepted my explanation for > non-explanation and even praised it.They thought that had I corrected they > would have played me for less than four clubs and maybe misdefended giving > me an extra trick. > So I, a qualified TD, the offending side,intentionally break a rule, feel > good about it, and get praised by the non-offending side. > I should add that inferences that could perhaps have been drawn by knowing I > had checkbacked were not considered significant, but had they been relevant > then what? > > Yes, it really is a tricky situation. At last someone following the De Wael school ! I was not so lucky yesterday evening. Partner passed my check-back but I had none. Playing in the 3-0 fit was not my best contract. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 21:59:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:59:17 +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 VAA29749 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:59:09 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-140.uunet.be [194.7.14.140]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19205 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:59:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35470F31.5D3916B5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:29:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804282124.OAA22477@mh2.cts.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > Robin Michaels wrote: > > >North makes a tactical bid during the auction, which is perhaps alerted, > >and in any case, incorrectly explained by South. > > > >North becomes declarer, and before play starts, tells oppo that his bid > >was incorrectly explained, and offers the correct, system interpretation, > >which _isn't_ what he actually holds. > > > >He then proceeds to get good board on a misdefence, based on > >misinferences from his explanation. > > > >East-West claim, that he mislead them deliberately by his explanation. > >Indeed, since this bid is in a somewhat convoluted auction, it isn't > >clearly marked on the cc, so East-West may well claim that they have > >suffered from a deliberate misexplanation, rather than a psyche/tactical > >bid. > > > >What should North have done ? > > > >Arguably, his best pragmatic tactic, is to keep quiet about his partners > >misexplanation. This is of course, against the rules, but saves him from > >the scenario depicted above, since he won't get found out. > > This is probably the action dictated by the "De Wael School". :-)) The analogy is accepted. > The rest of us will probably advocate following the Laws of the game (75D2) > - ie correct pard's misexplanation at our earliest legal opportunity, > rather than trying to second-guess what might be better for the opponents > (72A6). > Let's not forget that *intentially* breaking a rule is a serious infraction > in itself (72B1+3). When ruling upon misinformation, I (as TD) will always rule in the worst case-scenario towards possible offenders. The player above has *deliberately* misinformed opponents about the hand he actually holds. If he subsequently tries to prove his statement that his explanation is the correct one (although he didn't bid this) whereas his partner's is incorrect (although corresponding to the hand he holds), I will be doubly (or even more) harsh in accepting proof. In this case, not even the 10-page system notes would suffice. The problem in this case and the one I have been silent about for two weeks now (what an effort of mine !) is that although the Laws dictate us to give correct explanations about the actual system, it is not always clear what this actual system would be. That is why I advocate explaining to opponents what the auction means (even using UI to determine this) rather than what it is supposed to mean (according to system notes the player is not allowed to check at that time anyway). I am not even sure whether this is deliberately breaking any Law. Someone yesterday asked me a similar problem : Partner had misexplained his bidding but upon reflection he was not sure what the correct explanation was. Before the lead, he said something like "I am not sure if that was the correct explanation, anyway, I meant it as ...". The problem now turned around whether or not third passer had the right to double. Or rather, whether at the end of the hand, an AS was still possible based on third passer doubling. I ruled it as : "some irregularity occured, you did not call me at that time, I might have ruled misinformation and allowed third passer to change his call, so now I am not going to give the double." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 21:59:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:59:23 +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 VAA29756 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:59:14 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-140.uunet.be [194.7.14.140]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19213 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:59:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3547131E.B3877689@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:46:38 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson gave some great comments on all posters, which I snip not out of disregard but out of concern for telephone bills : > > ******************** ******************** > > Let's summarise. A number of posters to BLML are worried because, if > they follow the Laws, someone may not believe they have acted in an > ethical fashion. What should you do? > Your following of the Laws actually harms opponents. Opponents don't want to know what your system is, opponents want to know what you hold. At best they'd like a peek in your hand. Whereas opponents do not have the right to see in your hands, they do have the right to the knowledge of your system. The law that tells you to inform opponents as to the meaning of your system is there to insure that they get this. If, by breaking this law, you actually tell them more than they are entitled to know, then surely they cannot be mad at you ? At best I find the idea that not telling the opponents the real hand, because the Law tells you you should tell them the system, is covering up and bridge-lawyering. I for one will not do it, and I will fight it by all means if TD. This last will include such things as asking you to prove beyond any possible doubt that the explanation given DOES confirm to the system. You yourself have said Anne does probably not carry system notes for every partner. Then how are you going to prove your statement that you were merely following the Law if you have actually damaged opponents ? > You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. > We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! I am not defending not following the Laws. I am defending informing opponents about what is happening and not hide behind the Laws to tell them less than you could. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 22:52:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:52:35 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@[205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA00124 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:52:25 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzlia-149-58.access.net.il [192.117.149.58] (may be forged)) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA19777; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:51:26 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354722F9.F2EA4837@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:54:17 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: Bill Segraves Subject: [Fwd: Disclosure obligations/general bridge knowledge] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------55C9FB27601F6C7EC8AD80FC" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------55C9FB27601F6C7EC8AD80FC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I promised in my message in thread "TECHNOLOGY" I send to you Bill"s original chef d'oeuvre !!! Hey folks HUMOR is the best method to succeed and get good results. Dany --------------55C9FB27601F6C7EC8AD80FC Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with SMTP id TAA02646 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:21:57 +0200 (IST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:38:15 +1100 Received: from cshore.com (cshore.com [206.165.153.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA20623 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:38:07 +1100 Received: from [192.168.3.9] ([192.168.3.9]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.03/64) id 6622600 ; Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:41:48 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: bills@cshore.com (Bill Segraves) Subject: Disclosure obligations/general bridge knowledge Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:41:48 EST Message-Id: <199802031441.6622600@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear BLML Participants, In conjunction with a review of alert and explanation procedures for on-line bridge, I am interested in gathering your views on disclosure obligations, particularly as they relate to low level doubles which may potentially carry several different meanings. For a variety of reasons (which I am happy to discuss but won't broach here, for the sake of brevity), most on-line players have found self alerts and explanations (privately communicated to the opponents) to be the most effective way of meeting disclosure obligations. I will ask you to accept self alerts and explanations as the de facto standard in responding to the issues raised here. Thus, the most appropriate model for alerts and explanations is probably the communication of information to one's screen-mate in play utilizing screens. This raises two important questions: 1) what doubles, if any, should be alerted under WBF guidelines (I will not reprint the WBF guidelines here, but would like to emphasize that the proscription of alerts of doubles does not apply when screens are in use), 2) under what circumstances must the meaning of a double be communicated to a screen-mate upon request. If one assumes a certain obligation of self-protection through appropriate inquiry, and the simultaneous delivery of preceding bids, so as to preclude most tempo-related UI problems resulting from the inquiry, the latter question is clearly the more important question, so I will focus the attention to question 2. There is, in practice (as opposed to theory), both in on-line bridge and face-to-face bridge, some conflict between the perceived obligations under laws 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with..." and law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40)...." and the perceived limitations to those obligations under law 75C: "... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge or experience." Usually the arguments break down into two camps with the disclosers pointing to the words "whether explicit or implicit" and the non-disclosers pointing to the words "*special* partnership agreements" and "general bridge knowledge". Use of self alerts and explanations occasionally exacerbates this conflict, since the player being asked to provide information may feel that he is being asked to provide information beyond that which is readily available to his partner, particularly when there may not be an explicit partnership agreement, and that the questioner is attempting to gain advantage not provided under the laws. While this condition (lack of explicit agreement) likely does not arise often at the level of international competition, I will ask you to consider the hypothetical situation where illness or other conditions results in the formation of a new pairing for an international event being played with screens. By virtue of their lack of explicit agreement, would a pair be freed from their obligations of disclosure on certain auctions? Who is to judge whether their decisions are being made based on general bridge knowledge? Is general bridge knowledge invariant over time and space, or might it vary from country to country and over time? Does general knowledge of partner's bridge background (e.g., location and time of experience, preferred authors and bridge magazine subscriptions, general knowledge of peripheral agreements that tend to go along with a given system) lead to meaningful implicit agreement? In my experience, the most difficult questions relating to disclosure obligations arise in conjunction with low level doubles that could be takeout, penalty or other, by partnership agreement or under certain interpretations of "bridge logic" or "general bridge knowledge". I recently posed a set of questions to a small panel of mostly U.S. experts. Some questions clearly fell under the realm of "general bridge knowledge", at least as reflected by this panel. An example of one such question was the following: (P) P (1D) P (1H) P (1S) X All respondents considered the standard meaning of this double as takeout of spades. If anyone on BLML disagrees, please let me know, as I am trying to determine the limitations of "general bridge knowledge". Perhaps in some quarters, standard is takeout of hearts. It seems likely that two U.S. players would not need to have explicit agreement about this sequence to be fairly certain of its correct interpretation; if playing against two players from Uqbar or Tsai Khaldun (where the standard meaning may not be takeout of spades), would the fact that the U.S. players had never discussed the sequence relieve them of their disclosure obligations? Does "general bridge knowledge" include knowledge of what is "standard" in all other countries which may be represented in an international competition? The first one was easy, in comparison. Following are 6 questions which are potentially far more problematic. 1. (1D) P (1H) P (2D) P (2H) P (P) X 2. (1D) P (1H) P (1N) P (P) X 3. (1C) P (1H) P (1N) X 4. (1C) P (1N) P (P) X 5. (1C) P (1D) P (1N) P (P) X 6. (1D) P (1N) P (2D) X I am very interesting in hearing your thoughts on disclosure obligations as they relate to these questions, and more generally to the balance between full disclosure and reliance on general bridge knowledge. Thank you in advance for your responses. Sincerely, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT --------------55C9FB27601F6C7EC8AD80FC-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 22:56:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:56:45 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@[205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA00151 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:56:38 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzlia-149-58.access.net.il [192.117.149.58] (may be forged)) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA20593; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:55:33 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354723F7.BD63086B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:58:31 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Willey CC: bridge-laws , Robin Wigdor Subject: Re: Technology References: <1998Apr28.144427.1189.203665@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear BLML fellows Sir Robin Wigdor started the Job of OKB Laws 6-7 months ago , maybe earlier . I sent him a lot of remarks , and as much as I understood there was a wide-range agreements. Another gentlemen who helped Robin's holly essay is Bill Segraves , and he sent us - BLML - a message which I"ll forward to the list . I don't want to make it too long now , but my main conclusion was that the Laws , how to apply them and the technological developments for the Internet game should be synchronized . There were some reasons and I"ll sent this forum a longer message in 2 days ; I"ll point here two three of them : first - it is very difficult (IMHO impossible) to know if there was a natural crash or a "run away" crash .... there should be some procedures to deal with .......... second - like first - hesitations , long thoughts etc..... - impossible to be sure there were net temporal troubles or "true" infractions .......... third : it is not practically to have TD on the net 25 hours a day ! available to come to the table , in spite of the fact that about 80% of "mechanical irregularities " are prevented by the machine .... and so on , so on ,.......... I suggest : a) I"ll ask sir Robin (a lawyer , solicitor, barrister , advocate...) to let us help to develop these laws .... b)Someone - maybe sir Grattan or DS - will try to deal with the formal organizational part of the internet clubs (as a special branch of WBF or whatever definition will be suitable......). c) the most important - the laws' adjusters will be under the BLML-cats world committee leadership ...!!>>:::: Dany Richard Willey wrote: > > ---------- > One of the most important considerations which any organization needs to > consider is the effects of technological change. Bridge is no exception > to this rule. > > The formation of multi-player computerized bridge games on the Internet > is easily the most significant event which has occurred in bridge in 30 > years. Within a relatively short amount of time, it will be necessary > for the Laws making bodies to consider some very significant issues. > > The most important of these will be what happens when a group of players > on the Internet decides to form an organizational body. Much of the > existing hierarchical structure for bridge is based on geographical > affiliation. I would argue the nature of the game of bridge at on-line > clubs such as OKBridge, Passport2 Bridge, and new offering from the > Microsoft Game Zone is sufficiently distinct from face-to-face bridge > that none of the existing geographically defined organizations is > suitable as a legislative body. > > Question for this mailing list. > Up front, I don't ever expect that their would be a entry from the > "Internet" playing in the Bermuda Bowl. However, what status would an > Internet Bridge organizing body have under the existing Laws? > > Richard > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 29 23:18:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:18:08 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@[205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00459 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:18:01 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzlia-149-58.access.net.il [192.117.149.58] (may be forged)) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA14239; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:24:56 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35471CC8.9F6D4B06@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:27:52 +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: Technology References: <2NDKhSADmpR1Ewyb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >The dogs will keep count if we want a straw poll on an > >epigrammatic name. > > D*gs can't count! But our cats do count SHOBO and com.................... > > -- > Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ > quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ > Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= > nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 00:13:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:13:00 +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 AAA01884 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:12:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003333; 29 Apr 98 13:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:52:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3547131E.B3877689@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Opponents don't want to know what your system is, opponents want to know >what you hold. At best they'd like a peek in your hand. I do not want my opponents to give me information I am not entitled to, and I think that is true of all players who are ethical and knowledgeable. >At best I find the idea that not telling the opponents the real hand, >because the Law tells you you should tell them the system, is covering >up and bridge-lawyering. So you say that because I am an ethical player I am a Bridge Lawyer? >I for one will not do it, and I will fight it by all means if TD. >This last will include such things as asking you to prove beyond any >possible doubt that the explanation given DOES confirm to the system. >You yourself have said Anne does probably not carry system notes for >every partner. >Then how are you going to prove your statement that you were merely >following the Law if you have actually damaged opponents ? That's irrelevant. I behave in an ethical fashion. If it is difficult to convince others I have done so then I get ruled against - tough. However, I have convinced the sternest critic of all - myself. Are you suggesting that players who carry system notes should act ethically, but not those who don't? >> You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. >We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! > >I am not defending not following the Laws. >I am defending informing opponents about what is happening and not hide >behind the Laws to tell them less than you could. You are telling them to ignore the principle of full disclosure. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 00:20:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:20:04 +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 AAA02978 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:19:56 +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 KAA12677 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21638; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:20:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:20:24 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804291420.KAA21638@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Self Explanations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) > the corrected explanation/alert leaves > the opponents in exactly the same position as after a correct > explanation/alert in the first place. There was a case on point at the NA Championships a year or two ago. It must be available in one of the online bulletins and perhaps in a casebook by now. I haven't looked it up, so the following is from memory. Some of the details are likely wrong, but I think the main points are correct. Garozzo was defending. During the auction, he had been told that declarer had showed a five card (heart?) suit. Before the opening lead declarer (one of the Kitty's, McCallum I think, but maybe Munson) told him that she had promised only four hearts; this was the correct explanation. In fact, she held Axxxx, where the x's were all tiny. Garozzo drew the inference that she held only four, and the defense was unsuccessful. The TD adjusted, the case went to appeal, and the AC ruled that declarer had done exactly the right thing, no infraction, table result stands. (The MI during the auction clearly had no effect.) If you dislike this ruling, what would you have done if a heart lead had turned out to be right, but the wrong explanation had discouraged it? From declarer's point of view, with only those low spots and partner short, a heart might very well have been the defense's best lead. There has to be some legal thing for declarer to say. In spite of the above, I don't think we have really come to grips with situations where an explanation doesn't match the hand. I expect we all agree on the general principles: 1) fully disclose agreements, regardless of the hand held, and 2) all of partner's explanations are UI, but I don't think we know how to apply them even in some common cases. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 01:05:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:05:41 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03184 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:05:29 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA22548 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:05:07 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA02789; Wed, 29 Apr 98 15:05:06 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980429150507.007e0180@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:05:07 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3547131E.B3877689@village.uunet.be> References: <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:46 29/04/98 +0200, you wrote: >> >> Let's summarise. A number of posters to BLML are worried because, if >> they follow the Laws, someone may not believe they have acted in an >> ethical fashion. What should you do? >> > > >We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! > >I am not defending not following the Laws. >I am defending informing opponents about what is happening and not hide >behind the Laws to tell them less than you could. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL Opponents are not entitled to know what is happening but what are your agreements. An even better mean not to tell them less than you could, would be to show them your cards. To give what is, in your opinion, an accurate description of your system, without any reference to your partner's behaviour (you are not entitled to listen to his explanations of your bids) or to your own cards, cannot be bad. Your procedure: being influenced by UI from partner's explanations to try to hide a misunderstanding and possible MI, for the hypothetical benefit of opponents, seems to me to be a try to avoid trouble with TD or AC and is nothing like "good ethics". Lying and not following laws to avoid trouble, penalty or disconsideration you could suffer because of an ordinary bridge misunderstanting, is that really what you advocate? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 01:39:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:39:57 +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 BAA03455 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:39:50 +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 LAA26695 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:40:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804291540.LAA28817@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199804282352.TAA21258@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: High, middle, low Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > Here's another example: At IMPs, I think neither vul, the bidding goes: > 1C-3D(weak)-3S-4D; > 4S- P(slow)- P-? > The pass took several seconds, an eternity in this position. But what > does it suggest? You may assume that 5D and pass are both LA's for > fourth hand. Does it make any difference how good the player who made > the slow pass is? In this case, the player was a promising junior, > capable of winning a large regional event (which this was) on a good > day but not one of the top favorites. According to this indication, he is a good enough player not to take a unilateral sacrifice after preempting. It is possible that he is considering a double, which would probably be lead-directing based on a club void. If this interpretation is made, double is demonstrably suggested, as is a club lead if fourth hand passes. Whether 5D or pass is suggested by the UI depends on what fourth hand holds; preempter's club void is likely to reduce the penalty in a 5D save or even allow it to make. If fourth hand is void in spades, he could infer that the double was probably based on a spade stack rather than a club void, and thus pass is demonstrably suggested over 5D. In general, I would be inclined to allow either pass or 5D rather than requiring fourth hand to make a complicated decision about loigcal alternatives, but I would not allow double by fourth hand if either pass or 5D was a LA, and if fourth hand passed, I would not allow a club lead from some holding like Jxxxxx. > Or do you want to see the slow passer's hand and rule that the > hesitation showed the hand he actually held? Since the rule now says, "demonstrably suggested," I do not want to make any ruling which can only be supported by looking at the slow passer's hand. -- 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 Apr 30 01:54:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:54:41 +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 BAA03577 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:54:35 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yUZ9y-0007KVC; Wed, 29 Apr 98 10:52 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:54:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: go back. In-Reply-To: <0ES600A1B3T21O@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:02 AM 4/29/98 , E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >Hi, > >Bidding goes : N E S W > 1S p 2S p > 3S p p p >And now South says "back to 2S" and W says alright then I bid 3C. What must >the TD decide ? > >Evert. We do this with our students on Wednesday nights at our practice play. But wait a minute! You said a TD. You can't be serious. I guess the TD must decide what game these people are playing. In a real game I would rule the board unplayable and assign A- to both sides since both sides are at fault. Then, I would add a procedural penalty to both sides for playing a game other than Bridge. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 01:59:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:59:58 +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 BAA03649 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:59:52 +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 MAA27499 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Apr30.114400.1189.204083; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:51:15 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998Apr30.114400.1189.204083@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, 29 Apr 1998 11:51:15 -0600 Subject: RE: Technology Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From my perspective, the most interesting area with regards to on-line bridge are the capabilities which exist for full disclosure of methods. Right now, there is a parallel thread occurring on this news group entitled "Self Explanations" which addresses the problems which can occur when one member of a partnership is required to provide a factually correct description of system agreements which none-the-less do not provide an accurate description of their hand. Currently, the convention cards which are used in the on-line bridge clubs are simple, flat text displays. As such, they do not represent an advancement over any of the various convention card standards which are currently used for face to face play. My expectation is that within two years these flat text cards are going to replaced by convention card programs. Robin Michaels joke about a 10 volume convention card is going to come to pass and this is going to happen very soon in parts of the on-line community. In essence, I contend that the task of alerting agreements and conventional understandings should not be done by either member of the partnership, but rather this type of information should be provided by an intelligent agent acting on their behalf which can precisely describe the agreed definition of a bidding sequence. This is the best solution to the dilemma which Robin originally raised. I envision that for on line bridge, an optimally designed convention file will consist of three main parts. Part one is a very basic system summary. As soon as another pair joins my table, a written pre-alert of methods is automatically sent to them. This summary is design to provide the bare minimum necessary information which the other pair needs to see. As an example, suppose that my partner and I were playing Blue Team Club. Our pre-alert might read Blue Team Club 1C = Strong, Artificial and Forcing, 17+ Unbalanced, 18+ Balanced Major Suit Openings = 12-16 HCP, 4 card majors, *Canape* 1 Diamond = 12 - 16 HCP, 3+ Diamonds, *Canape* 1N = Conventional, Either 16-17 HCP balanced OR 13-15 HCP 3334/3325 shape 2C = 12-16 HCP, single suited with clubs OR 14+ - 16 HCP two suited with clubs 2D = 17-24 HCP, any 4441 shape Discipline Preempts Two suited jump overcalls Certain portions of the basic summary might actually take the form of a hyper-text link like what might be found in web browser or on-line documentation. By clicking on the word *Canape* in the system summary, the convention card can automatically define this term for the users. By clicking on the description of the 1N opening bid, I can provide the information that the 1N opening is almost always the strong version of the bid, and that its best to use whatever defensive methods that the opponents chose against a 16-18 HCP One No Trump opening. The second part of the convention file is a more complete description of the bidding system being used. The most important thing that the computerized convention file will bring is a superior ability to organize system information. Through the use of hyper-text links, its possible to design a convention card which has the same level of detail as the existing European Cards while having the same simplicity of the basic layout that the North American Cards possess. By following the appropriate links down through the file, the opponents can immediately be provided with complete descriptions of various response structures and perhaps even suggested defenses against "unusual" opening bids. The third part of the convention file is a set of auto-alert macros. Macros can be designed such that any time a bid is made, an alert string is automatically sent to the opponents. This string might be a simple line of flat text such as "1N = 12-14 HCP" Very similar to the announcements which are currently used in the ACBL but without the worry of "Waking" up partner. In addition, the string can also provide a hyper-text link into the actual convention card which would have a more complete description of the auction, a listing of possible follow up bids, etc. Such system will obviously work best for on-line bridge where computer access is part and parcel of playing the game, however, I'm expecting that it won't be too long before laptop computers start being introduced into the playing environment. More specifically, I am bringing my lap top compute with me to the Nationals in Chicago. In addition to my standard plain text convention card, I am also planning on providing a more detailed hyper-text version. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 02:45:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:45:26 +1000 Received: from worldcom.ch (mail.worldcom.ch [194.51.96.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04125 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:45:18 +1000 Received: from bidule2 (portge72.worldcom.ch [194.235.4.72]) by worldcom.ch (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA21790 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:43:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980429164620.006ce560@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:46:20 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >There was a case on point at the NA Championships a year or two ago. >It must be available in one of the online bulletins and perhaps in a >casebook by now. I haven't looked it up, so the following is from >memory. Some of the details are likely wrong, but I think the main >points are correct. Online version (1996 Summer NABC Miami - Appeals) is at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html This was the case: Appeals Case 23 Subject: Correcting Misinformation Event: Spingold Knockout Teams, third round, August 8 Board 29. None vul.. Dealer N. S A K H K 6 4 3 2 D A 3 2 C K 9 8 S J 7 6 3 S 5 2 H Q H J T 8 7 5 D K J 8 7 6 D T 5 4 C A Q 4 C 5 3 2 S Q T 9 8 4 H A 9 D Q 9 C J T 7 6 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Lea DuPont Karen McCallumBenito GarozzoCenk Tuncok - 1NT (1) Pass 2H (2) Pass 2S (3) Pass 2NT (4) Pass 3H Pass 3NT All Pass (1) 14+ to 17 HCP (2) Transfer to spades (3) Denies four spades (4) Transfer to clubs; invitational or better Result: The H5 was led (attitude leads). 3NT by North made three, N/S plus 600. Facts: The Director was called to the table at the end of the play of the hand when North was found to have held five hearts. East said that he had asked about North's 3H bid before making his opening lead, and was told by South that it showed five hearts. North corrected this saying that she did not have to hold five hearts (although she might), but that the bid simply showed heart values and sought direction. East led a heart, allowing the contract to make. East said that he would have led a diamond had North not corrected South's statement, and a diamond lead would have defeated the contract. The Director ruled that there had been misinformation by N/S and adjusted the score to 3NT down two, N/S minus 200. The Appeal: N/S appealed. They testified that at the end of the auction, and before making his opening lead, East asked for a review with explanations. South conducted the annotated review, ultimately explaining North's 3H bid as showing five hearts. At that point North intervened saying that the bid did not show five hearts (although she could have five), but rather showed heart values in search of the correct game. (This interpretation was confirmed by N/S's system notes.) North stated that she felt obligated to correct South's expanation for two reasons, even though her hand coincidentally conformed to the mistaken explanation. The first reason was that she felt that E/W were entitled to know the basis on which South had bid 3NT (that he didn't have three-card heart support), and the basis on which North had bid 3H (that she was concerned about the N/S diamond holding for notrump, being somewhat protected in hearts by her length in the suit). If a diamond lead was best for E/W, it could help them to know that North had bid 3H intending to elicit help from South in diamonds. No such inference would be available to E/W if they believed that North's 3H bid was a search for a heart contract, since then it would not directly imply concern about diamonds. (N/S's notes also made it clear that in their methods 3H could never suggest playing in hearts.) North's second reason for her correction was that the erroneously disclosed (but accurate) information about her heart length might act to deter a reasonable (or even normal) heart lead when, given the poor quality of her heart spots, it was possible that such a lead could prove best for E/W. North also stated that her 3H bid was equally intended to keep alive the possibility of a 4S contract, and that she almost bid 4S over 3NT anyway, taking a long time before she finally passed. This was not disputed by E/W. E/W testified that the "emotional" nature of North's disclosure gave them the distinct impression that North wanted to avoid inhibiting a heart lead in case that lead proved to be best for E/W, and that North was therefore attempting to act in E/W's best interest. In addition, East stated that although he initially "had his finger on a diamond lead," North's emotional reaction caused him to change his lead to a heart. He reasoned that, since North was sincerely concerned that a heart lead could be best for E/W, the heart lead must therefore be right. The Committee's Decision: The Committee members strongly agreed on the following points relating to this case. First, that North acted properly in correcting the misinformation provided by South. In general, a player should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which accurately describes his actual holding. However, when the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could damage the opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny them potentially useful information, the player has an obligation to correct the misinformation. This should be done in a way that makes it clear that the player may indeed have a holding which is consistent with the original explanation. Then the misleading aspects of the explanation should be corrected. For example, "I could certainly have the hand that my partner described, but our agreement is that my bid shows . . ." North's statement that she "could have five hearts" was in keeping with this principle. Second, North could hardly have done any more than she did to make all of the relevant information available to E/W. She disclosed the meaning she intended for her 3H bid (showing heart values and seeking direction for notrump), thus providing the inference that diamonds was of concern to her. (The inference that South's 3NT bid was not necessarily based on diamond values, but rather on the absence of three hearts, was available from his misinterpretation of the 3H bid.) The emotional nature of her reaction made it clear that she was also concerned that hearts could be the winning lead even after she showed heart values, and that she wanted E/W to know it. And finally, East, by his own admission, based his heart lead wholly on the emotional content of North's statement (that she was concerned that the heart lead could be best). Of course, given who East was, he was correct! But by ignoring the informational content of North's statement, including the intended meaning of her 3H bid and the inferences available from it, the winning alternative of the diamond lead was rejected. East was entitled to draw the inferences he did, but (as suggested by Law 73D1 ) only at his own risk. Based on the preceeding analysis, the Committee restored the result originally achieved at the table: 3NT making three, N/S plus 600. Chairperson: Alan LeBendig Committee Members: Rich Colker, Bill Pollack, John Sutherlin, John Wittes From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 04:27:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:27:01 +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 EAA04775 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:26:50 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-122.access.net.il [192.116.198.122]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA04102; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:26:58 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35477199.18224D21@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:29:45 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Peter Pals CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Equity References: <199804290817.KAA18498@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear friends I am not sure some of us "got it" , if yes I apologize a priori . The laws say "..the TD is not allowed to award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalties provided by the laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to any side .." (see law 12B , not sure I remember by heart every word..). But in the same place we are told that TD has the right "to award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of that hand ..." (law 12A2 , I hope I remember it accurate enough)...... When devil's tail appears and a revoke produces a totally abnormal and impossible - even by a careless play - result , the TD can't apply the law 12's provisions . The lawmakers published law 64C to cover this gap , in order to avoid a damage (the laws' scope) which can't be compensated by the existing laws. I don't believe anyone thought that famous law 72b1 is suitable for the cases described ; the "...could have known .." is unacceptable - if I should even dream in a nightmare that the revoker "could have known" that his revoke produce a slight favorable result for his side (not a very good one ), I should kick him out from the federation for 3 years or more ........... Dany J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl wrote: > > From: Robin Barker > > > > From: David Stevenson > > > > > > jp wrote: > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > >No, certainly not. Your revoke is subject to penalty, the one by the > > > >guy who made 6NT was not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. I > > > >should have typed: > > > > > > > >"IMO the law tells you to adjust for the non-offenders in case of a > > > >revoke not subject to penalty, but doesn't tell you to take away any > > > >good result from the offenders". > > > > > > OK, I'll try again. You revoke from dummy, thus making a completely > > > impossible contract. You are saying that the Director does not rule it > > > back? Why ever not? > > > > > Beacuse JP wants to read L64C > > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > > he shall assign an adjusted score." > > as > > "... the Director deems that the non-offending side is > > insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, > > he shall assign an adjusted score to the non-offending side." > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You (and I) do not want to read L64C this way. > > Thank you, Robin, that's exactly how I want to read L64C. Restore > equity where, according to L64B3, punishment is impossible. > > JP From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 04:34:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:34:54 +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 EAA04825 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:34:42 +1000 Received: from default (client84f9.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.249]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA01012; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:34:43 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jens & Bodil" , Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:33:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd739d$4db66260$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: Jens & Bodil To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 April 1998 23:02 Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Marvin L. French wrote: > Perhaps I should have made more clear that we disclose everything. > etc..... ### and you have seen responses.### #### The latest (1995) WBF Regulation on psychic bidding that I can find reads as follows: = "Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge provided that any partnership understandings or agreements are disclosed. It would be inconsistent therefore if the WBF forbade psychics in its own tournaments. "Some partnerships of reasonably long standing develop understandings that psychic bids in certain situations will be of a certain type. These are developed partnership understandings and not conventions, and should be explained on the Convention Card and on the Supplementary Sheets. In other words the psychics should be randomly made but any understandings about them should be revealed. "Where partnerships have agreements that psychic bids are expected or are likely in specific situations, or where the psychics are protected by System, then a convention has developed. Such psychic understandings are classified as Brown Sticker Conventions and are therefore forbidden in certain events. The type of agreement referred to, for example, is where, third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player is expected to open the bidding on anything at all." = Or, indeed, on nothing at all! Please note these are Regulations and only apply to WBF events since other Sponsoring Organisations make regulations for other competitions.There is some discussion of the exact wording for Lille, but it seems likely not to stray far from the above. Of possible interest is the definition, for WBF regulatory purposes at least, of the boundary beyond which a "psychic" becomes a Convention, but, of course, once they reach the stage of being partnership understandings most psyches can be regulated under Law 40D. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 04:35:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:35:19 +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 EAA04845 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:35:11 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA19973; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:34:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-02.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.66) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019965; Wed Apr 29 13:34:47 1998 Message-ID: <35477273.1DE1@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:33:23 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix12.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Period revisited) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk and Marvin had the following exchange, in part: > > Rich Colker is the editor for a "Casebook" that is compiled for each > > ACBL NABC, in which a panel of experts examines and debates every AC > > case. The panel analyzes, commments on, and rates (0-100 range) the > > performance of the TD and AC in each case. > > > In the Miami book, TDs averaged scores > > of 76.8, ACs 79.7. For San Francisco, it was TDs 85.4, ACs 76.0. > > I have some objections to the implied accuracy of these scores. The > panellists were not asked to rate the performance of the TD and AC on a 0 > to 100 scale (which would be close to impossible), instead they were asked > to rate the TD/AC on a 0 to 3 scale. The scores were then added up and > expressed as a percentage. The casebook doesn't mention if the panellists > were restricted to the 4 steps from 0 to 3 or were allowed intermediate > scores (0, 0.5, 1.0,...), but anybody who has ever rated anything, knows > that the ratings are always a bit arbitrary. > > To present these numbers with 3 significant digits, suggests an accuracy > that they do not have. In fact, I wouldn't be too supprised if a more > detailed error analysis showed that there was no significant difference > between 79.7 and 76.0. > > > I don't know whether the ACBL distributes these to its TDs and > > NABC AC members, but it should. > > Aha, another sensitive point ;-) The Dutch federation publishes the > decisions of the national AC in a 3-monthly newsletter, to which anybody > can subscribe for a nominal fee. I've suggested a couple of times that > the ACBL does the same but, so-far, this doesn't happen. > First, Rich Colker was the editor of the ACBL National Appeals Committee Casebooks for several NABCs, and did an excellent job. Jay Apfelbaum is editor for the most recent NABC, Reno (Spring '98). Second, the panel of experts were asked to choose any number in a continuum from one through three (with one being worst) to ascribe to the decisions of TDs and ACs. Scores of "1.85" or "2.99" were possible and panelists often selected a number other than a whole integer. Third, I don't know that the final tallies for TDs or ACs means anything. TDs outscored ACs in several NABCs, but different standards were applied to each. The St. Louis NABC casebook, which is expected to be released at the Chicago NABC this summer, will likely show ACs to have a significantly higher approval factor than TDs. But at any NABC, a few awful TD or AC decisions can skew the final tally. I would be very hesitant to draw any _overall_ conclusion from the expert panel's approval ratings. Ratings on specific cases, however, are beneficial because they can direct a TDs or ACs attention to a problem capable of repetition. Lastly, Casebooks are available for purchase at the ACBL Store at NABCs or can be ordered from ACBL headquarters in Memphis. I think each is $8.00. A library of more than a dozen are available. We want to get these books purchased and read; if any of you have marketing ideas, I'd like to hear them. Jon Brissman NABC Appeals Co-Chairman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 05:14:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 05:14:11 +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 FAA05003 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 05:14:03 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-122.access.net.il [192.116.198.122]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA12048; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:13:58 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35477C9D.FF380391@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:16:45 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: High, middle, low References: <9804241928.aa22966@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think I"ll disappoint many of the fighters here . On my player CC , is a note which explains the Dbl in the sequence : Me= 1Sp , 2H , Pass, 4H , Me=Dbl -it asks partner : If don't have Sp fit = 2 or less Spades , let the Dbl Elseif have fit = 3 Sp cards or more , bid 4Sp ...... And now for the following case : Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Regarding a thread that's going on on r.g.b: > > : At love all, MPs, serious tournament, you hold, as dealer, > : JT9543 > : 72 > : 5 > : KT52 > : And, as your methods allow you to open 2S to show a weak 2S with either a > : 5 card suit+ a 4 card minor, or a poor 6 card suit, you open 2S. > : The auction continues: > > South North > : 2S X 3S P > : P 4H P(1) P (1) hesitation > : ? > > Robert Lipton argued: > > > The problem is that partner's hesitation has made it clear that he is in > > some doubt as to what he should do. That _increases_ the possibility > > that his pass is an error. Looking at your hand, seeing about 1/2 trick > > on defense, knowing that you probably should either double or pull, it is > > clear that, between the two, 4 spades is superior to double. > > I wasn't too sure what he was saying, but my impression was that the > argument was that 4S and double could both be demonstrably suggested > by the hesitation, and therefore both are prohibited and pass is the > only allowed call. (We'll assume for the sake of argument that > partner could have been thinking about saving, and that 4S by South is > a LA.) My response was that pass is a "middle" action between 4S and > double. 4S says "they're definitely making 4H", double says "they're > definitely not making 4H", pass is an in-between action. I didn't see > how, if there are a High, Middle, and Low action, that the High and > Low actions could both be suggested by the hesitation, and the Middle > action would therefore be the only LA allowed by the Laws. > > I'd like to ask BLML if my reasoning makes sense, or if it's from > another planet. > > Here's my thinking: Partner's hesitation means he could have been > thinking about doubling, or he could have been thinking about saving. > If he was thinking about doubling, this means that doubling by South > would be more likely to work than passing. But wouldn't this also > suggest that passing would be more likely to work than 4S? Similarly, > if partner was thinking about saving, it would mean that 4S could be > suggested over passing; but wouldn't it also mean that passing would > be more likely to work than doubling? > > If all calls are therefore suggested over each other, then L16A cannot > apply, since no call can be considered to be demonstrably suggested > over another. In other words, if the hesitation could indicate two > things at opposite ends of the spectrum, no calls can be disallowed by > the Laws. To me, it's similar to the situation where you open 1NT and > partner hesitates and bids 2NT (natural). The hesitation means he > could be at the low end of the 2NT bid, or it means he could be at the > high end of the bid, so how can any call be demonstrably suggested by > the hesitation? > > I'd appreciate some feedback on all this. > > -- thanks, Adam Facts: 1) the moment South Passed 3Sp , he finished to describe the "box" (Bergen's definition) for his hand . IMHO he has no right to call anymore but pass . 2) North hesitation is a 100% demonstrably suggested action (parallel to my CC ) : if you weak - bid 4Sp , elseif you have some 0.2 tricks more than box' expected minimum, double. This are my criteria , and the decision is very simple according to these criteria = any call but pass is basen on the UI !!!!!! Dany From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 05:16:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 05:16:14 +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 FAA05020 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 05:16:08 +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 PAA14206; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Apr30.150200.1189.204226; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:07:33 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: jonbriss@ix12.ix.netcom.com (jonbriss) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Message-ID: <1998Apr30.150200.1189.204226@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, 29 Apr 1998 15:07:33 -0600 Subject: RE: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Perio Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Lastly, Casebooks are available for purchase at the ACBL Store at NABCs >or can be ordered from ACBL headquarters in Memphis. I think each is >$8.00. A library of more than a dozen are available. We want to get >these books purchased and read; if any of you have marketing ideas, I'd >like to hear them. >Jon Brissman >NABC Appeals Co-Chairman I suppose that it depends how badly you want to get the case books distributed and read. Up front. I have no knowledge of the expenses involved with producing the case books. I do not know to what extent the author's are compensated for the time and effort which they devote to this task. I'm not even sure whether or not the ACBL expects to turn a profit on the production and sale of these books. However, ignoring these issues. In this day and age one of the best ways to achieve a widespread distribution of information is electronic publication. Post the case books as a series of web pages. Allow users to freely download this information. Users who wish to can print out their own hard copy. The main draw back of this approach is that it produces no revenue to offset required expenses. On the bright side, the expenses involved with electronic publication are often quite small compared to small print runs. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 06:49:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:49:02 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05403 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:48:55 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA28825 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:46:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804292046.PAA28825@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Self Explanations To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:46:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Let's summarise. A number of posters to BLML are worried because, if > > they follow the Laws, someone may not believe they have acted in an > > ethical fashion. What should you do? > > > > Your following of the Laws actually harms opponents. > > Opponents don't want to know what your system is, opponents want to know > what you hold. At best they'd like a peek in your hand. True. > Whereas opponents do not have the right to see in your hands, they do > have the right to the knowledge of your system. > > The law that tells you to inform opponents as to the meaning of your > system is there to insure that they get this. True. > If, by breaking this law, you actually tell them more than they are > entitled to know, then surely they cannot be mad at you ? Perhaps, perhaps not. They would be entitled to complain if by telling them something other than what the laws require I actually damage them. The fact is that there is no guarantee that telling them what I should tell them will harm them--it might help them. But, in any case, whether my opponents will be mad at me or not is not the prime consideration in following the laws [or being ethical]. > At best I find the idea that not telling the opponents the real hand, > because the Law tells you you should tell them the system, is covering > up and bridge-lawyering. No--at _worst_ it is that. I have indeed seen cases where a person tailors their explanations [or correction of explanations] in order to try to get a good result by misleading the opponents. {Misleading them while still 'correctly' explaining their agreements.} > I for one will not do it, and I will fight it by all means if TD. > This last will include such things as asking you to prove beyond any > possible doubt that the explanation given DOES confirm to the system. > You yourself have said Anne does probably not carry system notes for > every partner. > Then how are you going to prove your statement that you were merely > following the Law if you have actually damaged opponents ? I agree with DS here--I may be unable to prove that [especially to you], and so I may be ruled against. But that's the way it goes. {Actually, given the infrequency of my psyches, I have never had this problem occur.} > > You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. > > > > We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! > > I am not defending not following the Laws. > I am defending informing opponents about what is happening and not hide > behind the Laws to tell them less than you could. Okay, then. By which Law do you think you are obligated to inform the opponents of the contents of your hand, while misinforming them of your partnership agreements? You seem to recognize [above] a legal responsibility to reveal those agreements--was that impression incorrect, or is this another case where you think one law contradicts another? > Herman DE WAEL Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 06:56:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:56:02 +1000 Received: from m9.sprynet.com (m9.sprynet.com [165.121.1.209]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05432 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:55:55 +1000 Received: from sprynet.com (hd77-194.hil.compuserve.com [206.175.187.194]) by m9.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA15181; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <354793AA.8166F34B@sprynet.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:55:06 -0400 From: Robin Wigdor Reply-To: rwigdor@sprynet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Goodwin CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Technology References: <3.0.5.16.19980428195141.581f7a84@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The home page of the project I undertook, one element of which was a revision to the Laws, is http://www.okbridge.com/~jeff/conduct/index.html The draft revision itself has been taken off the linked site which hosted this section, but if anyone's interested in picking up the job, Word97 or html text is available. Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 02:36 PM 4/28/98 -0700, Jan Kamras wrote: > > >2) Bridge Laws - Due to the inherent differences from F2F bridge, a new > >rules book needs to be created. Some laws might remain as they are, but > >others are redundant and yet others need such major rework that a fresh > >start will probably be best. > >Now *that's* a nice job for the WBF to delegate to BLML! > > Someone (Robin Wigdor) has already indertaken some of this task. I believe > he has modified (or is in the process of modifying) the Laws for use on > OKBridge and has made them available at a website. Unfortunately, I don't > know the address, maybe he'll provide you with it. > > Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 07:33:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 07:33:36 +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 HAA05593 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 07:33:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014405; 29 Apr 98 21:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:59:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: go back. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John S. Nichols wrote: >At 11:02 AM 4/29/98 , E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >>Hi, >> >>Bidding goes : N E S W >> 1S p 2S p >> 3S p p p >>And now South says "back to 2S" and W says alright then I bid 3C. What must >>the TD decide ? >> >>Evert. > > >We do this with our students on Wednesday nights at our practice play. > >But wait a minute! You said a TD. You can't be serious. > >I guess the TD must decide what game these people are playing. > >In a real game I would rule the board unplayable and assign A- to both >sides since both sides are at fault. Then, I would add a procedural >penalty to both sides for playing a game other than Bridge. Why on earth would it be unplayable? The next time that I have been doubled in 4S and know I am going for 800 I shall say "back to 1S" and accept my A- with glee! Seriously, you cannot just cancel boards because of a bit of UI. Just apply the UI laws: if you don't think it was a bit of harmless fun [which is what it sounded like to me] then issue a PP as well. But the board is playable! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 07:57:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 07:57:18 +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 HAA05691 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 07:57:12 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23918; 29 Apr 98 14:57 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: go back. In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:02:52 PDT." <0ES600A1B3T21O@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:57:03 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804291457.aa23918@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Hi, > > Bidding goes : N E S W > 1S p 2S p > 3S p p p > And now South says "back to 2S" and W says alright then I bid 3C. What must > the TD decide ? I've heard this auction (or similar ones) quite a few times: 1S pass 2S pass 3S pass pass pass 2S The last call is, of course, a joke, meaning something like, "Well, if partner can't accept my invitation, then I wish I hadn't made one." So the first thing the TD must decide is, was West just playing along with the joke? If so, TD must laugh and let them play. But if West was serious, the 2S call is cancelled (Law 39), the 3C call is cancelled but there are lead penalties (Laws 39 and 26), and West gets a procedural penalty for failing to have a sense of humor (Law 95). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 08:06:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:06:04 +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 IAA05744 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:05:58 +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 PAA05534; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804292205.PAA05534@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Richard Willey" , "jonbriss" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Perio Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:03:58 -0700 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 Richard Willey wrote: Jon Brissman wrote: > > >Lastly, Casebooks are available for purchase at the ACBL Store at NABCs > >or can be ordered from ACBL headquarters in Memphis. I think each is > >$8.00. A library of more than a dozen are available. We want to get > >these books purchased and read; if any of you have marketing ideas, I'd > >like to hear them. > > >Jon Brissman > >NABC Appeals Co-Chairman > How about having the ACBL give the booksellers a better break on wholesale cost? One bookseller at a regional told me that he couldn't make any money on the casebooks because the ACBL sales table was selling them at little more (maybe the same, I don't remember) than the cost he would have to pay. Another bookseller at a regional had the casebooks, but they were priced higher than the $8.00 the ACBL charges. My impression was that the ACBL's price was well above cost of production (it's very inexpensively bound), and they were keeping the wholesale cost high to avoid competition. Hope I'm wrong about that. Could this be the reason that the *Laws of Duplicate Bridge*, published by the ACBL, cannot be purchased from any major bookseller in San Diego? I canvassed them all, and they didn't know what I was talking about. You can buy them from the ACBL, but not from any other source that I know of. Here we have a game played by millions, and the rules of the game are published by an organization that evidently doesn't care about marketing them widely Going to the Amazon on-line bookstore (www.amazon.com), I find that it offers only the 1975 version of the Laws, two versions out of date! Going to the other big on-line bookstore, Barnes and Noble (www.barnesandnoble.com), I find only one book on the Laws. Not the Laws themselves, but a book entitled *Educating Evelyn: Conversations on the Curious Laws of Rubber Bridge* by Hugh ApSimon. Sounds interesting, I was tempted to buy it. > I suppose that it depends how badly you want to get the case books > distributed and read. I would bet that some of the AC members, whose names (unlike the TDs) are published in each appeals case, would be reluctant to see the frank remarks about their performance made widely available. Some of the players whose names are published (all A players, I believe) might not care for their questionable actions to be widely known either. If this is so, let's hope none of them have influence over the marketing or electronic publication of the casebooks. > Up front. I have no knowledge of the expenses involved with producing > the case books. I do not know to what extent the author's are > compensated for the time and effort which they devote to this task. I'm > not even sure whether or not the ACBL expects to turn a profit on the > production and sale of these books. > > However, ignoring these issues. > In this day and age one of the best ways to achieve a widespread > distribution of information is electronic publication. > Post the case books as a series of web pages. Allow users to freely > download this information. Users who wish to can print out their own > hard copy. Good luck. The ACBL is too niggardly to publish even the 1997 version of the Laws on its web site, which still shows the old Laws. Reason: The publisher won't let them be put the new Laws on the web site until publishing costs have been recouped. And who is the publisher? The ACBL! Checking on this statement just now, I found: If you click on the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" on the ACBL's home page, you get the old Laws. If you go to the library, then to Bridge Law, then to Laws of Duplicate Bridge, ACBL American edition, you get a message "Access Denied." If you go to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. British version, you get an option of looking at either the British version or a "test" publication of the ACBL version of the new Laws. When you look at the "test version" you see it was last modified April 26, 1998. So I guess they're working on this. About time. The 1997 Laws will have been in effect for an entire year on May 27 of this year. > The main drawback of this approach is that it produces no revenue to > offset required expenses. On the bright side, the expenses involved with > electronic publication are often quite small compared to small print > runs. It's like any organization in which the "bean counters" have too much control. If they can't see any immediate monetary benefit in a proposal, they don't want it adopted. The long-range benefits of communicating Laws, casebooks, TECH files, etc., to all players, to all TDs, and to all potential AC members, are not considered. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 09:06:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:06:04 +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 JAA05997 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:05:58 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA29800; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:05:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199804292305.QAA29800@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Apr 29 08:52 PDT 1998 Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: > (you are not entitled to > listen to his explanations of your bids) Isn't this a popular misstatement of the law? Why is it so popular? Perhaps I'm misreading it, but I abhor the implication that the necessity of listening to partner's explanations is unauthorized. IIUC you are _expected_ (almost required) to listen to his explanations, in order to provide corrected explanations when he gets them wrong, and in order to avoid calls or plays suggested (over LAs) by any explanations which you could have heard. You are only not entitled (authorized) to base your calls or plays (except in a countersuggestive manner) on his explanations (UI). Or am I missing something again? Everett Boyer / ACBL member From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 09:11:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:11:38 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06013 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:11:32 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@CSB.BU.EDU [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id TAA09463 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:11:53 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id TAA08955; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804292311.TAA08955@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? To: dhh@internet-zahav.net (Dany Haimovici) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <35463E95.399E81DE@internet-zahav.net> from "Dany Haimovici" at Apr 28, 98 11:39:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: [description of hesitation/UI situation and the relevant law deleted] >>The UI irregularity itself isn't "the crime" ; using the UI >>IS the crime ! OK >> As long as the UI wasn't used by the infractor's >>partner there is no problem. Agreed in principle. Except that transmitting UI is not necessarily an infraction (eg hesitation), so I dont like the use of the word infractor, nor "offending player" as used below. Lets call this person the "hesitator" (though there are other types of UI transmission). >>It is very difficult and non-fair >>to try to judge the partner of the offending player before you have >>all the data - and the most relevant data are the >>suspected criminal's cards. While it is true that at this point one is not able to judge whether the partner of the hesitator has committed a law 16A2 violation, the violation requires 3 elements: (1) existence of UI (2) selection of a call demonstrably suggested by UI (3) a logical alternative to the selected call not suggested by the UI I contend that at this point the first two can be determined. Indeed, the second is probably better determined now before the entire hand is known. In the ACBL, where one is not allowed to "reserve rights", I think the director should be summoned at this point to decide these first two issues. There is no attempt to judge the 3rd element at this time, hence no atempt to judge the "suspected criminal". >>So you - the NO side - are able to make >>up your mind only when you see the cards (at the play's end or >>when dummy's cards lay on the table ..). At the end of the hand, one can decide the 3rd element, as well as the element necessary for an adjustment: (4) the violation has resulted in damage to the NO side If a NO feels that both of these requirements are met, the director should be called back. -- David Metcalf >>Conclusion >>---------- >>Law 16A1 , including the ACBL election is , IMHO , the best >>possible legislation to achieve the Laws' scope . If someone >>deems the wording isn't appropriate ,I suggest to change it to : >>"...the NO player is allowed to postpone summoning the TD , if >>facts agreed .......". >> >>Dany >> >>> >>> Note to Grattan: "reserving one's rights" is a terrible phrase! One >>> always has the right to call the TD (well, almost always); there is no >>> need to reserve it. What one is doing under L16A1 is agreeing on the >>> existence of UI. Could the Laws Commission consider different wording >>> in 2007? >> From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 09:33:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:33:06 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06066 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:33:00 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@CSB.BU.EDU [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id TAA10382; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:33:17 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id TAA09265; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:33:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804292333.TAA09265@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: High, middle, low To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:33:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199804282352.TAA21258@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Apr 28, 98 07:52:39 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve-- IMHO, the way to judge a hesitation/UI situation should be as follows: If the issue is whether the UI demonstrably suggests a particular call, then the judge (committee?) should be given only the auction and UI (or whatever information would be available to a kibbitzer who cannot see anybody's hand), and asked what the UI suggests. If the issue is whether a particular call is a LA, then the judge should be given the situation without the UI, and asked what actions he would consider to be reasonable alternatives. Steve Willner wrote: >>Here's another example: At IMPs, I think neither vul, the bidding goes: >> 1C-3D(weak)-3S-4D; >> 4S- P(slow)- P-? >> >>The pass took several seconds, an eternity in this position. But what >>does it suggest? You may assume that 5D and pass are both LA's for >>fourth hand. Does it make any difference how good the player who made >>the slow pass is? In this case, the player was a promising junior, >>capable of winning a large regional event (which this was) on a good >>day but not one of the top favorites. His partner was another junior, >>decent but erratic, perhaps of average skill in the field. Or do you >>want to see the slow passer's hand and rule that the hesitation showed >>the hand he actually held? >> This issue is of the first case, so I feel that what the slow passer actually held is completely irrelevant and distracting, and publishing it would bias your responses. I think that the hesitation suggests bidding 5D, and would disallow a 5D bid if I felt there were a LA. -- David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 09:47:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:47:09 +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 JAA06137 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:47:03 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00419; 29 Apr 98 16:46 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:05:51 PDT." <199804292305.QAA29800@d2.ikos.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:46:52 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9804291646.aa00419@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Apr 29 08:52 PDT 1998 > > Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr wrote: > > (you are not entitled to > > listen to his explanations of your bids) > > Isn't this a popular misstatement of the law? Why is it so popular? > Perhaps I'm misreading it, but I abhor the implication that the > necessity of listening to partner's explanations is unauthorized. > > IIUC you are _expected_ (almost required) to listen to his explanations, > in order to provide corrected explanations when he gets them wrong, Right, but I suspect Jean-Pierre wasn't referring to this. > and in order to avoid calls or plays suggested (over LAs) > by any explanations which you could have heard. This is, what I think the above "misstatement" is addressing. >From what I've seen, the statement "you are not entitled to listen to his explanations of your bids" is actually a pretty good rule of thumb. That is, when you're deciding on your next call, assuming that partner interpreted the bid the way you meant it *usually* (but not always) fulfills the requirements of the Laws. I think this is because usually, after a misexplanation, the auction is so broken anyway, that the bid that is suggested by the misexplanation is either so clearly right or clearly wrong that there won't be a problem. Example: Partner opens 1NT, you bid 4H natural, partner says "transfer" and bids 4S. Now 4S is really an "impossible" action, but if you follow the rule of thumb, you take 4S as a cue-bid, assume partner has a max with great heart support, and bid accordingly. 5H is the bid suggested by the misexplanation, but I just don't think there are that many hands you could hold in which 5H and some other call are both logical alternatives. However, you still have to be aware of partner's misexplanation, so that if you do happen to pick up a borderline hand where both a cue-bid (or 4NT) and 5H are possible, you have to gravitate away from the 5H call. > You are only not entitled (authorized) to base your calls or plays > (except in a countersuggestive manner) on his explanations (UI). > > Or am I missing something again? No, you're technically correct. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 09:48:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:48:21 +1000 Received: from mh2.cts.com (root@mh2.cts.com [205.163.24.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06155 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:48:14 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09586 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 16:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: jkamras@cts.com (Jan Kamras) Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! Nothing so far written hints to this. The laws are (for once) perfectly clear. The only controversy stems from the fact that Herman feels the laws are not fair, and assumes the lawmakers made a mistake when writing them, and uses this as a justification for not following them. Some TDs don't apply the laws thru ignorance. Those TDs should be educated. Other TDs don't apply them because they don't like them. Those TDs should be disqualified. Not that it matters, but I happen (again,for once) to think the laws are fair on this. They are consistent with that opponents' have no right to know your actual hands and furthermore the "offending" side in these cases end up with a mediocre/bad result most of the time anyway, so why add insult to injury by ensuring that they ALWAYS get a bad result when they have only forgotten their agreements? It's not like they did it on purpose. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 09:51:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:51:07 +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 JAA06179 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:51:03 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA29139 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:51:31 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980430095144.00953710@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:51:44 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Period revisited) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following was bounced to me by majordomo@rgb as an 'administrative request' - it contains the word 's*bscribe'. Why David's response was bounced but not the original posting from Henk I have *no* idea. Time to read more of the majordomo source.. :-) -Markus > >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >>The Dutch federation publishes the >>decisions of the national AC in a 3-monthly newsletter, to which anybody >>can s*bscribe for a nominal fee. > > How many decisions do the Dutch NAC get? Are they direct appeals, or >ATTNAs? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > > 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 Thu Apr 30 11:00:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:00:59 +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 LAA06364 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:00:52 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client268d.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.141]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA21381 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:01:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:00:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd73d3$571612c0$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 David Stevenson wrote > >Anne Jones wrote: > >>>North, you have made a psychic/tactical bid. >>>Your duty is to tell the opponents what you should have held for your >>>bid. Opponents are entitled to know what your system is, not what you hold. >>>I would recommend that you should make sure that you have >>>available system notes to back up your claim. > What planet are you on? The REAL world. While you do not expect players to have system notes, you must surely admit that it helps you to rule MI or MB if they DO!! levels. I recently was the TDic [DIC] for the Welsh Spring congress. >How many players present had long system notes, out of the 250 who >played? Four? The Laws apply to everyone. There is such a thing as being prepared!!. Of the 246 who did not have system notes, I suspect that 240 of them did not have agreements which could not have been shown on a cc. > It is not a matter of "behaving in an ultra legalistic fashion". Read as "obeying the Laws" <. If you have a difficulty you follow the Laws. If you follow the Laws you may have no difficulty with your concience, or the TD/AC BUT if your opps think you are trying to hoodwink them you will not retain your popularity. Is this important to you? > Tell me, Anne: how many partners do you have system notes for? Do you >take them to congresses? How often does anyone think you are lying? > > [My guess is that the answers to this are: None or one; no; never.] Your guestimate is educated and reasonably correct. 1) One partner, one set of system notes. i.e. 100% 2) On a good day. 3) I suspect "Never" But this is something that I may have earned. . Unlike Caesar's wife I am not above or beyond reproach. >>>You will win the argument but lose your popularity as an ethical player >>>in the eyes of your oponents. It is up to you. > > No, you will not. Reasonable players accept that there are problems >in this area. Quote " The Laws apply to everyone". Not all players are "reasonable" You do not seem to disagree in substance with anything I said. Why are you picking on me? :-)))))) Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 12:51:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:51:08 +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 MAA06745 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:51:02 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24d3.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.211]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id DAA25510 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:51:26 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Contract not agreed Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:50:24 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd73e2$b951f080$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 A league match with no TD to hand. The organiser is faced with this problem. On the day the result was incidental to the method of final scoring. BUT had it not been he would have been expected to obtain a ruling. A board has been played. It was a Heart contract at game level. Declarer made eight tricks Vun and scored -200. His opps said 500 to us. Declarer and Dummy agree that the contract of 4H was not doubled. Defenders both agree that the contract was doubled. My immediate response was, "If you had phoned me I would have told you to introduce a replacement board and cancel any result obtained at the other table on this board. No, I would not have been interested in the card holdings. Players who are guaranteed to take a particular action with a certain hand have been known to Pass, quite convinced that they had not done so. Also their opps. who won the contract are quite likely not to have noticed a double. There is no agreement, or ever likely to be one. What Law would you apply? Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 13:52:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:52:28 +1000 Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA06911 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:52:22 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb214.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.214]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00501 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980429235228.00686ba0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:52:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Self Explanations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that the real dispute here is a matter of values. Herman's position notwithstanding, David is clearly correct in his statement of what the Laws require. To the extent that we regard the integrity of the competition as engaging our highest respect and concern, his argument is completely compelling. But another value, in this case a competing value, is the social climate of the game and our personal relationships with other players. As several correspondents have noted, your reputation as an ethical player will quite possibly be tarnished if you "correct" partner's mis-explanation with the true system agreement, which happens to differ from your actual holding. This is not completely fair, but particularly if you happen to be playing against weak-to-middling opponents, they will believe that you have attempted to trick them. Your explanation will also tend to work to their disadvantage, and if the TD is summoned, you might well be slapped with MI sanctions and even a PP if you can't solidly back up your statement, especially if Herman is directing ;). The only good thing about correcting the explanation is that it is required by the Laws. That's enough for me, but I am not insensitive to the opposite viewpoint. The issue is in some ways similar to the "sportsmanship" issue raised some years ago in TBW. As I recall, in a major international event, one player graciously doubled a contract which had mistakenly been left in a 5-level cue bid, and the opponents were equally gracious in their thank-yous after they escaped. This was hailed by some as a fine example of sportsmanship, but was decried by TBW as contrary to the integrity of the competition, since in failing to extract the maximum penalty from their opponents' error, the doubling side was not being fair to the other teams in the competition. I understand and agree with that argument, but I can't help my gut reaction in favor of the gentlemanly double. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 14:02:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:02:25 +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 OAA06974 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:02:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011146; 30 Apr 98 3:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:28:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Herman wrote: > >>We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! > >Nothing so far written hints to this. The laws are (for once) perfectly clear. > >The only controversy stems from the fact that Herman feels the laws are not >fair, and assumes the lawmakers made a mistake when writing them, and uses >this as a justification for not following them. >Some TDs don't apply the laws thru ignorance. Those TDs should be educated. >Other TDs don't apply them because they don't like them. Those TDs should be >disqualified. Wahey! Tell it like it is! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 14:33:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:33:09 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA07037 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:33:02 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp5.ac.net [205.138.55.179]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA08590 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3547FF1E.7936@ac.net> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:33:34 -0400 From: Linda Weinstein Reply-To: lobo@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Perio References: <1998Apr30.150200.1189.204226@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > Rich Colker is the editor for a "Casebook" that is compiled for each > ACBL NABC, in which a panel of experts examines and debates every AC > case. The panel analyzes, commments on, and rates (0-100 range) the > performance of the TD and AC in each case. The casebooks take a while > to get out, so the last two are "Miami Vice" for the 1996 Summer > NABC, and "The Streets of San Francisco, Crime and Punishment by the > Bay" for the 1996 Fall NABC. In the Miami book, TDs averaged scores > of 76.8, ACs 79.7. For San Francisco, it was TDs 85.4, ACs 76.0. > Rich is no longer the editor - the Dallas (17 appeals + 4 from team trials) book and Albuquerque (I think there were 34 there) books (which he did edit) are also both out (they were available in Reno) The St. Louis book (Rich's last one) will be available at the Chicago Nationals - (I have just finished compiling all the expert replies and Rich is hard at work - a big book, too - 44 appeals at an 8,500 table tournament - Yuk!) Reno, fyi, had 42 appeals (13,967 tables). > Despite the fact that TDs must sometimes make hurried decisions > without time for study, and ACs get to make their decisions at a > leisurely pace in calm surroundings, the TDs seem to have improved > relative to ACs. Either they are doing a better job, or ACs a worse > job, depending on how you want to express it. This seems to be sort of random - I think St. Louis was very disappointing - poorer Director rulings and a bunch of appeals that never should have occurred. Besides, nothing at 1:00 a.m. is "leisurely" and "calm" when 1) you have just played all day yourself, 2) you have to get up and play again the next day, and 3) you would maybe rather be doing something else. The folks who stay up and serve really are giving back a lot to the game. > > The casebooks are very instructive, with complete, one could say > extreme, frankness exhibited by all participants. The editorial > comments are especially good. Every TD and potential AC member should > read these books, which are available at a moderate price from the > ACBL. I don't know whether the ACBL distributes these to its TDs and > NABC AC members, but it should. Next to BLML, they constitute the > best instructional material available in ACBL-land for applying the > Laws and ACBL regulations. I think they would be very interesting to > those in other zones also. > They are available to all Directors (for sure at the NABC they are released at; don't know if they are mailed to Directors after tournament is over) and every member of the National Appeals Committee (I know, I hand them out) NAC members that aren't at the tourment are mailed one later (I know, I give them the list and hear about it if they aren't sent out). These books are available as ACBL products - don't know if they are set up to receive credit cards orders on-line yet, but think that might be in the plans... As I recall the books are $9.00 apiece. (Sorry my information isn't more exact, but I am away from home on vacation and don't want to pay the long distance charge to get on the 'net to find out for sure.) Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 14:43:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:43:17 +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 OAA07072 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:43:11 +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 VAA22497; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804300443.VAA22497@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:41:21 -0700 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 Everett Boyer wrote: > Jean-Pierre.Rocafort wrote: (Jean-Pierre Rocafort???) > > (you are not entitled to > > listen to his explanations of your bids) > > Isn't this a popular misstatement of the law? Why is it so popular? > Perhaps I'm misreading it, but I abhor the implication that the > necessity of listening to partner's explanations is unauthorized. You're entitled to listen to his explanations, but you are not entitled to use any UI that is communicated by them. > IIUC you are _expected_ (almost required) to listen to his explanations, > in order to provide corrected explanations when he gets them wrong, > and in order to avoid calls or plays suggested (over LAs) > by any explanations which you could have heard. > You are only not entitled (authorized) to base your calls or plays > (except in a countersuggestive manner) on his explanations (UI). > > Or am I missing something again? I am neither expected nor required to listen to his explanations. Think of this: How could anyone "listen" to an explanation being written on the other side of a screen? If I were were expected to "listen," the explanations would be oral, not written. If my partner is about to explain something, and she or I feel that UI might come of it, I leave the table or close my ears/eyes. I call this the "virtual curtain." Then, if I become declarer or dummy, before the opening lead is made I ask what the explanation was and correct it if necessary. If I am a defender, I wait until play is over to do this. No UI, full disclosure, with redress for the opponents if they are harmed by misinformation. If I do hear an incorrect explanation, of course I cannot make use of that UI. Some players feel that they are entitled to know about incorrect information at the time it is given, or soon thereafter, but we are not allowed to tell them about it until the bidding (if we declare) or the play (if we defend) is over. Doing so is a violation of L75D2. Before then, if an opponent asks me or my partner whether the other's explanation was correct or not, we say, "Sorry, I am not allowed to tell you at this time." If they say "Okay, then *you* explain the call," then the reply is "Sorry, but I'm not allowed to explain my own call." Of course if we realize our own mistake, we call the TD immediately, as required by L75D1. Here is the applicable wording of L75D2, for those who don't have the Laws at hand: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass...; a defender may not correct the error until play ends." I think the lawmakers realized that making corrections earlier, even if asked to do so, could cause all sorts of complications. L75D2 says we must call the TD at the time we legally fess up to the incorrect explanation, but if I'm playing against experienced opponents I leave that up to them when the misinformation is of a trivial nature. L75D2 is a little vague on this: "After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity..., the player must inform, etc." I do believe that if experienced players waive the call to the TD at the time they are told of the misinformation, they should not be able to call the TD later. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 14:45:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:45:06 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA07094 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:44:59 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp5.ac.net [205.138.55.179]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA09080 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <354801FB.D7D@ac.net> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:45:47 -0400 From: Linda Weinstein Reply-To: lobo@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Period) References: <199804292205.PAA05534@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I would bet that some of the AC members, whose names (unlike the TDs) > are published in each appeals case, would be reluctant to see the > frank remarks about their performance made widely available. Some of > the players whose names are published (all A players, I believe) > might not care for their questionable actions to be widely known > either. If this is so, let's hope none of them have influence over > the marketing or electronic publication of the casebooks. In my three plus years involvement in this project, no member of the NAC has complained to me that their name is published as a Committee member. I can off the top of my head think of a simple solution - only publish the Chair's name.. after all that is the person responsible for writing the report. Everyone to my knowledge that has been involved in the process is very open minded - do all we can to get better and better at what we do. Player names are published if the event is NABC+ or separate Flight A. No bracketed KO names are published. > > > Up front. I have no knowledge of the expenses involved with > producing > > the case books. I do not know to what extent the author's are > > compensated for the time and effort which they devote to this task. > I'm > > not even sure whether or not the ACBL expects to turn a profit on > the > > production and sale of these books. > > I believe it is airfare, room and per diem at each NABC (and even with that, the person is still underpaid) I know NABC Appeals budget is at least $30,000 per year Also scary is we are at the mercy of a ACBL Presidential appointment for the position of Casebook editor. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 14:52:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:52:25 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA07130 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:52:16 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp5.ac.net [205.138.55.179]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA09270 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:52:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <354803B4.59F@ac.net> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:53:08 -0400 From: Linda Weinstein Reply-To: lobo@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Period revisited) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I have some objections to the implied accuracy of these scores. The > panellists were not asked to rate the performance of the TD and AC on a 0 > to 100 scale (which would be close to impossible), instead they were asked > to rate the TD/AC on a 0 to 3 scale. The scores were then added up and > expressed as a percentage. The casebook doesn't mention if the panellists > were restricted to the 4 steps from 0 to 3 or were allowed intermediate > scores (0, 0.5, 1.0,...), but anybody who has ever rated anything, knows > that the ratings are always a bit arbitrary. > > To present these numbers with 3 significant digits, suggests an accuracy > that they do not have. In fact, I wouldn't be too supprised if a more > detailed error analysis showed that there was no significant difference > between 79.7 and 76.0. > Please be aware that these numbers are not really meant for you to hang anything serious on. The first time we did them we asked the experts to rate on a 100 point scale, they weren't too happy and asked for something smaller. Experts currently can rate anything from 0-3 and anywhere between. Some stick with whole numbers and never give a zero, others rate every case to the nearest 0.1, including zero. The whole reason we started using them was because sometimes I would read a case and have no feel for how strongly the panel was supporting or criticizing the case. These numbers definately help there... I know the difference between 80 and 50. That's all they are there for. Rich felt his scale was good enough for our purposes and I believe his PH D is in a field related to this sort of thing, so that was good enough for me... Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 16:11:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:11:10 +1000 Received: from prefetch.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA07266 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:11:02 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA09203 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804300610.XAA09203@prefetch.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:08:33 -0700 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 Mike Dennis wrote: > It seems to me that the real dispute here is a matter of values. Herman's > position notwithstanding, David is clearly correct in his statement of what > the Laws require. To the extent that we regard the integrity of the > competition as engaging our highest respect and concern, his argument is > completely compelling. > > But another value, in this case a competing value, is the social climate of > the game and our personal relationships with other players. As several > correspondents have noted, your reputation as an ethical player will quite > possibly be tarnished if you "correct" partner's mis-explanation with the > true system agreement, which happens to differ from your actual holding. > This is not completely fair, but particularly if you happen to be playing > against weak-to-middling opponents, they will believe that you have > attempted to trick them. Your explanation will also tend to work to their > disadvantage, and if the TD is summoned, you might well be slapped with MI > sanctions and even a PP if you can't solidly back up your statement, > especially if Herman is directing ;). Per L75D2, the TD is supposed to be summoned before correcting an erroneous statement by partner (or oneself). Since the TD is present, I would take the TD aside and explain the whole situation, then let him/her decide how to make the correction. Conforming to the Laws can save a lot of trouble. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 18:44:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:44:04 +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 SAA07528 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:43:58 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:44:22 +0100 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 JAA16549 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:39:36 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: High, middle, low In-Reply-To: <199804292333.TAA09265@csb.bu.edu> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:37:52 +0100 (BST) 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 David Metcalf wrote: > IMHO, the way to judge a hesitation/UI situation should be > as follows: > If the issue is whether the UI demonstrably suggests a > particular call, then the judge (committee?) should be given > only the auction and UI (or whatever information would be available > to a kibbitzer who cannot see anybody's hand), and asked what the UI suggests. And the hand of the player who received the UI? It's possible that there are two plausible reasons for partner to hesitate, but that when you look at your own hand, one of them becomes vanishingly unlikely. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 20:22:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:22:17 +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 UAA07722 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:22:10 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (C5300-1-6.nt.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.8]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA23430 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:21:00 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:21:00 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199804301021.NAA23430@alpha.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.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: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >Eitan Levy wrote: > >>It really is a tricky situation. >>Last week my partner passed my 2C checkback stayman bid and when asked said >>it promised at least 4 clubs. (we definitely decided on checkback and it was >>on the cc.) >>I was about to correct his misexplanation when i realised I had (by chance) >>four clubs and my correction might imply that I had less. I decided not to >>correct. At the end of the play i informed opponenents of the misexplanation >>and why I had not corrected and that legally I should have corrected. Even >>though our score was slightly above average they accepted my explanation for >>non-explanation and even praised it.They thought that had I corrected they >>would have played me for less than four clubs and maybe misdefended giving >>me an extra trick. >>So I, a qualified TD, the offending side,intentionally break a rule, feel >>good about it, and get praised by the non-offending side. > > Well, you don't get praised by me. You were lucky. > >>I should add that inferences that could perhaps have been drawn by knowing I >>had checkbacked were not considered significant, but had they been relevant >>then what? > > Since you broke the Law deliberately and knowledgeably, I trust you >would have been punished. > Why punished? If the opponents are in any way damaged by my lack of explanation then they will get an adjusted (assigned) score and I may get my most unfavourable result. In addition to all this they also had the benefit of knowing my club holding. My (illegal) action - and my informing them of it - ensured that the opponents would not be damaged. Had I acted legally I may very well have damaged the opponents and they would not have had recourse to a correction. My action may be misguided but it is ethical and is the only practical way of ensuring "justice" for the non-offending side and I do not see why I should be punished for this. But having said all this, I think you are correct in all your other points - see my remarks at the end. > ******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** > > Let's summarise. A number of posters to BLML are worried because, if >they follow the Laws, someone may not believe they have acted in an >ethical fashion. What should you do? > > You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. Even though I acted differently, you are of course right. I should follow the laws, (perhaps even must must follow the laws?). However it is a real world out there. My action was taken at a low level club game against unsophisticated opponents and I felt that to be perceived as having acted ethically and giving a good example was more important than blindly following the law and being perceived as having exploited my knowledge of the laws to gain an advantage. This is a genuine dilemma faced by an experienced TD playing against weak opponents. Against players of a reasonable standard there would not be a problem, but if I have a similar problem against similar opponents in the future I will still face the same dilemma, in spite of knowing what my correct theortetical course should be. Eitan > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 21:33:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:33:06 +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 VAA07882 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:32:59 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-143.uunet.be [194.7.14.143]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29689 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:33:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35485029.8D25CC88@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:19:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry David, you have completely misunderstood my posting. Probably my fault for not being clear enough. David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Opponents don't want to know what your system is, opponents want to know > >what you hold. At best they'd like a peek in your hand. > > I do not want my opponents to give me information I am not entitled > to, and I think that is true of all players who are ethical and > knowledgeable. > Why would you not accept from your opponents more than the minimum you are entitled to ? I consider it bad ethical behaviour to only limit your explanations to the absolute minimum that you think is enough to satisfy L75C. Since when have you as a player been able to tell completely correctly what this minimum should be ? I would prefer erring to the plus side and tell my opponents more than they are literally entitled to. > >At best I find the idea that not telling the opponents the real hand, > >because the Law tells you you should tell them the system, is covering > >up and bridge-lawyering. > > So you say that because I am an ethical player I am a Bridge Lawyer? > I am saying you have a different idea of what being ethical really means. Your idea of ethical behaviour seems to be following L75C to the letter and not anything above that. I feel that telling them what they want to know is far more ethical than hiding behind L75C to keep them in the dark. > >I for one will not do it, and I will fight it by all means if TD. > >This last will include such things as asking you to prove beyond any > >possible doubt that the explanation given DOES confirm to the system. > >You yourself have said Anne does probably not carry system notes for > >every partner. > >Then how are you going to prove your statement that you were merely > >following the Law if you have actually damaged opponents ? > > That's irrelevant. I behave in an ethical fashion. If it is > difficult to convince others I have done so then I get ruled against - > tough. However, I have convinced the sternest critic of all - myself. > I accept that you should be firm with yourself, even if you cannot later prove that you were right. Agreed. But the examples cited are those of players not really sure of themselves. Don't tell me that if partner misexplains you are always 100% certain of your explanation. You might be, and in that case maybe your actions are correct, but if you are not, then what to do ? Your indication to blindly follow L75C does not cover the fact where you as player are uncertain as to what the system actually is. > Are you suggesting that players who carry system notes should act > ethically, but not those who don't? > Certainly not, I wonder what gave you that idea ? > >> You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. > > >We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! > > > >I am not defending not following the Laws. > >I am defending informing opponents about what is happening and not hide > >behind the Laws to tell them less than you could. > > You are telling them to ignore the principle of full disclosure. > I am telling them to disclose what their opponents are interested in, not hide behind L75C to disclose only what the Laws tell them to. I feel this discussion is getting away from real issues. The best thing to do would be to subject this to a test. Come up with a case and present it once with a player blindly following L75C, and once with the player telling what he actually holds. Then see how they will be ruled by the TD and the AC. Then see what the best cause of action really was for the player in the dilemma position. > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 21:33:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:33:12 +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 VAA07892 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:33:04 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-143.uunet.be [194.7.14.143]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29699 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:33:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35485903.75FB4826@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:57:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199804292046.PAA28825@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although I thought I had bored you enough already, Grant C. Sterling wrote some interesting comments which I feel entitle me to bore you some more (some of you may actually have returned from your walks by now) > > > > If, by breaking this law, you actually tell them more than they are > > entitled to know, then surely they cannot be mad at you ? > > Perhaps, perhaps not. They would be entitled to complain if by > telling them something other than what the laws require I actually damage > them. I will of course accept that when I am wrong and I have actually harmed them more than I thought, I will accept the correct AS for the infraction of L75C. > The fact is that there is no guarantee that telling them what I > should tell them will harm them--it might help them. I profoundly believe that the circumstances of each case will determine the best cause of action. I am in no way advocating consistently breaking L75C, I am only defending that a player may break L75C, suffer the possible damages from this, but in general not being subjected to more than the damage the bad contract will already give him. I think it is not unethical to save whatever you can from not informing opponents that you have a misunderstanding (which is indeed a piece of information they are not entitled to), even by breaking L75C (at the time - complete story should be freely told whenever it becomes practical to do so), if also accepting that the additional infraction of L75C might incur further AS. I believe that in most practical cases the breaking of L75C will NOT cause such misinformation to opponents in itself to merit a further score correction from it. > But, in any case, whether my opponents will be mad at me or not is > not the prime consideration in following the laws [or being ethical]. > No, but them being mad is a clear indication that they feel damaged by that infraction. > > At best I find the idea that not telling the opponents the real hand, > > because the Law tells you you should tell them the system, is covering > > up and bridge-lawyering. > > > I for one will not do it, and I will fight it by all means if TD. > > This last will include such things as asking you to prove beyond any > > possible doubt that the explanation given DOES confirm to the system. > > You yourself have said Anne does probably not carry system notes for > > every partner. > > Then how are you going to prove your statement that you were merely > > following the Law if you have actually damaged opponents ? > > I agree with DS here--I may be unable to prove that [especially to > you], and so I may be ruled against. But that's the way it goes. > {Actually, given the infrequency of my psyches, I have never had > this problem occur.} > I was not talking about the simple fact of proving. If you are very certain about your statements, then your (and David's) blindly following L75C might be the correct action. But most of the time the misexplanation will put doubt into the bidder's mind. If we are going to put forward a recommendation to players as to what is the most ethical course of action, should we then not also cover the case where the player is in doubt ? Take my example again. 2C - 3H, intending to show two aces, but explained as long with hearts. 4NT, obviously intended as asking for aces, but IMO asking for kings. Suppose the explanation informs me I was in fact wrong. Should I now not tell opponents 4NT is asking for aces ? (while showing my kings of course) Now suppose I am not certain. I would like to consult my system notes, but I can't at this time. Why should I now worsen the case for my own side by explaining anything other than "asking for aces" ? This case clearly shows that the consequences of the eventual misinformation (if so ruled) of telling them the meaning of 4NT is indeed minimal. If any damage arises from that, I am accepting this. > > > You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. > > > > > > > We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! > > > > I am not defending not following the Laws. > > I am defending informing opponents about what is happening and not hide > > behind the Laws to tell them less than you could. > > Okay, then. By which Law do you think you are obligated to inform > the opponents of the contents of your hand, while misinforming them of > your partnership agreements? You seem to recognize [above] a legal > responsibility to reveal those agreements--was that impression incorrect, > or is this another case where you think one law contradicts another? > I do not wish to enter into a discussion on why I think it should be allowed to break L75C. I am fully aware that I am breaking a Law, and that I am willing to accept the consequences. I know this is against L72B2. But please note that L72B2 speaks of a "prescribed penalty". Misinformation (L75C) does not impose a penalty, merely a correction. I am using this only in cases where I feel I am not damaging opponents by misinformation, whereas I am damaging my side by correctly informing. So since the "infraction" would not be penalized anyway, can it be so bad ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 21:33:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:33:08 +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 VAA07884 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:33:01 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-143.uunet.be [194.7.14.143]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA29695 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:33:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35485224.983B3104@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:27:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.5.32.19980429150507.007e0180@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > At 13:46 29/04/98 +0200, you wrote: > >> > >> Let's summarise. A number of posters to BLML are worried because, if > >> they follow the Laws, someone may not believe they have acted in an > >> ethical fashion. What should you do? > >> > > > > > >We have different opinion as to what the Laws actually dictate ! > > > >I am not defending not following the Laws. > >I am defending informing opponents about what is happening and not hide > >behind the Laws to tell them less than you could. > > > >-- > >Herman DE WAEL > > Opponents are not entitled to know what is happening but what are your > agreements. > An even better mean not to tell them less than you could, would be to show > them your cards. > To give what is, in your opinion, an accurate description of your system, > without any reference to your partner's behaviour (you are not entitled to > listen to his explanations of your bids) or to your own cards, cannot be bad. > Your procedure: being influenced by UI from partner's explanations to try > to hide a misunderstanding and possible MI, for the hypothetical benefit of > opponents, seems to me to be a try to avoid trouble with TD or AC and is > nothing like "good ethics". > Lying and not following laws to avoid trouble, penalty or disconsideration > you could suffer because of an ordinary bridge misunderstanting, is that > really what you advocate? > If you put it like that, how can I possibly answer in the positive ? As written in another answer, this thread has gone far off the real world, into the theoretical. We should get back to one or two practical cases. Please someone post a practical case, in which a player has a dilemma as to which explanation he should give of an auction that he knows has gone wrong. Then we shall write down two possible answers, and then DAvid and I shall rule on the resulting conflict. After that we shall decide what the player really should have done. I think that only in a practical case can we give real recommendations. I think a player in this position will know he will be ruled against. I do not feel bad about him choosing the course of action which will limit his damages. Possibly this is the main point we disagree upon ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 21:46:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:46:55 +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 VAA07946 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:46:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012733; 30 Apr 98 11:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:45:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Contract not agreed In-Reply-To: <01bd73e2$b951f080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >A league match with no TD to hand. The organiser is faced with this >problem. On the day the result was incidental to the method of final >scoring. BUT had it not been he would have been expected to obtain a >ruling. > >A board has been played. It was a Heart contract at game level. Declarer >made eight tricks Vun and scored -200. His opps said 500 to us. >Declarer and Dummy agree that the contract of 4H was not doubled. >Defenders both agree that the contract was doubled. > >My immediate response was, "If you had phoned me I would have told you >to introduce a replacement board and cancel any result obtained at the >other table on this board. No, I would not have been interested in the >card holdings. Players who are guaranteed to take a particular action >with a certain hand have been known to Pass, quite convinced that they >had not done so. Also their opps. who won the contract are quite likely >not to have noticed a double. There is no agreement, or ever likely to >be one. > >What Law would you apply? Well, certainly not one that requires a replacement board, because there is no such Law! What you have proposed here is a directing problem, not a matter of Law. As the TD you *have* to rule that the contract was doubled, or that it wasn't. You must *not* avoid decisions by cancelling boards. Listen to the facts, consult, contemplate, decide and rule. This one is difficult? Certainly, but that is what we are paid the big bucks for . If you *really* want a Law number, I suggest L85B. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 22:24:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:24:01 +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 WAA08082 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:23:56 +1000 Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.68.17.19]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA24313; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:23:49 +0000 Message-ID: <35486D06.E74B94D6@worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:22:30 -0400 From: Mary Crenshaw Reply-To: mcren@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en]C-WorldNet (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Contract not agreed References: <01bd73e2$b951f080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Declarer and Dummy agree that the contract of 4H was not doubled. > Defenders both agree that the contract was doubled. > This happened to me once, when I was directing a STAC game, and a decision had to be made. On the face of it, it seemed to me that the contract was likely to have been doubled, but as you point out the cards are only tangential to the question is "What actually happened?" Before committing myself completely, I called the STAC director, and in talking it over, a key fact emerged: There had been *three* passes after the putative double. In other words, everyone at the table agreed that the person who would have been last to call *if* the contract were doubled had in fact called: he had put the pass card on the table. On that basis we ruled that the contract was in fact doubled. Mary (I have two grandcats, do those count?) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 22:52:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:52:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA08174 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:52:28 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yUspR-0006Cr-00; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:52:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:50:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Contract not agreed In-Reply-To: <01bd73e2$b951f080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bd73e2$b951f080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >A league match with no TD to hand. The organiser is faced with this >problem. On the day the result was incidental to the method of final >scoring. BUT had it not been he would have been expected to obtain a >ruling. > >A board has been played. It was a Heart contract at game level. Declarer >made eight tricks Vun and scored -200. His opps said 500 to us. >Declarer and Dummy agree that the contract of 4H was not doubled. >Defenders both agree that the contract was doubled. > >My immediate response was, "If you had phoned me I would have told you >to introduce a replacement board and cancel any result obtained at the >other table on this board. No, I would not have been interested in the >card holdings. Players who are guaranteed to take a particular action >with a certain hand have been known to Pass, quite convinced that they >had not done so. Also their opps. who won the contract are quite likely >not to have noticed a double. There is no agreement, or ever likely to >be one. > >What Law would you apply? > >Anne. > > In this position I tend to rule that the person who doubled *knows* he doubled and it is up to the other players to be aware of the contract. [74B1] I'd ask them to inspect each other's scorecards too because that is the only other contemporaneous record. No doubt they will agree with the statements that were made and we'd be no further forward. Any other ruling suggests the doubler is engaged in a *serious* breach of the laws. However I would make a note of the hand and record it. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??! Maybe_}\ |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 30 23:06:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:06:12 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA08237 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:06:05 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yUt2c-0001UB-00; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:06:30 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:06:21 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:06:21 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > Here is the applicable wording of L75D2, for those who don't have the > Laws at hand: > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not > correct the error before the final pass...; a defender may not > correct the error until play ends." I think the lawmakers realized > that making corrections earlier, even if asked to do so, could cause > all sorts of complications. > > > ######## I don't know if I am misunderstanding Marv's point but if a > defender is asked by declarer to correct an incorrect explanation > before the end of the play then IMO he is obliged to give the correct > explantion immediately but this correct explanation is of course UI > for his partner. ##########