From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 00:18:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:18:35 +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 AAA10713 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:18:08 +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 OAA15125 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:17:56 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA14497; Thu, 30 Apr 98 14:17:54 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980430141758.007f0440@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:17:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <35485224.983B3104@village.uunet.be> References: <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.5.32.19980429150507.007e0180@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:27 30/04/98 +0200, you wrote: >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 feel obliged to try: this is a "real life" case even if it might appear caricatural, in which following laws was the best way to see TD called at the table, and to be accused of cheating but, IMHO the only way to be ethical. E dealer, both vul. 1D - 1H 2H - ? Your hand (South): J63 A10642 J853 Q Your agreements are: You are not a regular partnership and have only agreed on basic principles, but both of you have a more regular partnership with a 3d player with whom you play exactly the same system and conventions (he happens to be a very tyrannic partner). You agreed that, for all points not directly agreed, your agreement would be the one you (both) have with the 3d player. You never discussed this 2H bid with your today partner (and of course, wrote nothing on your CC) but, luckily, decided to play it natural (good hand, good heart suit) like many players in your club, with 3d player (and wrote it down on a CC which, you think, is at home, on your TV monitor, 100 miles far away). You are pretty sure your partner (who had not a very good last night), once more, has forgotten an agreement. You alert 2H (OK?) and, not to your surprise, RHO enquires before passing. What do you tell him? and what do you bid after RHO pass? >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 > > > > ________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri May 1 00:20:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:20:37 +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 AAA10741 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:20:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA08064 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:20:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22426; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:21:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:21:08 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804301421.KAA22426@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: David Martin > 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. Does this mean opponents have an inherent right to create a UI situation that otherwise wouldn't have existed? SO's have a clear right to regulate how answers are given (L20F, L80F). Absent such regulation, I don't think players have any right to require that answers come from a particular opponent. The Laws provide protection against MI and UI; that should be enough. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 00:28:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:28:43 +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 AAA10771 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:28:35 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-138.access.net.il [192.116.198.138]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id RAB20667; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:28:38 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35488B39.F51600A1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:31:21 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kamras CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Self Explanations References: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are some situations , whatever one will do will be wrong. But , as I pointed for another thread , life is complex. I believe that to be consistent is the best possible solution. Up to here - philosophy. Practically : The only action which is demanded by Law is full disclosure of the partnership's agreement . This must be done , first priority. Maybe someone wants to change or update the Laws , but until that moment one : 1) must behave according to the existing written laws anytime in doubt. 2) has the right to fight the lawmakers , "beat" them , "hang" them or do everything in order to convince them the law should change/update. Experienced TD running a contest knows the majority of his "clients" - he has the right to apply his knowledge in order to decide when it is a real catch or someone tries to profit from the that situation (either too ethic or too kind !!) I vote for this school , not for "Herman's school" ; in spite of my general agreement with Herman's ideas...... Dany 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. > > 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 Fri May 1 00:35:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:35:25 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA10813 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:35:18 +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 KAA08685 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22439; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:35:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:35:56 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804301435.KAA22439@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Period revisited) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Linda Weinstein Thanks for the information about the casebooks. > 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. These sorts of ratings are notoriously difficult to interpret unless the raters are given a clear, qualitative description of each step. The lack of zero from some raters is a good example; in effect, these raters are causing their scores to count only 3/4 as much as others. In other contexts, I've seen ratings normalized to both mean and standard deviation of each rater -- this amounts to "grading on the curve" -- but that probably isn't appropriate where a clear description of each step can be given, i.e., absolute grades. Using fractions is less of a problem, although the ratings would be easier to interpret if everyone used only integers. The final results should be published on the same qualitative scale as the raters used, and the description of the ratings should be provided. One example of a scale you might use: 0=wrong ruling on the facts stated 1=serious problem, probably wrong, or key facts unstated 2=ruling probably OK, significant aspect neglected or not stated 3=OK, at most a trivial flaw From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 01:05:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 01:05:42 +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 BAA10922 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 01:05:34 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09752 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:02:57 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199804301502.KAA09752@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Self Explanations To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:02:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text 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. So far, so good. > 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 I agree that this is an important consideration. > 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 Suppose, then, we discharge our ethical obligations while at the same time helping our opponents? Suppose, for example, I correct partner's explanation by saying [as in the case discussed recently] "Partner's explanation was incorrect. My bid does not promise 5 hearts. Of course, I may very well _have_ five hearts." If the latter part is indeed clearly included in the explanation, how can opponents think you were attempting to trick them? Or, if your opponents really are a weak pair, what would it hurt to simply tell them "The bid doesn't promise 5 hearts, but as it turns out I do in fact have them". I have revealed more than I was required to reveal [I am of course declarer and not defender!], but still given a correct explanation. And, in addition, if these opponents happen to have the same auction in the future against me or someone playing a similar system, they won't think 5 hearts have been promised when they haven't. Does anyone have any legal or ethical objection to this practice? Please do not tell me that it is unfair to the field for me not to try to benefit from my corrected explanation! :) > 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 ;). I consider the latter irrelevant. It will be regretable, but if that's the way it turns out then so be it. But, of course, as has been pointed out the TD should _already_ have been summoned, and if I give a proper explanation [perhaps inclduing disclaimers] I should not be punished. > 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. Nor am I. > 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 think TBW was wrong. Unless the double was made for the purpose of helping this pair beat some opposing pair [or somesuch], I think it was quite appropriate. > I understand and agree with that argument, but I can't help my gut reaction > in favor of the gentlemanly double. I understand but disagree with that argument.... > Mike Dennis _ Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 01:24:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 01:24:26 +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 BAA11061 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 01:24:05 +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 QAA15383 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:24:07 +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 QAA11137 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:24:06 +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 QAA07488 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:24:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 98 16:24:03 BST Message-Id: <4438.9804301524@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Acquiescence Withdraw (Reno Appeals Case Eight) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi I was reading the Reno NABC appeals . Case eight is a case of an acquiescence of in claim withdrawn: I have reproduced the text of the case below. (The hand is not too important, EW bid to 7D which can be made by ruffing two spades in the hand with longer trumps before drawing trumps.) If I have read the details correctly, either I do not undersand L69B or the Reno TD and AC do not understand L69B. As I read L69B, NS (having acquiesced) can only get a trick back if that trick could not be lost by any normal play. So NS will only get a trick if they must defend irrationally to let 7D make. The TD and AC seemed to both say that it would be irrational of East not to make 7D (which may be true). For me, the test should be it would be irrational of NS not to defeat 7D (obviously more true). Apologies to anyone involved if I have misrepresented them, or if I have dismissed as trivial as case which is actually subtle. Robin **** copied form http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/renoapp.html **** Appeals Case Eight The Facts: Against East's 7D contract, South led a low heart. East tabled his hand and claimed 13 tricks, but made no statement. N/S did not protest, and the board was scored E/W +1440. This was the final board of the set. After a few minutes, North called for the Director and expressed doubt about the claim. The Director ruled that N/S had acquiesced in the claim (Law 69A), but he would consider the matter because the correction period had not expired (Law 79C). Law 69B allows a player to withdraw acquiescence, but only "for tricks that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." Normal play "includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." The Director ruled that any line of play that would fail to take thirteen tricks would be less than normal, and awarded E/W +1440. The Appeal: N/S appealed. They agreed that the contract could always be made by ruffing two spades in the closed hand, but that this was not obvious. The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. East listed some of his previous accomplishments, and the Committee was convinced that he is a player of considerable skill. It is easy for a player of his skill to ruff two spades in dummy and draw trump (two ruffs, one heart, four diamonds and six clubs). A player this skilled would have to adopt an irrational line of play to go down in 7D. The Committee then considered whether to keep the deposit. Because it took some time to recognize the winning line of play, the Committee decided there was substantial merit to the appeal. The deposit was, therefore, returned. Committee: Doug Heron, chair, Dick Budd, Michael Huston, Judy Randel and Ellen Seibert Scribe: Jay Apfelbaum Dissenting Statement from Michael Huston: I believe the appeal lacks substantial merit. This Committee accepted the claim in less than one minute. N/S, an experienced pair, did not present a bridge reason not to accept ruffing two spades in dummy and drawing trump. They showed no careless-but-not-irrational error that East could make. The only apparent reason for the appeal was N/S did not understand the Laws covering claims. Lack of knowledge of the Laws by experienced players playing in a major national event should not constitute substantial merit for the appeal. Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 01:30:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 01:30:17 +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 BAA11099 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 01:30:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026322; 30 Apr 98 15:09 GMT Message-ID: <$Se42FA4qGS1EwaJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 13:12:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199804301021.NAA23430@alpha.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: >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. Oh, blood and sand! Will everyone please stop talking about the real world as though people like myself do not play in clubs! OK, you are declarer, partner has told the oppos that your bid shows clubs, you know it shows diamonds, but you have clubs. The Law requires you to tell the oppos that the bid shows diamonds. Your social conscience requires you to tell them that you have clubs. So do both! If you feel you want to let oppos know you have [or might have] clubs, tell them so. But that should not stop you following the Laws. I do not mind whether you say: "My bid actually shows diamonds" or "My bid actually shows diamonds, though I must admit I usually get it wrong!" or "My bid actually shows diamonds, though I often psyche in this position" But please follow the Laws. If you wish to help oppos as well, please feel free. -- 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 May 1 02:07:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:07:32 +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 CAA11476 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:07:24 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yUvsB-0006Sg-00; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:07:47 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:07:43 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:07:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > From: David Martin > > 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. > > Does this mean opponents have an inherent right to create a UI > situation > that otherwise wouldn't have existed? > > ######### I believe that the answer to this question is yes (sadly). > Law 20F does say "During the auction............" and > ".........replies *should* normally be given by the partner of a > player who makes a call in question." The first quoted part clearly > indicates that this Law applies during the whole of the live auction > period and not just prior to an opening lead (when Declarer or Dummy > might correct an erroneous explanantion). The second quoted part > clearly leaves room in exceptional circumstances for a player to ask > the caller rather than their partner about a particular call if > necessary. Law 75A does say that "Special partnership agreements, > whether explicit or implicit *must* be fully and freely available to > the opponents..........." which seems to me to be absolutely > overriding and nowhere in the Laws is there any restriction about who > may be asked about such agreements. At first sight, Law 75C almost > assumes that caller's partner is always the person answering but, on > closer reading, I think that this Law is merely explaining what the > caller's partner's obligations are when they are answering opponent's > questions and does restrict who may answer. > > Consider also the situation in which the two Defenders actually > disagree as to what the systemic explanation of their auction is. IMO > Declarer is clearly entitled to hear both alternatives in full and not > merely half of each possibility. ######### > > SO's have a clear right to regulate how answers are given (L20F, > L80F). Absent such regulation, I don't think players have any right > to > require that answers come from a particular opponent. The Laws > provide > protection against MI and UI; that should be enough. > > > ######## When these situations arise, it is some times possible to > send one Defender away from the table whilst the other gives the > correct explanation. Clearly, this does not avoid all UI problems as > the mere act of doing this indicates to all that a wheel has come off > somewhere. If Declarer is the first to draw attention to a Defender's > misexplanation then I don't think that this changes anything in > relation to the UI situation other than it is now more difficult for > the offender to justify 'waking up' until this becomes evident from > the available AI. > > Also, in many cases it will be evident to Declarer that a > misexplanation has occurred and he may be able to protect himself from > possible subsequent damage by seeking a correct explanation from the > caller which can only be to the benefit of the offending side. > ############# From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 02:09:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:09:58 +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 CAA11522 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:09:51 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h31.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id UAA09841; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:09:36 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35493C5D.6AB8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:08:48 -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: go back. References: <9804291457.aa23918@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Adam:) Thank you for your nice and humorous comment:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 02:24:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:24:16 +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 CAA11618 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:24:11 +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 MAA22521 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35485903.75FB4826@village.uunet.be> References: <199804292046.PAA28825@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:28:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I could easily be wrong about this, but it seems possible to me that David S and Herman are talking at cross-purposes in this discussion. I think perhaps the Stevenson school is discussing Case 1 below, while the de Wael school is discussing Case 2. Case 1) I make a call according to system, and partner gives an incorrect explanation of the call which happens to match my hand. Is this really such a tough problem? How can anyone complain, if after partner gives a misexplanation which matches my hand, I say at the appropriate time "I might coincidentally have a hand which matches partner's description, but my bid actually showed such and such"? I have followed the law precisely, I have given the opponents exactly the information they are entitled to, and I have not misled them in any way. In order to avoid giving away information about my hand, I should use this same form of words whenever partner's mistaken explanation *could* be consistent with my hand - so for instance, if partner says "splinter" when my jump bid was "fit-showing", there is no need to add the extra phrase since the two explanations are mutually incompatible; but if partner passes my transfer, then whether or not I have hearts, I should say "I might by coincidence have hearts, but my bid actually showed spades". I'm sure that this is what Herman would do at the table - it would clearly be unconscionable not to tell your opponents about your spade suit, just because you happen to have a few hearts as well. Case 2) Either inadvertently or deliberately, I make an anti-systemic call, and my partner explains my bid incorrectly in a way which matches my hand. IIRC, this was the case which started the discussion, when a deliberately deceptive bid is neutered by the clown across the table. Now I can see a case for Herman's position. Suppose my partner and I have recently changed from playing 2D Flannery to 2D Multi. I forget and open a Flannery hand, and partner also forgets and explains my call as Flannery. Just before the opening lead against my eventual 4H contract, I remember that our agreement is now Multi. I am certainly not going to say "My partner's explanation was wrong - 2D showed a weak two-bid in one of the majors, just look at our convention card", and I'm sure David S. wouldn't either. Herman, I assume, would say nothing until the post-mortem, but I think I should say "2D was supposed to be Multi, but I guess we both forgot", to prevent confusion in case one of the opponents has glanced at our convention card and seen the Multi notation. And what about when I lied deliberately with my original call? Now I suppose I bite the bullet, give the correct explanation of my call, but add a strongly emphasized rider that I don't promise that my hand matches our agreement or disagrees with partner's explanation. If I do this right, I will have negated any deceptive effect from my call, but I think that is the price I pay for partner's error. _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 02:35:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:35:24 +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 CAA11779 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:35:16 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yUwJ8-0001Oh-00; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:35:39 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:22:54 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:22:53 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry but I missed out a slightly important word (now inserted in caps) when I first sent this. > Steve wrote: > > From: David Martin > > 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. > > Does this mean opponents have an inherent right to create a UI > situation > that otherwise wouldn't have existed? > > ######### I believe that the answer to this question is yes > (sadly). Law 20F does say "During the auction............" and > ".........replies *should* normally be given by the partner of a > player who makes a call in question." The first quoted part clearly > indicates that this Law applies during the whole of the live auction > period and not just prior to an opening lead (when Declarer or Dummy > might correct an erroneous explanantion). The second quoted part > clearly leaves room in exceptional circumstances for a player to ask > the caller rather than their partner about a particular call if > necessary. Law 75A does say that "Special partnership agreements, > whether explicit or implicit *must* be fully and freely available to > the opponents..........." which seems to me to be absolutely > overriding and nowhere in the Laws is there any restriction about who > may be asked about such agreements. At first sight, Law 75C almost > assumes that caller's partner is always the person answering but, on > closer reading, I think that this Law is merely explaining what the > caller's partner's obligations are when they are answering opponent's > questions and does *NOT* restrict who may answer. > > Consider also the situation in which the two Defenders actually > disagree as to what the systemic explanation of their auction is. IMO > Declarer is clearly entitled to hear both alternatives in full and not > merely half of each possibility. ######### > > SO's have a clear right to regulate how answers are given (L20F, > L80F). Absent such regulation, I don't think players have any > right to > require that answers come from a particular opponent. The Laws > provide > protection against MI and UI; that should be enough. > > > ######## When these situations arise, it is some times possible > to send one Defender away from the table whilst the other gives the > correct explanation. Clearly, this does not avoid all UI problems as > the mere act of doing this indicates to all that a wheel has come off > somewhere. If Declarer is the first to draw attention to a Defender's > misexplanation then I don't think that this changes anything in > relation to the UI situation other than it is now more difficult for > the offender to justify 'waking up' until this becomes evident from > the available AI. > > Also, in many cases it will be evident to Declarer that a > misexplanation has occurred and he may be able to protect himself from > possible subsequent damage by seeking a correct explanation from the > caller which can only be to the benefit of the offending side. > ############# From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 02:48:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:48:44 +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 CAA11903 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 02:48:38 +1000 Received: from default (client9561.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.95.97]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA23942 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:49:00 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:48:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7457$d7783cc0$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----- Date: 30 April 1998 15:03 Subject: RE: Self Explanations Various messages. > 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. ########## > ++++ On this subject I have been enjoying the ride; the scenery along the way has been quite fascinating. But in the end I feel bound to introduce one or two sobering thoughts; who, by the way, has been winding up whom? ++ First of all, let us go back to the beginning; somewhere thereabouts we had thoughts of a declarer who 'corrected' dummy's explanation with information that, misleadingly, did not fit the closed hand. Well, O.K., but declarer had better have strong proof that his agreement is what he has said or my AC will rule that the partnership had no agreement and consider possible damage to opponents for misinformation accordingly. Or we might simply assume in some circumstances that the first explanation was correct and Declarer had misbid and then given an incorrect explanation when 'correcting' what Dummy had said. (And sympathy will ebb too if his explanation was given without first calling the Director as the Law requires.) ++ Secondly, what began with Declarer got on to correction of explanations by Defenders, in mid-stream. It does not matter whether Declarer has asked for them or not, they are not going to be given before the end of the play - the Director, who must be called before the correction is made, will see to the implementation of the Law as it is - his job is to interpret and apply it, not to rewrite it. There are at least two reasons to justify the current state of the Law: (a) explanations of the meanings of calls are based upon opinion as to what is agreed; if two explanations conflict *either*, or *both*, may be wrong. The Laws do not allow of a second defender's opinion, which may or may not be right, being added to the eventual confusion until it cannot affect play; until play ends they do not even grant opportunity for a defender to make an indication that he thinks partner may have misexplained the auction. (b) the Lawmakers are so ungenerous as to deprive Declarer of the opportunity to increase the number of explanations given to him and thereby increase his chances of claiming misinformation at the end of the hand. Players are also not to be offered opportunity to judge the reactions of the first explainer when confronted by a partner disagreeing with his explanation. I am slightly puzzled as to how Declarer would 'know' he had an opponent with a different opinion as to the explanation he has been given, and so be able to ask for a 'correction'? I am also not clear as to the procedure which would allow of the kind of premature 'correction' discussed; neither the correction nor any indication that one may be due is permitted until the Director is at the table; the Director may not be called in the matter until the correction may be legally offered - the end of the auction for Declarer or Dummy, the end of the play of the hand for a defender. ++++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 03:44:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 03:44:04 +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 DAA12142 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 03:43:58 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027644; 30 Apr 98 17:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:47:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Contract not agreed In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mary Crenshaw wrote: Hi! >(I have two grandcats, do those count?) Shows your heart is in the right place! John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >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. No, it doesn't. It means he made a mistake. Perhaps he intended to double, so five minutes later he believed 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 Fri May 1 03:44:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 03:44:51 +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 DAA12160 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 03:44:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027652; 30 Apr 98 17:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:31:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <35485029.8D25CC88@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >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 ? Why do you quote things I have not said? I might easily accept that - but I do not expect it. >I consider it bad ethical behaviour to only limit your explanations to >the absolute minimum that you think is enough to satisfy L75C. Better than your method of telling deliberate lies and not even following 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. But you are not erring on the plus side! -- 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 May 1 04:00:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:00:52 +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 EAA12255 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:00:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027643; 30 Apr 98 17:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:34:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980430141758.007f0440@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > I feel obliged to try: this is a "real life" case even if it might appear >caricatural, in which following laws was the best way to see TD called at >the table, and to be accused of cheating but, IMHO the only way to be ethical. > >E dealer, both vul. >1D - 1H 2H > - ? > >Your hand (South): >J63 >A10642 >J853 >Q > >Your agreements are: >You are not a regular partnership and have only agreed on basic principles, >but both of you have a more regular partnership with a 3d player with whom >you play exactly the same system and conventions (he happens to be a very >tyrannic partner). You agreed that, for all points not directly agreed, >your agreement would be the one you (both) have with the 3d player. You >never discussed this 2H bid with your today partner (and of course, wrote >nothing on your CC) but, luckily, decided to play it natural (good hand, >good heart suit) like many players in your club, with 3d player (and wrote >it down on a CC which, you think, is at home, on your TV monitor, 100 miles >far away). You are pretty sure your partner (who had not a very good last >night), once more, has forgotten an agreement. You alert 2H (OK?) and, not >to your surprise, RHO enquires before passing. >What do you tell him? What you have just written. -- 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 May 1 04:03:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:03:59 +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 EAA12275 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:03:52 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-155.access.net.il [192.116.198.155]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA14955; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:02:02 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3548BD4D.B3219426@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:05:01 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mcren@worldnet.att.net CC: Anne Jones , BLML Subject: Re: Contract not agreed References: <01bd73e2$b951f080$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <35486D06.E74B94D6@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First , the most important issue : I think the grandcats count but Quango is the chairman to decide. The event presented by Anne is very unpleasant , but.... I don't see any special problem : the TD must do the best to establish the facts ; if agreed or not , the TD must decide in order to let play continue and notify the contestants of their rights to appeal, (for sure , by to Law 85B.) Dany Mary Crenshaw wrote: > > > 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 Fri May 1 04:23:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:23:16 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12407 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:23:07 +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 OAA21034 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA22647; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:23:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:23:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199804301823.OAA22647@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: David Stevenson > You are pretty sure your partner (who had not a very good last > >night), once more, has forgotten an agreement. You alert 2H (OK?) and, not > >to your surprise, RHO enquires before passing. > >What do you tell him? > > What you have just written. Except, presumably, the bit about being pretty sure partner has forgotten -- unless there's some reason to believe so besides the contents of your own hand. Alerting would be questionable or even wrong in some jurisdictions, but that depends on local rules. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 04:26:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:26:31 +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 EAA12423 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:26:25 +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 LAA28509; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804301826.LAA28509@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:24:37 -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 ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: Self Explanations > Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 7:21 AM > > From: David Martin > > 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. > > Does this mean opponents have an inherent right to create a UI situation > that otherwise wouldn't have existed? > > SO's have a clear right to regulate how answers are given (L20F, > L80F). Absent such regulation, I don't think players have any right to > require that answers come from a particular opponent. The Laws provide > protection against MI and UI; that should be enough. L75D2 is pretty clear. When defending, you cannot correct partner's misexplanation until play is over, even if asked to do so by another player. Per L75D1, you can correct your own explanation, but only when told to do so by the TD, who must be called immediately when you realize you have made a mistake. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 04:45:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:45:53 +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 EAA12501 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 04:45:47 +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 LAA00390 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804301845.LAA00390@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:42:05 -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: 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 > > explanation immediately but this correct explanation is of course UI > > for his partner. ########## That would give the opponents the right to create UI, which many are doing, and which is intolerable. One opponent has UI, and you want to make sure the other has UI also. Not good. "A PLAYER MAY NOT CORRECT THE ERROR BEFORE THE FINAL PASS" Pardon me for shouting. To quote from the Preface to the Laws: "Note that 'may' becomes very strong in the negative: 'may not' is a stronger injuction than 'shall not,' just short of 'must not.'" The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since the TD will adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured by the misinformation. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 05:47:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 05:47:34 +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 FAA12745 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 05:47:28 +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 MAA07330 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804301947.MAA07330@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Acquiescence Withdraw (Reno Appeals Case Eight) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:43:19 -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 Robin Barker wrote: > I was reading the > Reno NABC appeals . Case eight is a case of an acquiescence of > in claim withdrawn: I have reproduced the text of the case below. > (The hand is not too important, EW bid to 7D which can be made by > ruffing two spades in the hand with longer trumps before drawing trumps.) > > If I have read the details correctly, either I do not undersand L69B > or the Reno TD and AC do not understand L69B. > > As I read L69B, NS (having acquiesced) can only get a trick back if that trick could not be lost by any normal play. So NS will > only get a trick if they must defend irrationally to let 7D make. > > The TD and AC seemed to both say that it would be irrational of > East not to make 7D (which may be true). For me, the test should > be it would be irrational of NS not to defeat 7D (obviously more > true). > "By any normal play of the remaining cards" must refer to the play of both sides, surely. The TD and AC decided that EW could not lose a trick by any normal play by either side. If players would state their line of play, as they "should" according to L68C, there would be fewer problems for TDs and ACs. EW should have been told that they would get a procedural penalty if their failure to clarify a claim were to cause a problem again in that tournament. As an aside, the use of "any" in the Laws often leads to ambiguity, because it can mean "any one of many" or "every." For instance, L70E says a TD shall not accept an unclarified claim that depends on an unproven finesse unless the offside opponent "would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play." This should have been "every normal line of play," which is the obvious intent. As it is, a player Holding AJxxx of trumps opposite K10xxx and no outside losers could claim all the tricks on the basis of no loser in the suit, since a 3-0 split would be revealed on one of two lines of play, both of which are normal. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 06:40:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 06:40:21 +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 GAA12966 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 06:40:14 +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 QAA06135 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 16:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199804302040.QAA06740@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Jeremy Rickard on Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:37:52 +0100 (BST)) Subject: Re: High, middle, low Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard writes: > 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. For example, consider the following auction: S W N E 1H P 3H P 4NT P 5H P 6H P P (slow P) East's slow pass (probably considering a Lightner double) doesn't demonstrably suggest a lead of any of the four suits. But if West has Qxx x xxx Jxxxxx, then a club lead is demonstrably suggested by the UI and West's hand (since he would have led a club if there had been a double), so it should be barred by the UI. If West chooses to lead a diamond and happens to hit East's void because South is 1-6-5-1, or hits East's AKxxx, the result should stand. -- 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 May 1 09:20:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 09:20:19 +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 JAA13581 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 09:20:12 +1000 Received: from local (dialppp4.internauts.ca [205.236.185.104]) by thor.internauts.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA17237; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: deirdre@mail.internauts.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:14:40 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), =?iso-8859-1?Q?=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0?=.metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) From: Deirdre Mark Subject: Fwd: Re: High, middle, low Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I seem to have received this by mistake. >From: David Metcalf >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) >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >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 > Deirdre Mark Version Anglaise From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 09:20:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 09:20:32 +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 JAA13588 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 09:20:25 +1000 Received: from local (dialppp4.internauts.ca [205.236.185.104]) by thor.internauts.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA17240; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: deirdre@mail.internauts.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:16:00 -0400 To: dhh@internet-zahav.net (Dany Haimovici) From: Deirdre Mark Subject: Fwd: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Received in error >From: David Metcalf >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 >X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >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? >>> > Deirdre Mark Version Anglaise From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 10:10:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 10:10:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA13876 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 10:09:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010908; 1 May 98 0:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:30:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >> ######### I believe that the answer to this question is yes >> (sadly). Law 20F does say "During the auction............" and >> ".........replies *should* normally be given by the partner of a >> player who makes a call in question." The first quoted part clearly >> indicates that this Law applies during the whole of the live auction >> period and not just prior to an opening lead (when Declarer or Dummy >> might correct an erroneous explanantion). The second quoted part >> clearly leaves room in exceptional circumstances for a player to ask >> the caller rather than their partner about a particular call if >> necessary. It does not say that. IMO it allows for a regulation to permit it [as with screens, online bridge etc]. It is also normal for the Director to permit it in certain situations as you note below. But I do not believe that the player has any right to expect such an answer in the absence of one of these instructions. -- 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 May 1 15:05:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:05:26 +1000 Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA14751 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:05:17 +1000 Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id SNONa02431 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 01:05:11 -0400 (EDT) From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: <88635001.35495808@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 01:05:11 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Self Explanations Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman asked for a simple example. In the Fort Worth, Texas NABC several years ago, a player held a 3-4-2-4 14 count. His partner opened 1C and he responded 1H. His partner bid 1S and he called 3NT. After 3 passes, he announced that there had been a failure to alert. Upon inquiry, he told the opponents that his 1H bid could bypass a longer diamond suit. (At the time this was an alert.) The OL shied away from a diamond lead after the disclosure. Surprise! It was right to lead a diamond. The TD ruling was that the result stands. This was appealed. The AC found themselves in a "tough" position. As was pointed out, the 3NT bidder had done exactly as was required of him by the Laws. He had NO option. Many posters here seem to take that position regarding everything here as "black and white". \x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/ \x/\x/\x/\x Herman writes: 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 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 think Herman has hit the nail square on the head. Nobody is questioning what the Law "says". But at some point we must all question what the intent is. We want the opponents up to speed. Regarding every situation as "black and white" and reacting accordingly will leave many players disillusioned as to what the Laws accomplish in an area such as this. In the situation I presented, you could start cutting off my fingers if I failed to tell the opponents there had been a failure to alert. You would be working on my toes shortly. Are those of you that think there is no latitude whatsoever here really comfortable with that position in this case? Does it bother you just a little that this player may have been using the Laws to gain an edge? If you deny that, I'm afraid I have trouble accepting that. \x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/ \x/\x/\x/\x And then David S. writes: No, you will not. Reasonable players accept that there are problems in this area. ======================================================== Accept, yes. They do not see that there is no room for interpretation! ======================================================== Followed by: You should follow the Laws. Not to do so is indefensible. ======================================================== Some of us find it morally indefensible to act as in the case I led off with. Interesting choice as to being morally right or legally right. I personally can never ignore the moral issues here. \x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/\x/ \x/\x/\x/\x Then Mark Abraham writes: 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. ======================================================== UNREALISTIC! First we introduce them to a pink elephant and then we tell them that under no circumstances should they think of a pink elephant. ======================================================== In the ACBL, we are now to announce our NT range if our agreement is that it falls outside of the 15-18 range. With several partners I play 15-17 in first and second and 14-16 in third and fourth. If I open 1NT in third with 15 and partner fails to announce "14-16" and bids 3NT, you will never convince me that I should disclose the MI (the failure to announce was just that) after the third pass. Yet I will ALWAYS disclose that when I hold exactly 14. This fact alone helps my partners to remember to make that announcement. Since many know this about me, does that give them an edge? I guess it does if my partner has failed in our responsibility. Should it be that way? Absolutely, IMO. Back to the case I opened with, the AC upheld the TD because we could not figure out how to do what we believed was the "right" thing, which was to adjust somehow. Those of us involved that night did not sleep well as a result. I asked Edgar about it later in the week. He told me that it was perfectly clear that the Laws "required" this player to disclose the failure to alert and an adjustment could not be made because he had done so. However, he then allowed that we could issue an "offsetting" PP because the opening bidder had not alerted at the appropriate time which is a clear violation of the Laws. At least that way, the *offensive* side would not have gained. Edgar was so good at finding a way do achieve something approaching equity in even the most "clear cut" situations... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 17:45:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 17:45:10 +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 RAA15067 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 17:45:04 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA14519 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Fri, 1 May 1998 09:44:18 +0200 Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 09:44:15 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Markus Buchhorn Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Period revisited) In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980430095144.00953710@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >>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? Something like 60 or 70 a year. Most of them are from the highest flights of the national team and pairs championships, where the NAC is the AC. A few are from the lower flights, there are local AC's to deal with them, but one can appeal to the national organization if one isn't happy with their ruling. 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 May 1 18:03:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 18:03:04 +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 SAA15116 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 18:02:58 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-102.uunet.be [194.7.9.102]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA10798 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 10:03:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35497ED9.68D3D280@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:50:49 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Fifth Friday - may 1998 - announcement X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The month of May has five fridays. So we play a fifth friday simultaneous tournament on the 29th. 5 clubs have already announced they are playing : AU - Sydney BE - Antwerpen GB - Bristol LT - Vilnius US - Southern Pines If your club has a regular tournament on friday, feel free to join us. There are no fees (or prizes) and no special organisational requirements (other than the duplication of the boards that we will all play). You can visit the fifth friday homepage : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html e-mail me to join. Full entry forms and conditions will follow shortly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 19:21:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:21:16 +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 TAA15257 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:21:10 +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 LAA12798 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 11:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35498DF0.42CCFD39@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:55:12 +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> <3.0.5.32.19980430141758.007f0440@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > I feel obliged to try: this is a "real life" case even if it might appear > caricatural, in which following laws was the best way to see TD called at > the table, and to be accused of cheating but, IMHO the only way to be ethical. > > E dealer, both vul. > 1D - 1H 2H > - ? > > Your hand (South): > J63 > A10642 > J853 > Q > > Your agreements are: > You are not a regular partnership and have only agreed on basic principles, > but both of you have a more regular partnership with a 3d player with whom > you play exactly the same system and conventions (he happens to be a very > tyrannic partner). You agreed that, for all points not directly agreed, > your agreement would be the one you (both) have with the 3d player. You > never discussed this 2H bid with your today partner (and of course, wrote > nothing on your CC) but, luckily, decided to play it natural (good hand, > good heart suit) like many players in your club, with 3d player (and wrote > it down on a CC which, you think, is at home, on your TV monitor, 100 miles > far away). You are pretty sure your partner (who had not a very good last > night), once more, has forgotten an agreement. You alert 2H (OK?) and, not > to your surprise, RHO enquires before passing. > What do you tell him? and what do you bid after RHO pass? > > Good example. First the second question : what do you bid. The explanation is of no importance. Everything you have told us is AI. You know what partner intended : he probably has the black suits. You are entitled to deduce from the cards that he has forgotten that this means hearts. Now you need to tell us what you would imagine the majority of your club plays in this situation and then tell us what you think your hand is worth after that : pass, 2S, 3S, 4S ? You will not be blamed for either. Now the first question : what do you explain. Perhaps this might be affected by your decision on what to bid ! A) the "apparantly" correct explanation : Strong, Hearts. Suppose after that explanation, you pass. The bidding is probably over, partner did not get to use the UI you gave him, and you can correct immediately his correction before putting your cards down. Nothing happened. Suppose however you have decided to bid on, say to 2S. You have now told partner you think he has hearts, and then you have bid his suit, which he believes to be yours. He would like to raise you to game, but if he is ethical, he will leave it at that and be relieved he did not miss 4S after all. In either case you have not revealed to opponents that you have a misunderstanding but that the cards are rescueing you. In either case you have given UI to partner, and you must hope he will not use it. Or the TD will not rule he has used it. But in both cases you have told opponents that the trump suit is exactly in the opposite hand from the one it actually is in. They may afterwards call the director for them not doubling when you fail your contract or vice versa. And you will have to explain that although your explanation is correct, you cannot prove this (the CC is 100 miles away). Apart from a possible AS, the TD might well view you very badly indeed because it may even seem you have deliberately misinformed opponents ! B) the apparantly "intended" explanation : any kind of meaning without prior agreement. Again you pass : partner now knows you understood his bidding, but pass anyway. Or you bid spades. Again he knows this is a support for his suit and he will not press on beyond the level you choose. You have now correctly informed opponents of where the cards lie. They have had a correct image of the hand and could have decided whether or not to double. Now of course you are an ethical player. If you say nothing, nobody will be the wiser. But after the hand is over, and nobody complains (why should they), you call the director and explain to him that you have wilfully broken L75C. Based on this, they explain they now want to change the result by adding or subtracting the double. Now to you David, would you rule an AS based on this "misinformation". I suppose not. They were not damaged by the misinformation, since they were given an exact picture of both hands ! OK, I have given two possibilities, and have explained what could happen and what the rulings should be afterwards. Maybe you disagree with some of my rulings, but on the whole ? Isn't it right to suggest to players to give explanation B ? Isn't the game more served with this ? And one more thing, before you start shouting "L75C !". Can you really be sure that the system as described on the CC 100 miles away IS the system for this pair ? This player seems certain, but what if he isn't? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 19:21:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:21:26 +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 TAA15271 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:21:19 +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 LAA12812 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 11:21:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3549904A.B676264C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:05:14 +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: <199804301845.LAA00390@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > > That would give the opponents the right to create UI, which many are > doing, and which is intolerable. One opponent has UI, and you want to > make sure the other has UI also. Not good. > > "A PLAYER MAY NOT CORRECT THE ERROR BEFORE THE FINAL PASS" > > Pardon me for shouting. > > To quote from the Preface to the Laws: "Note that 'may' becomes very > strong in the negative: 'may not' is a stronger injuction than 'shall > not,' just short of 'must not.'" > > The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since the TD will > adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured by the > misinformation. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Someone else has just understood the De Wael school. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 19:21:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:21:20 +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 TAA15263 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:21:14 +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 LAA12802 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 11:21:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35498E7A.506627D8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:57:30 +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: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> <35488B39.F51600A1@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > There are some situations , whatever one will do will be > wrong. But , as I pointed for another thread , life is complex. > I believe that to be consistent is the best possible solution. > > Up to here - philosophy. Practically : > The only action which is demanded by Law is full disclosure of > the partnership's agreement . This must be done , first priority. NO ! At least one other action is clearly (IMHO even more clearly) described in the Laws : L75D2 : not telling your partner he was wrong ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 19:49:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:49:47 +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 TAA15460 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:49:40 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 1 May 1998 10:49:37 +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 KAA29898 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 10:49:17 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Acquiescence Withdraw (Reno Appeals Case Eight) In-Reply-To: <199804301947.MAA07330@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 09:47:22 +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 Marvin L. French wrote: > Robin Barker wrote: > > > I was reading the href="http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/renoapp.html"> > > Reno NABC appeals . Case eight is a case of an acquiescence of > > in claim withdrawn: I have reproduced the text of the case below. > > (The hand is not too important, EW bid to 7D which can be made by > > ruffing two spades in the hand with longer trumps before drawing > trumps.) > > > > If I have read the details correctly, either I do not undersand > L69B > > or the Reno TD and AC do not understand L69B. > > > > As I read L69B, NS (having acquiesced) can only get a trick back if > that trick could not be lost by any normal play. So NS will > > only get a trick if they must defend irrationally to let 7D make. > > > > The TD and AC seemed to both say that it would be irrational of > > East not to make 7D (which may be true). For me, the test should > > be it would be irrational of NS not to defeat 7D (obviously more > > true). > > > "By any normal play of the remaining cards" must refer to the play of > both sides, surely. The TD and AC decided that EW could not lose a > trick by any normal play by either side. A careful reading of L69B shows that Robin is definitely correct; it's not even slightly ambiguous. It says: "... a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." It clearly refers to tricks that "could not be lost" by the acquiescer, rather than by the claimer, since it is absurd to suppose that the acquiescer would withdraw his acquiescence on the grounds that his opponents couldn't lose a trick! Alternatively, Marvin suggests that the TD and AC would have adjusted the score if they had decided that a trick *could* be lost (by EW) by normal play. But the Law only allows the acquiescence to be withdrawn in the case of a trick that *couldn't* be lost by normal play, so it wouldn't give them the authority to adjust the score in this case. While I accept Marvin's general point on ambiguities caused by the word "any", the form of words "... could not ... by any ..." is unambiguous, so I don't think his point is relevant to this Law. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 22:40:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 22:40:24 +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 WAA16031 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 22:40:17 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic5.cais.com [207.226.56.5]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA12180 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 12:40:39 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501084332.006dc024@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 08:43:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Tournament - How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <35463E95.399E81DE@internet-zahav.net> References: <199804232331.TAA17249@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:39 PM 4/28/98 +0300, Dany wrote: >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 . Why? If anything, establishing that there was an irregularity significantly reduces the risk to the NOs of taking a double shot, since there is no longer the possibility that if the double-shot action goes wrong it will stand based on a finding that there was no irregularity. I'd be more suspicious of a possible intentional double shot under these circumstances, not less. Note too that there is nothing in the laws that makes double shots illegal, so why should the laws on other matters be slanted to prevent them? Others have argued here that double shots are a perfectly legitimate tactic, and are in fact a routine part of games other than bridge. The classic example, from American football, is a quarterback throwing a risky pass when he believes that his opponents may have been offside. 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 May 1 23:09:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:09:22 +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 XAA16227 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:09:17 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic5.cais.com [207.226.56.5]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA12690 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 13:09:39 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501091233.006df4c4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:12:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: High, middle, low In-Reply-To: <199804282352.TAA21258@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:52 PM 4/28/98 -0400, Steve 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? > >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. This is not a good example, since it is almost always the case that 2nd hand's LAs over 4S are (also) 5D and P, therefore the hesitation demonstrably suggests a 5D bid. A better example would be 1C-3D-3S-4D-P-P-4S-P(slow)-P-?. In this case, the huddler's LAs could be either 5D and P or double and P, so neither 5D nor double are demonstrably suggested. But Steve is asking the right question. And that, as I've said before, is what I understand to be the point of rewording L16A: "demonstrably... suggested" means suggested without reference to what the huddler actually holds. 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 May 1 23:27:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:27:35 +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 XAA16297 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:27:28 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yVFqs-0005JU-00; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:27:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:59:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <$Se42FA4qGS1EwaJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <$Se42FA4qGS1EwaJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > The Law requires you to tell the oppos that the bid shows diamonds. >Your social conscience requires you to tell them that you have clubs. > > So do both! If you feel you want to let oppos know you have [or might >have] clubs, tell them so. But that should not stop you following the >Laws. I do not mind whether you say: > >"My bid actually shows diamonds" > > or > >"My bid actually shows diamonds, though I must admit I usually get it >wrong!" > > or > >"My bid actually shows diamonds, though I often psyche in this position" > > But please follow the Laws. If you wish to help oppos as well, please >feel free. > Wahey David! This IS how to play bridge. What else can one possibly do? -- 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 Fri May 1 23:27:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:27:36 +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 XAA16296 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:27:28 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yVFqp-0005JL-00; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:27:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:02:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199804301823.OAA22647@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199804301823.OAA22647@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> You are pretty sure your partner (who had not a very good last >> >night), once more, has forgotten an agreement. You alert 2H (OK?) and, not >> >to your surprise, RHO enquires before passing. >> >What do you tell him? >> >> What you have just written. > >Except, presumably, the bit about being pretty sure partner has >forgotten -- unless there's some reason to believe so besides the >contents of your own hand. > Apart from your hand you do know that partner is having a bad day and the opponents are entitled to know that too. It is an understanding. >Alerting would be questionable or even wrong in some jurisdictions, but >that depends on local rules. -- 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 Fri May 1 23:30:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:30:46 +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 XAA16336 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:30:39 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yVFtz-0005Qr-00; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:31:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:29:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Spring 4's MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anybody who is anybody will be at the UK Spring 4's for the next 4 days. I shall be playing with proddy, so I should have some good TD baiting stories when I get back. Watch this space! -- 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 Fri May 1 23:40:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:40:00 +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 XAA16370 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:39:54 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic5.cais.com [207.226.56.5]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA13246 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 13:39:57 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501094241.0068e60c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:42:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau 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 +0000, E. wrote: >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 ? So far, whether either comment violated L73. Later on, though, he may have to decide whether E violated L16A. If this is from real life, I'd hazard a guess that the TD wasn't called to the table until after E led a club. 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 May 1 23:41:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:41:45 +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 XAA16387 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:41:37 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yVG4f-0000lt-00; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:42:02 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:13:42 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Self Explanations Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:13:40 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk GrattAn(!) wrote: > ++ Secondly, what began with Declarer got on to correction of > explanations by Defenders, in mid-stream. It does not matter whether > Declarer has asked for them or not, they are not going to be given > before the end of the play - the Director, who must be called before > the > correction is made, will see to the implementation of the Law as it is > - his job is to interpret and apply it, not to rewrite it. There are > at > least two reasons to justify the current state of the Law: > (a) explanations of the meanings of calls are based upon opinion as > to what is agreed; if two explanations conflict *either*, or *both*, > may > be wrong. The Laws do not allow of a second defender's opinion, > which may or may not be right, being added to the eventual confusion > until it cannot affect play; until play ends they do not even grant > opportunity for a defender to make an indication that he thinks > partner > may have misexplained the auction. > (b) the Lawmakers are so ungenerous as to deprive Declarer of the > opportunity to increase the number of explanations given to him and > thereby increase his chances of claiming misinformation at the end of > the hand. Players are also not to be offered opportunity to judge the > reactions of the first explainer when confronted by a partner > disagreeing with his explanation. > > I am slightly puzzled as to how Declarer would 'know' he had an > opponent with a different opinion as to the explanation he has been > given, and so be able to ask for a 'correction'? I am also not clear > as to the procedure which would allow of the kind of premature > 'correction' discussed; neither the correction nor any indication that > one may be due is permitted until the Director is at the table; the > Director may not be called in the matter until the correction may be > legally offered - the end of the auction for Declarer or Dummy, the > end of the play of the hand for a defender. ++++ Grattan ++++ > > > ##### DavidM ##### One example of the sort of situation I have in > mind is where the cards in Declarer's hand suggest to him that he has > received an incorrect explanation so he looks at the opponents' > convention cards and is able to confirm that this is so. I can then > see nothing whatsoever wrong in Declarer asking for clarification of > details of the system outlined on the convention card from the > opponent who appears to remember it rather than from the one who has > clearly forgotten it. Of course, the TD should be called by Declarer > at this point and the TD might send one Defender away from the table > to allow Declarer to receive a correct explantion from the other > Defender without the transmission of UI. It would still be naive, > however, to think that the Defender who has been sent away from the > table has not now been alerted to the problem. Another situation in > which IMO a TD could legitimately send a Defender away from the table > is when that Defender realises that his own explanation is incorrect > but cannot remember the correct one. #### DavidM ###### > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 1 23:49:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:49:40 +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 XAA16425 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 23:49:35 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010293; 1 May 98 13:27 GMT Message-ID: <5j63KZAd+ZS1EwoB@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:10:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Contract not agreed 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 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. > > No, it doesn't. It means he made a mistake. Perhaps he intended to >double, so five minutes later he believed he has. > > I accept this point entirely but to rule any other way is perverse, for the reason I gave. After all I must make a ruling to allow play to continue - in this case to allow the score to be entered. The AC can listen to the arguements. BTW the point about who passed last in another posting in the thread is an excellent pointer which I hadn't thought of. Thanks -- 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 May 2 00:05:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 00:05:32 +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 AAA16465 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 00:05:23 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yVGRe-0003CI-00; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:05:47 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:05:56 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Self Explanations Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:05:55 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > David Martin wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > > > ####OLD#### 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 > > > explanation immediately but this correct explanation is of course > UI > > > for his partner. #####OLD##### > > That would give the opponents the right to create UI, which many are > doing, and which is intolerable. One opponent has UI, and you want to > make sure the other has UI also. Not good. > > "A PLAYER MAY NOT CORRECT THE ERROR BEFORE THE FINAL PASS" > > Pardon me for shouting. > > To quote from the Preface to the Laws: "Note that 'may' becomes very > strong in the negative: 'may not' is a stronger injuction than 'shall > not,' just short of 'must not.'" > > > ######### When I wrote my original reply to Marv, I was fully aware > of the use of "may not" in the above quoted Law and of the > interpretation placed on it in the Preface to the Laws. Nevertheless, > I came to the conclusion that the use of "must" (the strongest > positive term) in Law 75A, ie. "must be fully and freely available", > is stronger than "may not" (as "must not" is the strongest negative > term) and, hence, in my original posting I concluded that "must be > fully and freely available" was "absolutely overriding". I can see no > reason (yet) to change that view. Consider the simple case where one > Defender has clearly given an incorrect explanation, the other clearly > realises this and knows the correct explanation of their agreements. > I do not suggest for a moment that the second Defender can do anything > under his own steam until the end of the play period because he is > clearly restrained by Law 75D2. However, if Declarer turns to him and > asks if his partner's original explanation was incorrect, then would a > reply along the lines of "I am restrained by Law 75D2 from saying or > indicating anything about that until the end of the play of the hand" > really be making their agreements "freely and fully available". I > think not. The best reply would be "Lets call the Director" and, > having done that, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which > the Director would not allow a correct explanation to be given unless > forbidden by some regulation of the SO. It is even more difficult to > see why the SO should have such a regulation, even if one did not > consider that such a regulation would be contrary to Law 75A. > ########## > > > The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since the TD will > adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured by the > misinformation. > > ######### Agreed but, on the positive side, it may be possible to > reduce the damage to Declarer by giving him the correct explanation > part way through the hand as damage from this point forward is now > impossible. ######## > > > ######### Forgetting the situation where an incorrect explanation > has been given for a moment, on the more general question of whom one > can ask about agreements, consider the situation with leads, signals > and discards during the play period. After the opening lead, can I > only ask the leader's partner about their leads? Can I only ask the > leader about their signals? I think not. So why should explanations > of calls be any different providing that it is Declarer who is > addressing the question to someone? ########### > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 2 00:12:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 00:12:43 +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 AAA17423 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 00:12:22 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic5.cais.com [207.226.56.5]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA13884 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:12:35 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501101530.006dcf00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:15:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Technology In-Reply-To: <1998Apr30.114400.1189.204083@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:51 AM 4/29/98 -0600, Richard wrote: >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... How does the agent react when the sequence isn't covered by the data? How can we distinguish gaps in the partnership agreements (especially in experienced partnerships) from gaps in the data? What of "implicit" agreements? What would happen to casual or pick-up partnerships? Would they be banned for being unwilling to spend far more time making and describing their agreements than they plan to spend playing on line? If every partnership knew enough about their own bidding sequences to make such a solution feasible, the game would be radically different from the one we play now. 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 May 2 01:05:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:05:25 +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 BAA18911 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:05:16 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic5.cais.com [207.226.56.5]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA15000 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:05:36 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501110831.006e82d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:08:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Casebooks (was Re: Correction Perio In-Reply-To: <199804292205.PAA05534@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:03 PM 4/29/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >You can buy them from the ACBL, but not from any other >source that I know of. FTR, you can get them from Baron Barclay (www.baronbarclay.com) (paperback only). 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 May 2 01:08:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:08:35 +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 BAA19003 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:08:28 +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 LAA00155; Fri, 1 May 1998 11:08:47 -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-1998May02.105300.1189.205095; Fri, 01 May 1998 10:59:50 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List), elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) Message-ID: <1998May02.105300.1189.205095@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:59:50 -0600 Subject: RE: Technology Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 10:21 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Technology At 11:51 AM 4/29/98 -0600, Richard wrote: > >I envision that for on line bridge, an optimally designed convention file >will consist of three main parts... First and foremost I agree completely that this type of system will be of most use to experienced and long lasting partnerships. With that caveat said and done, here are a few points. >How does the agent react when the sequence isn't covered by the data? How >can we distinguish gaps in the partnership agreements (especially in >experienced partnerships) from gaps in the data? What of "implicit" >agreements? I am in the process of trying to design and build just such a system as I described. One obvious problem is that trying to codify and represent a large number of bidding agreements is a monumental task. If anyone disagrees, take a look at Alan Truscott's Bidding Dictionary. For now, if there is a gap in the data, the agent provides no information what-so-ever. In this case, we are no worse off than we are today. >What would happen to casual or pick-up partnerships? Would they be banned >for being unwilling to spend far more time making and describing their >agreements than they plan to spend playing on line? Currently, on OKBridge there exists a series of pre-defined convention cards. Casual and pickup partnerships typically agree to use one of these cards as a base, perhaps adding in a favorite gadget or two. Plain text cards for a number of common systems are provided by the OKBridge client and new convention cards are continually being developed and made available. My expectation is that precisely the same sort of development process would extend to this new system. The average player might not have the experience required to design a complete system file, however, they could certainly agree to use an existing one. I do not expect a system like the one which I described to be a panacea. What I do believe is that it can provide a mechanism by which experienced partnerships have a timely and convenient method to provide large amounts of system information to other players. Equally importantly, I think that it is possible to organize this information in such a matter that important data does not get drowned out. I believe that it is important for players to lead by example. Different organizations can pass all the regulations they want trying to legislate behavior or morality or whatever. But in the end, what is truly important are the implicit standards which are present within that community. Plain and simple, its very annoying to have to go and type out alert strings describing all the different pieces of information which the other pair deserves to know during the course of an auction. Automating this task will decrease the "cost" of disclosing methods and presumably lead to more information being provided. It is true that there is a significant fixed cost associated with designing the initial convention card. My hope is that a suitable user interface can be developed to make this task as simple as possible. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 2 01:20:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:20:01 +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 BAA19120 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:19:56 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic5.cais.com [207.226.56.5]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA15262 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 15:20:15 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501112310.006ef728@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:23:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199804292305.QAA29800@d2.ikos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:05 PM 4/29/98 -0700, Everett wrote: >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? Yes. >Why is it so popular? Because at one time it was an accepted-by-consensus interpretation. But both law and interpretation have changed since then. 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 May 2 01:59:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:59:43 +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 BAA19502 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:59:37 +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 LAA12951 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 11:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980501115433.383f99b4@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:54:33 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Technology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980501101530.006dcf00@pop.cais.com> References: <1998Apr30.114400.1189.204083@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:15 AM 5/1/98 -0400, you wrote: >At 11:51 AM 4/29/98 -0600, Richard wrote: > >>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... > >How does the agent react when the sequence isn't covered by the data? How >can we distinguish gaps in the partnership agreements (especially in >experienced partnerships) from gaps in the data? What of "implicit" >agreements? What happens when this intelligent agent gives misinformation? TIm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 2 03:28:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 03:28:31 +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 DAA20000 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 03:28:20 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic153.cais.com [207.226.56.153]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA17402 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 17:28:41 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501133137.006d36f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:31:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980430141758.007f0440@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <35485224.983B3104@village.uunet.be> <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.5.32.19980429150507.007e0180@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:17 PM 4/30/98 +0200, Jean-Pierre wrote: >E dealer, both vul. >1D - 1H 2H > - ? > >Your hand (South): >J63 >A10642 >J853 >Q > >Your agreements are: >You are not a regular partnership and have only agreed on basic principles, >but both of you have a more regular partnership with a 3d player with whom >you play exactly the same system and conventions (he happens to be a very >tyrannic partner). You agreed that, for all points not directly agreed, >your agreement would be the one you (both) have with the 3d player. You >never discussed this 2H bid with your today partner (and of course, wrote >nothing on your CC) but, luckily, decided to play it natural (good hand, >good heart suit) like many players in your club, with 3d player (and wrote >it down on a CC which, you think, is at home, on your TV monitor, 100 miles >far away). You are pretty sure your partner (who had not a very good last >night), once more, has forgotten an agreement. You alert 2H (OK?) and, not >to your surprise, RHO enquires before passing. >What do you tell him? and what do you bid after RHO pass? Do I know what I think partner intended 2H as? I'll try two cases: (1) I have no idea; (2) I'm pretty sure he intended it as Schmegegy, since we've agreed to play 1H-2H as Schmegegy. Both cases: "We are not a regular partnership, and have not discussed this particular auction, but we did discuss some stuff that may be relevant. We made an agreement to play undefined auctions according to the agreements we both use with Mr. X, so if partner considers this an undefined auction, it should show hearts..." Case (1): "...but it's quite possible that we're not on the same wavelength and that partner intended it to have some completely different meaning." I'd have to be at the table to decide what to bid; there are several possibilities, including passing and hoping that partner doesn't give the show away. Case (2): "...We also agreed to play Schmegegy; I wouldn't have expected that to cover this auction, but partner may have other ideas, in which case he might well hold a Schmegegy-type hand." Then I'd bid whatever seems best opposite a Schmegegy (whatever that might be). I believe that this: (a) gives the information required by law, to the best of my ability, (b) gives additional gratuitous information not required by law, and (c) is ethically appropriate. An actively ethical player gives the opponents as much information as he thinks they should have, even if that's more information than the law requires him to give. A bridge lawyer gives them only as much information as he thinks they are entitled to under the law, and no more. An unethical player does one or the other depending on which he thinks will be more to his advantage. 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 May 2 03:43:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 03:43:35 +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 DAA20094 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 03:43:31 +1000 Received: from [131.217.107.15] (lab10.law.utas.edu.au [131.217.107.15]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA04392 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 03:43:59 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <88635001.35495808@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 03:46:24 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Self Explanations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Herman asked for a simple example. In the Fort Worth, Texas NABC several >years ago, a player held a 3-4-2-4 14 count. His partner opened 1C and he >responded 1H. His partner bid 1S and he called 3NT. After 3 passes, he >announced that there had been a failure to alert. Upon inquiry, he told the >opponents that his 1H bid could bypass a longer diamond suit. (At the time >this was an alert.) The OL shied away from a diamond lead after the >disclosure. Surprise! It was right to lead a diamond. The TD ruling was >that the result stands. This was appealed. The AC found themselves in a >"tough" position. As was pointed out, the 3NT bidder had done exactly as was >required of him by the Laws. He had NO option. Good. This is the result expected under law. If the opponents had received accurate information in the first place, they would also have avoided a D lead. Where is the problem here? The opponents have been fixed by the inferences drawn from the declaring side's methods. That's life and bridge. >I think Herman has hit the nail square on the head. Nobody is questioning >what the Law "says". But at some point we must all question what the intent >is. We want the opponents up to speed. ...on the agreements in the auction concerned. They have no right to anything else, and I don't see that this situation should be altered by amendment of the Laws. An additional statement to the effect that the bidder may or may not have a hand consistent with the misexplanation clears any "moral" misgivings - once the legal requirements are fulfilled. The opponents may or may not be damaged by the policy of telling them what you think is best for them - imagine if this policy was widespread - disreputable pairs would have a field day, explaining however they felt at the time, and hiding behind the fact that law allows them to misbid. >Then Mark Abraham writes: > >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. > >======================================================== > >UNREALISTIC! First we introduce them to a pink elephant and then we tell them >that under no circumstances should they think of a pink elephant. Sounds appropriate to me, especially when the pink elephant never existed. >======================================================== > >In the ACBL, we are now to announce our NT range if our agreement is that it >falls outside of the 15-18 range. With several partners I play 15-17 in first >and second and 14-16 in third and fourth. If I open 1NT in third with 15 and >partner fails to announce "14-16" and bids 3NT, you will never convince me >that I should disclose the MI (the failure to announce was just that) after >the third pass. How about RTFLB? Sentient opponents will realise that you may well have a 15 or 16 HCP hand and be acting as the law requires. Non-sentient opponents won't be able to observe that, if you were a player not willing to follow the letter of the law, that you would be more likely to hold 14 HCP than the incidentally-consistent 15 or 16. > Yet I will ALWAYS disclose that when I hold exactly 14. This >fact alone helps my partners to remember to make that announcement. Since >many know this about me, does that give them an edge? I guess it does if my >partner has failed in our responsibility. Should it be that way? Absolutely, >IMO. If you do not disclose that your agreement is 14-16 when u hold a 15 or 16 count then there will come a time when an opponent *can* prove damange based on false inference based on the point count indicated by the non-alerted auction. And then no AC will listen to the number of times you have alerted when u have happened to hold a 14 count. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 2 06:17:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 06:17:29 +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 GAA21177 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 06:17:23 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic139.cais.com [207.226.56.139]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA20309 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 20:17:45 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501162036.006d9620@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 16:20:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <88635001.35495808@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 AM 5/1/98 EDT, AlLeBendig wrote: >Herman asked for a simple example. In the Fort Worth, Texas NABC several >years ago, a player held a 3-4-2-4 14 count. His partner opened 1C and he >responded 1H. His partner bid 1S and he called 3NT. After 3 passes, he >announced that there had been a failure to alert. Upon inquiry, he told the >opponents that his 1H bid could bypass a longer diamond suit. (At the time >this was an alert.) The OL shied away from a diamond lead after the >disclosure. Surprise! It was right to lead a diamond. The TD ruling was >that the result stands. This was appealed. The AC found themselves in a >"tough" position. As was pointed out, the 3NT bidder had done exactly as was >required of him by the Laws. He had NO option. > >Many posters here seem to take that position regarding everything here as >"black and white". IMHO, many of us are too concerned with perceived conflicts between doing what the law requires and doing what we believe to be right. In real life, there is almost always a way to do both. Actively ethical players FIND options. 1C-P-1H-P-1S-P-3NT. "There has been a failure to alert..." I have an infinite number of options now. Here are two of them: ..."Partner forgot to tell you that I might very well have longer diamonds than hearts." ..."Just for the record, I am systemically allowed to hold longer diamonds than hearts in this auction." Would I be giving a reasonably perceptive opponent (at least one who believes that I am actively ethical) a clue as to what I actually hold? Yes. Does the law require me to do so? No. Does the law forbid me from doing so? No. Should I be willing to do so as a "self-imposed penalty" for my partner's having given the opponents misinformation? IMO, such willingness makes the difference between being minimally ethical and actively ethical. In real life, I will do this most of the time. I will keep my explanation carefully neutral only if I am playing against top-level players or bridge lawyers who I expect understand all of the legal implications of these situations. 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 May 2 06:53:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 06:53:23 +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 GAA21305 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 06:53:17 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic139.cais.com [207.226.56.139]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA20848 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 20:53:40 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980501165636.006d8d70@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 16:56:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: References: <199804301823.OAA22647@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:02 AM 5/1/98 +0100, John wrote: >Apart from your hand you do know that partner is having a bad day and >the opponents are entitled to know that too. It is an understanding. By that implicit definition, everything I know is "an understanding". I do not believe that partner's mental state is "special information conveyed to [me] through partnership agreement or partnership experience", nor that I am required to give the opponents a core dump of everything I know that might be relevant to partner's actions at the table. "General knowledge and experience" surely includes anything that isn't directly related to the game of bridge. If I know that partner's bidding might be adversely affected by his worrying about whether his wife will find out about his mistress, am I obligated to inform my opponents of this? 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 May 2 10:05:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 10:05:25 +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 KAA21816 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 10:05:19 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2467.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.103]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA02671 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 01:05:43 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: go back. Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 01:04:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd755d$ed63f040$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Friday, May 01, 1998 3:29 PM Subject: Re: go back. >At 11:02 AM 4/29/98 +0000, E. wrote: > >>Bidding goes : N E S W >> 1S p 2S p >> 3S p p p >>And now South says "back to 2S" and W says alright then I bid 3C. What must >>the TD decide ? The Laws have a sence of humour. Law 39A cancels the 2S insuficient bid. "any call" is cancelled without penalty. Law 35D allows for the 3C bid to be cancelled without penalty. So the original offender has been sniped at by the Laws, giving his opps a considerable edge! I think this endorses the opinion of some. "You are not here to enjoy yourself" Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 2 10:28:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 10:28:02 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21880 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 10:27:55 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa24788; 1 May 98 17:26 PDT To: Anne Jones MMDF-Warning: Unable to confirm address in preceding line at flash.irvine.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: go back. In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 May 1998 01:04:51 PDT." <01bd755d$ed63f040$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 17:25:52 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805011726.aa24788@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >At 11:02 AM 4/29/98 +0000, E. wrote: > > > >>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 ? > > The Laws have a sence of humour. Law 39A cancels the 2S insuficient bid. > "any call" is cancelled without penalty. > Law 35D allows for the 3C bid to be cancelled without penalty. So the > original offender has been sniped at by the Laws, giving his opps a > considerable edge! Law 35 applies only if the inadmissible call (3C) is condoned by a subsequent call by North. That's not the case here. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 2 11:05:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 11:05:15 +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 LAA22017 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 11:05:09 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yVQkB-0000BZ-00; Sat, 2 May 1998 02:05:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:58:03 +0100 To: Barbara and Richard Odlin Cc: Donald Mamula , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Barbara and Richard Odlin writes > Another view is that a penalty card is not a penalty card unless it has >been so designated by the director. > Labeo: Law 50 says quite otherwise. A card prematurely exposed, but not led, by a defender *is* a penalty card unless the Director says it is not. It is a penalty card from the moment it is exposed, even before the Director arrives at the table. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 2 15:00:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA22415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:00:28 +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 PAA22410 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:00:22 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA05820; Fri, 1 May 1998 22:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 22:00:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Barbara and Richard Odlin To: Labeo cc: Donald Mamula , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's Duties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok i guess it used to be that way in the old laws rbo From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 00:10:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 00:10:16 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23598 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 00:10:01 +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 KAA01457 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 10:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24104; Sat, 2 May 1998 10:10:44 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 10:10:44 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805021410.KAA24104@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: go back. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Law 35 applies only if the inadmissible call (3C) is condoned by a > subsequent call by North. That's not the case here. Is 3C an inadmissible call? I thought that term only applied to bids of more than seven, doubling one's own contract, and such. Here, 3C is a perfectly admissible bid; it just came at the wrong time. I'd say L39 applies, and L35 does not. This makes more logical sense, too. Grattan: do we need a definition of "inadmissible call" in 2007? From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 00:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 00:21:22 +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 AAA25905 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 00:21:15 +1000 Received: from default (client8524.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.36]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA14282; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:21:36 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 15:12:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd75d4$46ce8ca0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Date: 30 April 1998 18:26 Subject: FW: Self Explanations > >> Steve wrote: >> >> From: David Martin>> >> >>>> \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ and someone said, but I am not clear who..... >> ######### I believe that the answer to this question is yes >> (sadly). Law 20F does say "During the auction............" and >> ".........replies *should* normally be given by the partner of a >> player who makes a call in question." The first quoted part clearly >> indicates that this Law applies during the whole of the live auction >> period and not just prior to an opening lead (when Declarer or Dummy >> might correct an erroneous explanantion). The second quoted part >> clearly leaves room in exceptional circumstances for a player to ask >> the caller rather than their partner about a particular call if >> necessary>> >> \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ ++++ Disagree with the last sentence. To do something declared by the laws to be abnormal a player requires the consent of the TD. Sponsoring Organisations should guide TDs as to what factors are to be considered justification of the abnormal action, and they are (to be polite) "very unwise" if they readily permit players to give explanations of their own calls except in circumstances where a correction is legal and not premature, or when behind closed screens. Note that whereas the Laws do not provide for the questioner to address his question to a particular opponent they do indicate which opponent should normally reply to a question asked. The questioner is not able to transfer a question to the other opponent since the questioner does not control who should reply. The abnormal action is for an opponent to explain his own call and it is for this abnormality that the opponent giving the explanation requires the consent of the TD; if he gives the explanation before getting the TD's approval he may jeopardise his own position should a ruling be required. If a player observes that there is a conflict between the convention card and a verbal explanation given he has noted an irregularity and his route to resolve it is to call the TD.++++ ++++Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 02:07:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 02:07:53 +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 CAA26825 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 02:07:44 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-240.access.net.il [192.116.198.240]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA02654; Sat, 2 May 1998 19:06:55 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354B455B.E082F9CD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 19:10:03 +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: Self Explanations References: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> <35488B39.F51600A1@internet-zahav.net> <35498E7A.506627D8@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman I agree with your remark about 75D2 - I never thought that the full disclosure will appear contrary to 75D2 - before your opponents' opening lead , or before play ends (if defenders); but if asked by your opponents ANYTIME , full disclosure of the AGREEMENT is the first priority ..... The more difficult cases are when you become defender - then the NO side doesn't know the truth almost until the play ends. In such cases the TD has to decide a complex situation, including adjusted score , PP and more... Herman De Wael wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > There are some situations , whatever one will do will be > > wrong. But , as I pointed for another thread , life is complex. > > I believe that to be consistent is the best possible solution. > > > > Up to here - philosophy. Practically : > > The only action which is demanded by Law is full disclosure of > > the partnership's agreement . This must be done , first priority. > > NO ! > > At least one other action is clearly (IMHO even more clearly) described > in the Laws : L75D2 : not telling your partner he was wrong ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 04:12:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 04:12:10 +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 EAA27181 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 04:12:02 +1000 Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 04:12:02 +1000 Received: (qmail 29213 invoked from network); 2 May 1998 18:12:27 -0000 Received: from pm02-d076.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.76) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 2 May 1998 18:12:27 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980502131203.3d4f6960@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: Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: Self Explanations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 AM 5/1/98 EDT, you wrote: >Herman asked for a simple example. In the Fort Worth, Texas NABC several >years ago, a player held a 3-4-2-4 14 count. His partner opened 1C and he >responded 1H. His partner bid 1S and he called 3NT. After 3 passes, he >announced that there had been a failure to alert. Upon inquiry, he told the >opponents that his 1H bid could bypass a longer diamond suit. (At the time >this was an alert.) The OL shied away from a diamond lead after the >disclosure. Surprise! It was right to lead a diamond. The TD ruling was >that the result stands. This was appealed. The AC found themselves in a >"tough" position. As was pointed out, the 3NT bidder had done exactly as was >required of him by the Laws. He had NO option. > I can't believe a such appeal that is totally missing merit creates a "discussion" in the AC. I mean this 3NT bidder is ONLY following L75D.2 in the 87 yrs edition. It says there the Declarer or Dummy MUST correct eventual errors direct after the final pass. NOT doing so is breaking the law. If the 3NT pairs CC have might bypass Di box checked on the ACBL card they also have evidence that they are actually saying there system agreements. But what to do if one of the CC's have box checked and the otherone don't ?? the "case" is getting tricker doesn't it. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 08:17:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 08:17:36 +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 IAA28022 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 08:17:26 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00687 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805022217.PAA00687@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com (Unverified) 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 Before finally leaving this subject which I think is derailing from the track, I must comment on some assertions made by both the "De Wael school" proponent(s?) and the righteous self-appointed "crusaders of the lost Active Ethics". First Herman: >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. and: >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. and: >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. and: >I do not wish to enter into a discussion on why I think it should be >allowed to break L75C. why not, btw? Your inclinations would cause anarchy (or is it only YOU who should have such a right??) >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. You need to write the text of L72A1 and 6 a hundred times on the blackboard. Furthermore , your reading of L72B2 (I assume this to be the one abt *intentional* breaches, i.e. B1 in the 1987 version) is ludicrously self-serving. What it says is that you may not breach a law EVEN IF there is a "prescribed penalty". To make it even clearer it goes on to say that the breach may be considered even more serious if there is NOT a prescribed penalty. So, if you opine that there is no "prescribed penalty" for breaking L75C, your intentionally breaking it may be even more serious. To make a soccer comparison: If you accidentally kick an opponents leg inside your penalty-area so that he falls, a penalty-shot is prescribed. If you do it intentionally, they get the shot, and IN ADDITION you get a yellow or red card. >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 ? 1) see above 2) The problem is that you are into the business of trying to predict what might be better for the opponents. The Laws are written so as to specifically take away this subjective element from the players. Many laws force you to do certain things, and recognize that doing those things can damage opponents (create UI etc) but then refer to those relevant laws to handle that. Nowhere in the laws have I found that they specify or imply that a player may exercise judgement on whether/how to follow the laws. On the contrary, the TD/AC are given certain disretionary powers. If the Laws (and their makers) intended also for players to have such discretion, wouldn't they say so rather than having wordings such as in 72A1, A3 and A6? In another post Herman claims that 75C is open to interpretation on what one's obligations are but that 75D2 clearly states that priority is not to indicate to pard that a mistake has been made. Again, Herman uses some very "inventive" reading to justify his position. It seems absolutely clear both from a linguistical and (bridge-)logical point of view that L75D2 - reading ALL of it and not only the 2 lines Herman mentions in isolation - forbids us from either correcting, OR indicating to pard in any (OTHER) manner, a mistake has been made, IMMEDIATELY. Then it tells us we MUST (after calling TD) correct it at such and such time. It hints to NO OPTION whatsoever on our part based on what we percieve best for opponents or otherwise. It says "MUST", not "may" or "could" or even "should". Somewhere I believe it has been clarified that the use of "must" in the laws alludes to the strongest possible compliance. Some others (the Active Ethics Crusaders) have expressed that it is appropriate for players to inflict wounds upon oneself if one feels that opponents might be damaged or have any kind of problem. There is absolutely no hint to this being required, or even allowed, by the laws. Quite to the contrary, the laws are rather specific in saying that the TD MUST be called for any irregularity, and L72A6 very specifically gives "SOLELY" TD and the laws powers to penalize, specifically EXCLUDING the players from this responsibility. L10A as well. It is a shame for all ethical AND law-obiding players that "active ethics" has been misused so much. "active ethics" is not a law, it's a "concept" or "principle" intended to ensure that players "actively" follow the proprieties of the game to the utmost degree. It was never intended - or so I believe - to contradict the laws and start a process where players "take the law in their own hands". If "AE" was intended as a way around the laws, without the due (but longer) process of changing them, then following such "AE" wouldn't be very ethical. Regarding the example: (1D) P (1H) 2H (P) ?? a) one explains all one knows of course, ie that not discussed but 3rd player agreements are default which in this case would be "natural" etc,etc. Of course the fact that we are uncertain becomes UI for pard, and he is not allowed to let himself be "awakened" by our explanation. b) What to bid? Well, if we had only 2 card hearts we would assume pard remembered that 2H is natural with the other mutual pard, so it is only our cards that give us any doubt. We can legally (and ethically) draw any inferences from them. It *is* possible that LHO psyched 1H (Helgemo once psyched a 2/1 as an unpassed hand!), and wouldn't pard be p....d with us if we assumed him forgetting, thus missing a cold 4H?! I believe we are allowed to choose whom to believe, and bid whatever we consider best in line with that choice. The one facing restrictions will be *partner*, the 2H bidder. c) If I bid 3 or 4H, I think pard is allowed to bid 3 or 4S (if he indeed has, and feels he has shown, a 2-suiter with spades). Passing 3/4H isn't a LA since I passed 1D! If I bid 2S (guessing pard "forgot") it is trickier. Since I passed over 1D I can hardly have a hand wanting to play 2S when pard has long hearts. If pard misbid (ie has the spade 2-suiter) he can't be "awakened" by my explanation, so should assume I just gave preference to spades and bid accordingly. Of course in this case it will be difficult to prove misbid (100 miles is a long way) and a TD?AC might rule ME and adjust against us if we land on our feet, *but that in itself doesn't mean we acted unethically*! d) Is it allowed/ethical for us to make the *legal* bid that we feel reduces pard's losing options and maximises our chances to keep a normal result if we land on our feet? I believe it is, but I'm aware that many AECs (Active Ethics Crusaders) feel that a partnership who are unsure on their agreements should *never* be allowed a normal, let alone good, result. I guess the "De Wael school" would require us to say that "based on my hand I think pard has S+C although he's supposed to have H". Regarding the example: 1C 1H 1S 3NT where responder has 3424 pattern and pard didn't alert the D-bypass, I feel a bit differently. With GF strength most "bypassers" don't bypass, and with that pattern and bad D a FSF 2D might be normal, so here the "correction" of pard's failure to alert smacks of deceit to discourage a D - lead and (mis-)using the Laws to achieve it. Unless they could prove incontrovertibly that they do bypass D even with GF strength I'd rule ME and adjust, and possibly report the incident for the record. If they can prove it, my decision would depend on what I feel at the table when talking to them. I couldn't make an offsetting PP for the failure to alert, since that failure didn't cause damage. I would check their minor-raise structure, FSF - structure, if 3C would be forcing or not, etc. Btw, if the example was that responder bid 1NT on 9/10 hcp, raising pard's invitational 2NT to 3NT, it would be very tough to adjust and that might be a "better" example! From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 08:39:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 08:39:10 +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 IAA28059 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 08:39:04 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA02203 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 15:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 15:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805022239.PAA02203@mh2.cts.com> X-Sender: jkamras@sd.cts.com (Unverified) 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 Eric landau wrote: > >1C-P-1H-P-1S-P-3NT. "There has been a failure to alert..." >Should I be willing to do so as a "self-imposed penalty" for my partner's >having given the opponents misinformation? Partner didn't give MI. Partner forgot to alert. >IMO, such willingness makes the >difference between being minimally ethical and actively ethical. This is a complete misinterpretation/misuse of AE, since the laws specifically and unambiguously *prohibits* players from doing the penalising. It is *not* ethical, actively or otherwise, to break the law. Why can't you guys just call the TD when there's a (potential) irregularity, and let him/her tell you what to do? As opposed to the players, the TD *does* have legal rights to penalize you, and/or restore equity if an infraction occured for which their is no, or an insufficient, penalty. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 09:56:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 09:56:36 +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 JAA28233 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 09:56:29 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2561.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.97]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA28425 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 00:56:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: go back Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 00:56:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7625$df6a6000$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam is of course correct. I had overlooked the fact that N had not bid after the 3C. I think that Steve Willner has raised an interesting point. 3C is an inadmissible bid because Law 35 says so. Law 35 describes four types of inaddmissible bid. A Double or Redouble not permitted by Law 19. B.A Bid, Double or Redouble by a player required by Law to Pass. C A bid of more than Seven and D. A call after the Final Pass. ( It doesn't say the first bid after the Final Pass) >Is 3C an inadmissible call? I thought that term only applied to bids of >more than seven, doubling one's own contract, and such. Here, 3C is a >perfectly admissible bid; it just came at the wrong time. I'd say L39 >applies, and L35 does not. This makes more logical sense, too. Law 39 applies, and Law 39 points us to Law 35D where applicable. This Law clearly states that this bid is "inadmissible". Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 19:49:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:35 +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 TAA29330 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:27 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-137.uunet.be [194.7.13.137]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10831 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 11:49:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <354C2CC3.68D47A71@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 10:37:23 +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: <35485224.983B3104@village.uunet.be> <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.5.32.19980429150507.007e0180@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.1.32.19980501133137.006d36f4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > I believe that this: (a) gives the information required by law, to the best > of my ability, (b) gives additional gratuitous information not required by > law, and (c) is ethically appropriate. > > An actively ethical player gives the opponents as much information as he > thinks they should have, even if that's more information than the law > requires him to give. A bridge lawyer gives them only as much information > as he thinks they are entitled to under the law, and no more. An unethical > player does one or the other depending on which he thinks will be more to > his advantage. > A "De Wael school" player is a third type (Since I would not like to be classified with the unethical players). To quote your three points above, the information I suggest giving to opponents is (a) equally complete in telling opponents what they need to know. (b) gives them the same (extra) information, without them knowing it (c) seems to me ethically just as appropriate (d) much shorter. It tells them one less thing. It does not reveal to them that we are on a different wavelength. I do believe this is not required by Law. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 19:49:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:36 +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 TAA29331 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:27 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-137.uunet.be [194.7.13.137]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10836 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 11:49:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <354C2D63.55DE63CD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 10:40:03 +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: <199804301823.OAA22647@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19980501165636.006d8d70@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > If I know that partner's bidding might be adversely affected by his > worrying about whether his wife will find out about his mistress, am I > obligated to inform my opponents of this? > Certainly not when playing against his wife ! (or his mistress) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 19:49:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:37 +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 TAA29333 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:30 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-137.uunet.be [194.7.13.137]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10843 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 11:49:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <354C2F22.975912A9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 10:47:30 +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: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> <35488B39.F51600A1@internet-zahav.net> <35498E7A.506627D8@village.uunet.be> <354B455B.E082F9CD@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Hi Herman > > I agree with your remark about 75D2 - I never thought that > the full disclosure will appear contrary to 75D2 - before > your opponents' opening lead , or before play ends (if defenders); > but if asked by your opponents ANYTIME , full disclosure of > the AGREEMENT is the first priority ..... > Only one objection to this statement : The sentence "if asked by opponents" is completely irrelevant. Sometimes there may be a difference in alerting procedure, and then what. Besides, we are talking theoretically, so hiding behind the fact that the problem sometimes does not occur (as in my original example, where opponents did not ask about 4NT) is not important. By definition, opponents should be informed. So the problem is always there. I think many of you read the Law in a different order. You read : you MUST tell them the agreement. I read : you shall tell them the agreement (AT LEAST). They cannot complain when they have only received the agreement and nothing more. I read this Law in the negative : If you do not tell them all the agreements, and they are damaged, then that damage shall be redressed. If I tell them the cards, surely they cannot be damaged ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 3 19:49:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:45 +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 TAA29349 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:49:39 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-137.uunet.be [194.7.13.137]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10847 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 11:50:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <354C32EF.4DFC9F0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 11:03:43 +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: <199805022217.PAA00687@mh2.cts.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Great posting, Jan ! Jan Kamras wrote: > > Before finally leaving this subject which I think is derailing from the > track, I must comment on some assertions made by both the "De Wael school" > proponent(s?) and the righteous self-appointed "crusaders of the lost Active > Ethics". > Great choice of words! > First Herman: > > >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. > > and: > > >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. > > and: > > >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. > > and: > > >I do not wish to enter into a discussion on why I think it should be > >allowed to break L75C. > > why not, btw? Your inclinations would cause anarchy (or is it only YOU who > should have such a right??) > I have been driven into a corner by people suggesting I was breaking L75C, and so I was willing to concede that I was. When I feel I have no course left but to break one Law or another, I am forced to admit that I break one. I am not certain if I am breaking L75C, as I have since explained in some other posts. But if some of you think I am, then all I can say is that I felt forced to do so and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. > >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. > > You need to write the text of L72A1 and 6 a hundred times on the blackboard. Can I use copy and paste ? I didn't think so. Consider them written. I told you I was in a dilemma situation. I know it. > Furthermore , your reading of L72B2 (I assume this to be the one abt > *intentional* breaches, i.e. B1 in the 1987 version) is ludicrously > self-serving. What it says is that you may not breach a law EVEN IF there is > a "prescribed penalty". To make it even clearer it goes on to say that the > breach may be considered even more serious if there is NOT a prescribed > penalty. So, if you opine that there is no "prescribed penalty" for breaking > L75C, your intentionally breaking it may be even more serious. I told you I was in a corner. When being forced to choose between breaking a Law which has a strong MAY NOT in it (and a harsh implication in the form of L16 restirctions upon partner) and one with a softer SHALL (and softer implication in the form of AS on misinformation), then I feel I am allowed to break L72B2 as well. Just see that L72B2 applies just as strongly on my perceived breaking of L75D2 ! > > >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 ? > > 1) see above > 2) The problem is that you are into the business of trying to predict what > might be better for the opponents. agreed. That is why this is a dilemma. > The Laws are written so as to > specifically take away this subjective element from the players. Many laws > force you to do certain things, and recognize that doing those things can > damage opponents (create UI etc) but then refer to those relevant laws to > handle that. When the Laws do not cover a specific point (how to explain partner's next bidding after he has just misexplained your bid ?), then the subjective element returns. When originally posted, the problem was asked as to what recommendation to give to players is such a situation. Quite without feeling this was a minority position, I said what I would do. I got scorched since, been taken for walks, and managed to convince just a couple of you. I will offer my opinion to no-one in future, act as I do, and defend my position to the AC's ! > In another post Herman claims that 75C is open to interpretation on what > one's obligations are but that 75D2 clearly states that priority is not to > indicate to pard that a mistake has been made. > Again, Herman uses some very "inventive" reading to justify his position. > It seems absolutely clear both from a linguistical and (bridge-)logical > point of view that L75D2 - reading ALL of it and not only the 2 lines Herman > mentions in isolation - forbids us from either correcting, OR indicating to > pard in any (OTHER) manner, a mistake has been made, IMMEDIATELY. Then it > tells us we MUST (after calling TD) correct it at such and such time. It > hints to NO OPTION whatsoever on our part based on what we percieve best for > opponents or otherwise. It says "MUST", not "may" or "could" or even > "should". Somewhere I believe it has been clarified that the use of "must" > in the laws alludes to the strongest possible compliance. > I think you are now coming over to my side. Not in ANY WAY may you transmit to partner that he has made a mistake. IM(H)O this includes explaining his next call in such a manner that it allows him to wake up, which is exactly hat this all started around. I leave the comments on the Crusaders of the Active Ethics to them. May I say that I thouroughly enjoyed Jan's comments there too ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 4 07:02:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 07:02:55 +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 HAA03956 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 07:02:48 +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 OAA14475 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 14:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805032102.OAA14475@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: "Review, Please" Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 14:00:48 -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 Alan LeBendig wrote: > If all those opposed to verbal questions would read Law 20F, perhaps we could > end this senseless discussion. > If all those who favor oral questioning of individual calls whose meaning/range are clearly shown on the convention card would read Law 20F, perhaps we could end this senseless discussion. Law 20F: "...any player...may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction" Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 4 07:24:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 07:24:28 +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 HAA04058 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 07:24:21 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (C5300-1-97.nt.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.99]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA17591 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 00:23:12 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 00:23:12 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199805032123.AAA17591@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 03:39 PM 2/5/98 -0700, Jan Kampras wrote: >Eric landau wrote: > >> >>1C-P-1H-P-1S-P-3NT. "There has been a failure to alert..." > >>Should I be willing to do so as a "self-imposed penalty" for my partner's >>having given the opponents misinformation? > >Partner didn't give MI. Partner forgot to alert. Partner forgetting to alert is definitely "giving misinformation.", as much as if he had alerted and given the wrong explanation. How can it be otherwise? Eitan > From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 4 08:04:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 08:04:27 +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 IAA04170 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 08:04:18 +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 KAA25694 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 10:04:45 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 10:06:06 +1200 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: "Michael H. Albert" Subject: Director's error (gasp!) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As is my wont I'll begin with a fairly long mise en scene. I'm actively in favour of selective quotation or summarizing by responders and this is my own personal means of trying to achieve that goal. Before the flames start about browbeating LOP's etc let me add that though I was personally involved (as a player, in the "closed" room) in the events which I am about to describe that even with "the most unfavourable ruling at all possible" the story would still have had a happy ending for our side, so I have no emotional baggage to carry here. The tournament: A teams event with 12 entries divided into two sections. Each section plays a round robin of 12 board matches scored on the "non-American" 30 VP scale. Then first plays first, second plays second, etc in one more 12 board match to determine the final placings. Beyond pride, there is no reward for finishing anywhere outside of the top 3. The match: It's the final match of the round robin portion. Team A are leading their section by margins of 5 and 11 VP against teams who are playing against each other in this round. Team B are lying 4th or 5th, and are completely out of contention for the lead, and realistically are out of contention for second place in the section. The hand: Dlr: S Vul: NS KQ8763 T974 J 52 A9 JT J6 K83 AQ832 K65 AQJ8 KT974 542 AQ52 T974 63 The closed room: SA WB NA EB P 1D 1S 2C 2S 4N P 5C P P P EW +400 The open room: SB WA NB EA P 1C* 1S** P 2C P P x P P P * Precisionish (16+ if unbalanced, 18+ if balanced) ** Alerted as suction, clubs or the reds. (Of course this is all a bit funny, east passed a club positive, hoping to sit a takeout x by partner of the 2c puppet over 1s. West passed 2c hoping partner could make a takeout double of clubs. At his final turn east was a bit puzzled since partner's pass implied some club length. Having shown no values yet he needed to do something and a rather flawed takeout x, to be followed presumably by 3n seemed the most appealing.) NS +1400 The story: Before his final pass, NB asked to speak to the director away from the table. The director either misunderstood his explanation of the situation, or the explanation was unclear, and told him that he must not bid again. The issue: After the hand, South B claims damage (of course there was a bit of a post mortem and north said something along the lines of "I wanted to correct to spades, but the director said I couldn't"). Note that there is enough "space" in the auction that a 2S correction could not conceivably be showing the reds with spade tolerance or some such. 2S would beget a more normal result of 400 or thereabouts EW. Whether NB should pull 2Cx with doubleton support is problematic, but the participants agree that this particular NB almost certainly would. The ruling: Director realizes that incorrect advice was given to NB, and decides to simply pull the board from the match. This results in a 19-11 loss for team A. Fortunately (for A, and the smooth progression of the tournament) the other two contenders played to a 16-14 win for the lower of the two teams, so A needed only 9 VP to qualify for the final (and there is no carry over.) The matter rests. Even if the board were to be redealt it would take a large double digit imp swing against A for them to lose their qualification. The questions: What should have been done? (Aside from the obvious of getting it right in the first place.) I only have the '87 laws to hand (apologies), and the only law referring to director's error (82C) says: "If the director gives a ruling that he, or the Chief Director, subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose." (note the very strong "shall") So that should have been +3, +3 rather than pulling the board. (And it not being a KO match the scores are not averaged.) It all seems fairly clear cut but potentially very inequitable. If the outcome of the other match had been different then A might have "needed" a large swing on this board. Through no fault of their own they are denied the opportunity to achieve such a swing. As far as I can see 86C (which disallows a redeal in the event that the result of a match without the redeal might be known to a contestant) will prevent a redeal/replay of the board unless the director is very quick off the mark. Alternatively suppose that the +3,+3 ruling had been given and this increased A's VP's from 8 to 9, just allowing the first place qualification. All of a sudden a team from the other match are disadvantaged. Perhaps others see this more clearly than I? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 Mon May 4 10:01:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 10:01:30 +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 KAA04517 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 10:01:22 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-48.access.net.il [192.116.198.48]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA14733; Mon, 4 May 1998 03:00:22 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354D05DB.8F351BBA@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 03:03:39 +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: Self Explanations References: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> <35488B39.F51600A1@internet-zahav.net> <35498E7A.506627D8@village.uunet.be> <354B455B.E082F9CD@internet-zahav.net> <354C2F22.975912A9@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hmmmmmmmm We don't play bridge in a sterile glass cage ........ The lawmakers had to decide what is the best way to restore equity (which is very difficult from the point "something went wrong" either irregularity or MI or UI or .....etc) or redress/compensate damage. Herman De Wael wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > > > I agree with your remark about 75D2 - I never thought that > > the full disclosure will appear contrary to 75D2 - before > > your opponents' opening lead , or before play ends (if defenders); > > but if asked by your opponents ANYTIME , full disclosure of > > the AGREEMENT is the first priority ..... > > > > Only one objection to this statement : The sentence "if asked by > opponents" is completely irrelevant. Sometimes there may be a > difference in alerting procedure, and then what. Sorry - if you try to be "the divine gentleman" it is bad for bridge . Can't tell or rectify an explanation before auction finishes or - if defenders - the play finishes , because than you show UI. ************************************************************* The lawmakers decided that UI to your partner is worse than MI to opponents . ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't know what were there reasons but my balance shows the same. I know that there are some TDs who say ... send a player away from the table ......Some one must be "super-dumb" or playing for 2 weeks in order to ignore that the main "send away" is an UI , .. any moron and up understands something was wrong ... > Besides, we are talking theoretically, so hiding behind the fact that > the problem sometimes does not occur (as in my original example, where > opponents did not ask about 4NT) is not important. > By definition, opponents should be informed. So the problem is always > there. > > I think many of you read the Law in a different order. > > You read : > > you MUST tell them the agreement. > > I read : > > you shall tell them the agreement (AT LEAST). > > They cannot complain when they have only received the agreement and > nothing more. > I read this Law in the negative : > If you do not tell them all the agreements, and they are damaged, then > that damage shall be redressed. You say all agreements - I said full disclosure , which means all relevant information .......... > > If I tell them the cards, surely they cannot be damaged ? > Ha .. Even myself don't see all my cards , so it will be not polite to tell opponents what I don't know myself !!!!!!!! LOL > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 4 11:24:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:24:35 +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 LAA04706 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:24:28 +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 SAA12564; Sun, 3 May 1998 18:24:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805040124.SAA12564@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 18:22:47 -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 The "Herman Principle," which involves not misleading the opponents by legally correcting a misexplanation, conflicts with the "Kaplan Principle," which says that players are required to do everything legal in order to win (e.g., throwing a preliminary match vs a weak team when doing so eliminates a feared rival). I think E.K. would say that it also means not following the Herman Principle. We have a right to benefit from our selected conventions and treatments, and letting an incorrect explanation stand because it describes one's hand better than a correct one throws away the benefit. In the case of Alerts, if my Alertable call sometimes shows hand A and sometimes the standard hand B, I expect to gain from it occasionally. If partner fails to Alert when I hold hand B, and I don't flag the failure, I lose the benefit that the convention affords. However, I think that partner, not I, whether declarer or dummy, should do any explaining of the call when I cite his/her failure to Alert (or Announce). If partner gives a misexplanation and I become declarer or dummy, I call the TD as required, take him aside, and explain the matter. If the correct explanation would give a worse picture of my hand than the wrong one, I ask the TD to take partner aside and get him/her to give the correct explanation, perhaps after conferring with me. I wouldn't want to do it myself. This method works better psychologically than just spouting the correct explanation while illegally failing to call the TD, even if the result is the same. Players should be educated to the fact that such corrections are strictly *pro forma,* and that any inferences taken are at one's own risk. As for the Kaplan Principle, if I were the non-playing captain of a team that would do well to lose a match in order to gain a better position for winning an event, I would have my strongest pair sit out and tell the others to play their very best game. I can't find anything in the Laws that says this more sportsmanlike approach is illegal. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 4 17:52:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA05551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 17:52:36 +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 RAA05546 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 17:52:29 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA00315 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Mon, 4 May 1998 09:52:26 +0200 Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 09:52:26 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Fifth Friday - may 1998 - announcement In-Reply-To: <35497ED9.68D3D280@village.uunet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 1 May 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: > The month of May has five fridays. > > So we play a fifth friday simultaneous tournament on the 29th. Which reminds me of something else... Months ago, somebody (DavidS???) announced a simultaneous tournament in June'98. I can't find the mail anymore but is this still going to happen? (And, no, sorry Herman, our club would like to participate but doesn't have a room available on Fridays). 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 Mon May 4 21:37:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 21:37:44 +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 VAA05970 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 21:37:38 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-153.uunet.be [194.7.13.153]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17285 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 13:38:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <354DA417.4D9AD080@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 13:18:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael H. Albert wrote: > (snip : director error seems obvious or is at least assumed to get to the bottom of this) > > What should have been done? (Aside from the obvious of getting it right in > the first place.) > > I only have the '87 laws to hand (apologies), and the only law referring to > director's error (82C) says: > > "If the director gives a ruling that he, or the Chief Director, > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow > the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose." > > (note the very strong "shall") > This is clear, what follows has nowhere been written down. There are no regulations in your tournament covering this problem and there aren't even standard regulations covering this in, say World Championships. As an (the) authority on this subject (and the De Wael school of calculation will no doubt have more followers than the one on ethical bidding) I will offer my opinion on how the rules should be that are needed to deal with problems of this sort. First of all, I feel the players at the other table deserve some better fate than to see their result being scratched altogether. I would therefor never simply award +3 to both sides. Rather, as I once suggested, I would determine some "standard" result, which shall count as basis for the comparison with the other table. To this difference can then be added 3 IMPs to both teams, if the TD decides to award A+. Alternatively, I have once suggested do add 100 points to this standard result, which would translate to the same 3IMPs on any normal day, but would not have an additional effect if the result at the other table happens to be 13 down, redoubled. As to the determination of the "standard" result, on a normal case you might well imagine the ways this can be achieved, but this is not a normal result. Even if the director gets it wrong, and both sides should not suffer because of this, this does not remove the fact that NS had a bidding misunderstanding. In this particular case, I would rather determine where the bidding might conceivably end up and give an assigned score. Remark that L82C only speaks of "adjusted" score, not "artificial adjusted score". In this case, even NS might well receive the most favourable result that is still likely after their forgetting of the system (this might still be -500 in their defavour). A split score of -500 to NS(B), +800 to EW(A) is a possible outcome in this situation. Which would then lead to -3 for team B and +10 for team A. But I repeat, this is just my opinion as to how the regulations ought to be, not about what to do with the regulations as they are in the tournament. As AC, and provided 12C3 has not been abolished, I could of course give this as an equitable result. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 4 21:49:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 21:49:14 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06004 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 21:49:08 +1000 Received: from default (client9568.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.95.104]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA23534; Mon, 4 May 1998 12:49:23 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Peter Pals" , "David Grabiner" Cc: Subject: Re: Re: Equity Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 12:20:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd774e$98b82000$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: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: David Grabiner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 April 1998 13:00 Subject: Re: Equity >> 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. > #### I have not been following this thread so I may have missed something significant. However it should be noted that Law 64C does not say the Director "shall restore equity", it says he shall "assign an adjusted score". A revoke not subject to a penalty is none-the-less an irregularity; Laws 12C2 and 12C3 apply. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 00:04:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 00:04:43 +1000 Received: from PACIFICO.mail.telepac.pt (mail2.telepac.pt [194.65.3.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06493 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 00:04:36 +1000 Received: from default ([194.65.243.114]) by PACIFICO.mail.telepac.pt (Intermail v3.1 117 241) with ESMTP id <19980504150325.BBSI14079@[194.65.243.114]> for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 15:03:25 +0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: Revoke by declarer - a refresher... Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:02:20 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19980504150325.BBSI14079@[194.65.243.114]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rehi to all. During the second session of the recent Portuguese Open Pairs Grand Prix, declarer revokes (dummy wins the trick). Declarer does not win a trick with a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. How many tricks transfered? The question arises because during the tournament a difference of views between Europe and America became apparent. All TDs agreed on one trick transfer, but some visitors from overseas disagreed. What do we all think? From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 00:10:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 00:10:53 +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 AAA06804 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 00:10:41 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1027634; 4 May 98 14:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 01:49:49 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980501165636.006d8d70@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980501165636.006d8d70@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 11:02 AM 5/1/98 +0100, John wrote: > >>Apart from your hand you do know that partner is having a bad day and >>the opponents are entitled to know that too. It is an understanding. > Eric: >By that implicit definition, everything I know is "an understanding". Labeo: John omitted to specify, as the laws do, that the understanding is a partnership understanding. It is something systemic explicitly or implicitly agreed between the two partners; knowing that partner is having a bad day is not a partnership agreement - the laws use 'understandings' and 'agreements' largely interchangeably - possibly a mistake to do so, but it is obviously so. A partnership understanding is something that both players will act on. A special partnership understanding is something both players will act on that is not a common understanding that players would act upon generally. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 01:02:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:02:53 +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 BAA09027 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:02:32 +1000 Received: from mike (ip236.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.236]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA13546 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980504110231.0072348c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 11:02:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:06 AM 5/4/98 +1200, Michael wrote: >It all seems fairly clear cut but potentially very inequitable. If the >outcome of the other match had been different then A might have "needed" a >large swing on this board. Through no fault of their own they are denied >the opportunity to achieve such a swing. As far as I can see 86C (which >disallows a redeal in the event that the result of a match without the >redeal might be known to a contestant) will prevent a redeal/replay of the >board unless the director is very quick off the mark. > >Alternatively suppose that the +3,+3 ruling had been given and this >increased A's VP's from 8 to 9, just allowing the first place >qualification. All of a sudden a team from the other match are >disadvantaged. > I can't offer any special expertise about what should have been done in this case, but I am concerned by your implication that the correct procedure, whatever that is, might well produce an "inequitable" result in terms of the final standings. It is, of course, normal that a TD or AC will make a decision which affects the result, to the advantage of one team and the disadvantage of another. Although the Laws are clearly written to help a TD or AC achieve equity where possible, I have always understood that the "equity" is to be sought in the narrow terms of the hand itself, without regard to the broader issues of scoring and rankings. For example, certain score adjustments will have completely different practical effects at MP or IMP's, but the form of scoring should not be a factor in making such adjustments. Likewise, an assigned or adjusted score (or even a PP) may have either little or no impact upon the overall results, as in Michael's example, or it may determine the overall winner. The job of the TD or AC, IMO, is to maintain utter indifference to such considerations, and to do their best to apply the Laws to the facts of the hand in question. If this is done impartially and competently, then the results will be "equitable", by definition. OTOH, if we get into the business of deciding whether the legally prescribed course is either too severe or not severe enough in terms of its ultimate impact on scores and rankings, we will have taken a giant step down the path of unfairness. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 01:47:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:47:32 +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 BAA09277 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:47:24 +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 LAA32599 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25280; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:47:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:47:56 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805041547.LAA25280@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > In this particular case, I would rather determine where the bidding > might conceivably end up and give an assigned score. > Remark that L82C only speaks of "adjusted" score, not "artificial > adjusted score". Exactly so. David S. caught me on this very point not long ago. (To defend myself, the main issue was something else, and I simply hadn't thought about the question of assigned versus artificial.) An assigned AS is clearly right. In this case, at first glance it looks like +1400 for EW (in 2Cx) and +50 for NS (in 5C, East failing to take the double finesse in diamonds), but I haven't analyzed the hand in detail. Of course we would want to know exactly what instructions the TD gave before deciding that there had been a mistake. We would also have to go through the analysis of LA's and "suggested over another." Even after a mistake, North isn't allowed to choose an illegal action, and the adjusted scores should reflect only results that are legal. I say scores, plural, because the result will be a split score, although I suppose it is possible to imagine that in some other TD error case the scores might balance. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 01:49:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:49:52 +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 BAA09293 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:49:45 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018247; 4 May 98 15:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:20:49 +0100 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980416205214.006f8ffc@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980416205214.006f8ffc@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >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." >> ..........................cut................................. >> >>A partnership is required to have an >>agreement as to the meaning of their calls >>for all reasonably to be expected auctions. > ..........................cat................................. >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. > Labeo: I am curious to know whether it is all right to have a blanket agreement providing that any undiscussed call will have the meaning that would be expected as a matter of general bridge knowledge. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 01:51:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:51:11 +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 BAA09308 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:51:04 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1006716; 4 May 98 15:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:59:39 +0100 To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: Bridge Laws , wbartle1@san.rr.com From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199805040124.SAA12564@proxyb1.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199805040124.SAA12564@proxyb1.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >The "Herman Principle," which involves not misleading the opponents >by legally correcting a misexplanation, conflicts with the "Kaplan >Principle," which says that players are required to do everything >legal in order to win (e.g., throwing a preliminary match vs a weak >team when doing so eliminates a feared rival). I think E.K. would say >that it also means not following the Herman Principle. > ...............................cut............................... > >As for the Kaplan Principle, if I were the non-playing captain of a >team that would do well to lose a match in order to gain a better >position for winning an event, I would have my strongest pair sit out >and tell the others to play their very best game. I can't find >anything in the Laws that says this more sportsmanlike approach is >illegal. > Labeo: WBF General Conditions of Contest for WBF Events. Section 18.4. ='The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. While a team may rest its players and make other decisions for strategic reasons, the failure to play anything less than as good bridge as possible is not permitted, and the Committee shall have the authority to determine whether there has been such a failure. Teams may submit particular proposed strategies to the Committee in advance to determine compliance with this provision.'= -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 01:52:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:52:56 +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 BAA09323 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:52:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA32616 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:53:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25303; Mon, 4 May 1998 11:53:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:53:22 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805041553.LAA25303@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer - a refresher... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Rui Marques" > declarer revokes (dummy wins the trick). Declarer does not win a trick with > a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. How many > tricks transfered? One. L64A2. Is this a trick question? I'm assuming that the revoke is not at trick 12, declarer's cards were not faced, L64C doesn't apply, etc. > but some visitors from overseas disagreed. Perhaps the visitors were ACBL TD's? (Oh, yes, I'm a cynic!) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 02:26:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 02:26:37 +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 CAA09593 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 02:26:26 +1000 Received: from default (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA08798 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 18:26:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805041626.SAA08798@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 18:27:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer - a refresher... Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Rui Marques" asked: > During the second session of the recent Portuguese Open Pairs Grand Prix, > declarer revokes (dummy wins the trick). Declarer does not win a trick with > a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. How many > tricks transfered? One. The two trick penalty requires: - the offending *side* wins at least two tricks after the revoke (the revoke trick counts here) - the revoking *hand* wins either the revoke trick or a some later trick - in this case with a card that could legally have been played to the revoke trick. As we have seen, this is not crystal clear from the Laws and thus needs to be taught to directors. > The question arises because during the tournament a difference of views > between Europe and America became apparent. All TDs agreed on one trick > transfer, but some visitors from overseas disagreed. It looks as if the difference of opinion might be between TDs and non-TDs, with the continental affiliation merely being incidental. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 02:26:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 02:26:38 +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 CAA09592 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 02:26:26 +1000 Received: from default (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA08794 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 18:26:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805041626.SAA08794@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 18:27:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Michael H. Albert wrote: > > > > (snip : director error seems obvious or is at least assumed to get to > the bottom of this) > > > > > What should have been done? (Aside from the obvious of getting it right in > > the first place.) > > > > I only have the '87 laws to hand (apologies), and the only law referring to > > director's error (82C) says: > > > > "If the director gives a ruling that he, or the Chief Director, > > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow > > the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > > considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose." > > > > (note the very strong "shall") > > > > This is clear, what follows has nowhere been written down. > > There are no regulations in your tournament covering this problem and > there aren't even standard regulations covering this in, say World > Championships. Well, L12 applies when awarding adjusted scores, does it not? > As an (the) authority on this subject (and the De Wael school of > calculation will no doubt have more followers than the one on ethical > bidding) I will offer my opinion on how the rules should be that are > needed to deal with problems of this sort. > > First of all, I feel the players at the other table deserve some better > fate than to see their result being scratched altogether. > I would therefor never simply award +3 to both sides. I would sometimes, but not in this case. > Rather, as I once suggested, I would determine some "standard" result, > which shall count as basis for the comparison with the other table. To > this difference can then be added 3 IMPs to both teams, if the TD > decides to award A+. I disagree. I don't see L12 supporting this. > Alternatively, I have once suggested do add 100 points to this standard > result, which would translate to the same 3IMPs on any normal day, but > would not have an additional effect if the result at the other table > happens to be 13 down, redoubled. Far out, man. > As to the determination of the "standard" result, on a normal case you > might well imagine the ways this can be achieved, but this is not a > normal result. > Even if the director gets it wrong, and both sides should not suffer > because of this, this does not remove the fact that NS had a bidding > misunderstanding. > > In this particular case, I would rather determine where the bidding > might conceivably end up and give an assigned score. > Remark that L82C only speaks of "adjusted" score, not "artificial > adjusted score". > In this case, even NS might well receive the most favourable result that > is still likely after their forgetting of the system (this might still > be -500 in their defavour). > A split score of -500 to NS(B), +800 to EW(A) is a possible outcome in > this situation. > Which would then lead to -3 for team B and +10 for team A. This approach is what I would prefer here. It has the advantage of following L12. I'm not worrying about what figures are the best in this case, of course. > But I repeat, this is just my opinion as to how the regulations ought to > be, not about what to do with the regulations as they are in the > tournament. > > As AC, and provided 12C3 has not been abolished, I could of course give > this as an equitable result. Of course. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 02:26:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 02:26:40 +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 CAA09594 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 02:26:28 +1000 Received: from default (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA08801 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 18:26:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805041626.SAA08801@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 18:27:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael H. Albert" gasped: > Subject: Director's error (gasp!) > > The story: > > Before his final pass, NB asked to speak to the director away from the > table. The director either misunderstood his explanation of the situation, > or the explanation was unclear, and told him that he must not bid again. The TD should read BLML more often. Then he would be less likely to fall into this trap. TDs don't do hand evaluation for the players! > What should have been done? (Aside from the obvious of getting it right in > the first place.) > > I only have the '87 laws to hand (apologies), and the only law referring to > director's error (82C) says: > > "If the director gives a ruling that he, or the Chief Director, > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow > the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose." > > (note the very strong "shall") Yes. > > So that should have been +3, +3 rather than pulling the board. (And it not > being a KO match the scores are not averaged.) Not necessarily. See Herman's response and my comment to that. > It all seems fairly clear cut but potentially very inequitable. If the > outcome of the other match had been different then A might have "needed" a > large swing on this board. Through no fault of their own they are denied > the opportunity to achieve such a swing. Yes. That is the way the ball bounces now and then. But the AC might end up deciding this one on the basis of L21C3, preferably without knowing just how many VPs who needed for what. In a sense, that would make the outcome "equitable" after all. > As far as I can see 86C (which > disallows a redeal in the event that the result of a match without the > redeal might be known to a contestant) will prevent a redeal/replay of the > board unless the director is very quick off the mark. Yes. > Alternatively suppose that the +3,+3 ruling had been given and this > increased A's VP's from 8 to 9, just allowing the first place > qualification. All of a sudden a team from the other match are > disadvantaged. Could happen. Unfortunately, director's errors happen. Fortunately, there are rules telling us what to do in such cases. Everyone would agree that it would have been more fortunate if the TD did not have any influence on the outcome, but that was not in the cards this time. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 08:05:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 08:05:25 +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 IAA10947 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 08:05:13 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA12241 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 15:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805042205.PAA12241@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 Eitan wrote: >Partner forgetting to alert is definitely "giving misinformation.", as much >as if he had alerted and given the wrong explanation. How can it be >otherwise? Indeed (L21B) I stand corrected. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 08:48:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 08:48:10 +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 IAA11108 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 08:48:01 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-47.access.net.il [192.116.204.47]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA16086 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:47:40 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354E464E.6FF1EEEE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 01:50:54 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Double shot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau asked a good question : where is written that "double shot" isn't legal ?? Is any bridge law which forbids it ?? I must agree that in spite of the fact I consider double shot as a very non-ethical action I don't know where from this opinion comes . Thinking about Eric's remark I considered the general line of thinking to adjust (or assign) score when an irregularity was established (Kaplan's line...): b. was there a damage ?? c. is any "connection"/"relationship" between the irregularity and the damage . These statements (b&c) may be themselves a double shot ....???? : if the NO side wasn't damage , they can choose not to summon again the TD , but if they feel damaged then they"ll try to get the most and it is a legal and "by the Law" action ! I think here is a good reason for it , but ...... what is the forum's opinion ??? Dany From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 09:16:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:16:25 +1000 Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA11198 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:16:21 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA00922 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:16:54 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980505091657.00951190@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 09:16:57 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: H*lp m* out Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Guess what - majordomo thinks that a Subject containing the word 'Help' might be a request for help... -Markus >Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:17:34 -0400 >To: laws >From: BOB SCRUTON >Subject: Help me out > >Hi Gang, > >The following took place last evening in my club and it was a first for me. > > s- A Q 8 > h- 9 4 > d- J T 8 5 4 2 > c- T 3 > > >S- K T 7 6 2 s- J 5 >h- J 8 7 6 h- A K T 5 3 2 >d- 3 d- A >c- J 7 4 c- K 9 8 2 > > > s- 9 4 3 > h- Q > d- K Q 9 7 6 > c- A Q 6 5 > >everybody vul > > n e s w > > p 1 H 2D 2H > 5 D 5 H p p > dbl p p p > >Opening Lead - Diamond King > >The play was as follows: > > DK 3 J A > HA Q 6 9 > HK C6 H7 D2 (revoke by north) > SJ 3 2 Q > CT 2 Q 4 > CA 7 3 8 > C5 J H4 H5 (revoke by east) > >Play continues to a table result of down 2 for 500 > >Do we net the 1 trick penalty against the 2 trick penalty ? > >If so, is this equity ? Had north not revoked there would be no temptation to over ruff by East. > >I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of the group. > >Thanks > >Bob > Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 09:30:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:30:44 +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 JAA11255 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:30:38 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1019131; 4 May 98 23:24 GMT Message-ID: <3paUIxAa6jT1EwAK@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 23:18:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer - a refresher... In-Reply-To: <19980504150325.BBSI14079@[194.65.243.114]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19980504150325.BBSI14079@[194.65.243.114]>, Rui Marques writes >Rehi to all. > During the second session of the recent Portuguese Open Pairs Grand Prix, >declarer revokes (dummy wins the trick). Declarer does not win a trick with >a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. How many >tricks transfered? > >The question arises because during the tournament a difference of views >between Europe and America became apparent. All TDs agreed on one trick >transfer, but some visitors from overseas disagreed. > >What do we all think? One, just what the Laws say. -- 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 Tue May 5 09:35:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:35:03 +1000 Received: from PACIFICO.mail.telepac.pt (mail2.telepac.pt [194.65.3.54]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA11299 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:34:52 +1000 Received: from default ([194.65.226.149]) by PACIFICO.mail.telepac.pt (Intermail v3.1 117 241) with ESMTP id <19980505003610.DGLQ14079@[194.65.226.149]> for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 00:36:10 +0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer - a refresher... Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 00:35:08 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19980505003610.DGLQ14079@[194.65.226.149]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually the difference of opinions was between people with some responsability in the regulation and application of the laws. I will skip the names. The argument was one of trying to revert to the old code, where the offending "side" was what mattered. We did try to convince them of one trick. This was not a tricky question. And not being cynical, I got the idea that at least in some areas of North America they would give non-offending side two tricks. Rui Marques From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 5 10:10:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:10:09 +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 KAA11430 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:10:03 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yWVJY-0002Ts-00; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:10:33 +0100 Message-ID: <2$M0tQBDjlT1EwBw@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 01:09:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Spring 4's MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, we're back. I played like one of my dogs below and the only thing that happened was Mr Stevenson fined me 3 imps for slow play ... so I bought him a small whisky instead of a large one. Mr Stevenson will be back haranguing us on Wednesday I guess. He's got the job of running the final day (Tuesday). There's only four teams left so he should be able to manage two tables :) -- 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 Tue May 5 10:12:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:12:39 +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 KAA11445 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:12:32 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021768; 5 May 98 0:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 01:01:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: H*lp m* out In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980505091657.00951190@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.32.19980505091657.00951190@acsys.anu.edu.au>, Markus Buchhorn writes > >Guess what - majordomo thinks that a Subject containing the word 'Help' >might be a request for help... -Markus > > >>Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 18:17:34 -0400 >>To: laws >>From: BOB SCRUTON >>Subject: Help me out >> >>Hi Gang, >> >>The following took place last evening in my club and it was a first for me. >> >> s- A Q 8 >> h- 9 4 >> d- J T 8 5 4 2 >> c- T 3 >> >> >>S- K T 7 6 2 s- J 5 >>h- J 8 7 6 h- A K T 5 3 2 >>d- 3 d- A >>c- J 7 4 c- K 9 8 2 >> >> >> s- 9 4 3 >> h- Q >> d- K Q 9 7 6 >> c- A Q 6 5 >> >>everybody vul >> >> n e s w >> >> p 1 H 2D 2H >> 5 D 5 H p p >> dbl p p p >> >>Opening Lead - Diamond King >> >>The play was as follows: >> >> DK 3 J A >> HA Q 6 9 >> HK C6 H7 D2 (revoke by north) >> SJ 3 2 Q >> CT 2 Q 4 >> CA 7 3 8 >> C5 J H4 H5 (revoke by east) >> >>Play continues to a table result of down 2 for 500 >> >>Do we net the 1 trick penalty against the 2 trick penalty ? >> >>If so, is this equity ? Had north not revoked there would be no temptation >to over ruff by East. >> >>I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of the group. >> >>Thanks >> >>Bob >> I would rule 1 trick penalty to N and 2 to East for down 3. Sad really. I don't see how any other ruling can be made. It's not a question of equity here. North had already "banked" his penalty. East just decided to join the party. If E follows to the C then N fetches the 2 trick penalty assuming he cashes his SA or one if he doesn't for a nett down one regardless. Lovely problem. As declarer I'd have been searching for a way to get an opponent to take the missing H, even to the extent of throwing them in with it looking for a ruff and discard :) The posting is excellent but ... Small point, can you rotate the hand so South is declarer. -- 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 Tue May 5 20:43:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 20:43:26 +1000 Received: from sxhac.compuserve.net (sxhac.compuserve.net [149.174.177.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA13456 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 20:43:19 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from aamta.compuserve.net ([149.174.177.83]) by sxhac.compuserve.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA07092.; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 852565FB.0049CA05 ; Tue, 5 May 1998 06:36:38 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <862565FB.003981DB.00@aamta.compuserve.net> Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 22:20:45 +0200 Subject: Re: Revoke by declarer - a refresher... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> During the second session of the recent Portuguese Open Pairs Grand Prix, declarer revokes (dummy wins the trick). Declarer does not win a trick with a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. How many tricks transfered?<< Only one trick, since 64.A references the guilty _player_. Dummy is still a player - whether he tables his hand or not. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 00:16:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 00:16:22 +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 AAA16505 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 00:16:05 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yWiTh-0007KPC; Tue, 5 May 98 09:13 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 09:15:52 +0000 To: Markus Buchhorn From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: H*lp m* out Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980505091657.00951190@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:16 PM 5/4/98 , Markus Buchhorn wrote: >>The following took place last evening in my club and it was a first for me. >> >> s- A Q 8 >> h- 9 4 >> d- J T 8 5 4 2 >> c- T 3 >> >> >>S- K T 7 6 2 s- J 5 >>h- J 8 7 6 h- A K T 5 3 2 >>d- 3 d- A >>c- J 7 4 c- K 9 8 2 >> >> >> s- 9 4 3 >> h- Q >> d- K Q 9 7 6 >> c- A Q 6 5 >> >>everybody vul >> >> n e s w >> >> p 1 H 2D 2H >> 5 D 5 H p p >> dbl p p p >> >>Opening Lead - Diamond King >> >>The play was as follows: >> >> DK 3 J A >> HA Q 6 9 >> HK C6 H7 D2 (revoke by north) >> SJ 3 2 Q >> CT 2 Q 4 >> CA 7 3 8 >> C5 J H4 H5 (revoke by east) >> >>Play continues to a table result of down 2 for 500 >> >>Do we net the 1 trick penalty against the 2 trick penalty ? >> >>If so, is this equity ? Had north not revoked there would be no temptation >to over ruff by East. >> What could we do other than apply both revoke penalties? As to the "temptation to over ruff", how can that possibly be a justification. If North takes the trick with the H4 doesn't the revoke penalty to North become 2 tricks instead of one. North has won a trick with a card that "could have been played to the revoke trick." If, as East, I was out of clubs at the time I might be "tempted" to duck the trick knowing that I would get it back in the end from the penalty. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 00:40:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 00:40:14 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA16586 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 00:40:08 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA26769; Tue, 5 May 1998 09:40:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.71) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026736; Tue May 5 09:39:28 1998 Received: by har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7812.02AD53E0@har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:38:58 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD7812.02AD53E0@har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'Herman De Wael'" Subject: RE: Self Explanations Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:38:51 -0400 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One might assume that the actively ethical person would be faithful to his wife and have no other mistress. I know that's a quaint notion, but somehow it does seem to fit in a discussion of ethics. ---------- From: Herman De Wael[SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 4:40 AM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Self Explanations Eric Landau wrote: > > > If I know that partner's bidding might be adversely affected by his > worrying about whether his wife will find out about his mistress, am I > obligated to inform my opponents of this? > Certainly not when playing against his wife ! (or his mistress) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 03:18:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 03:18:29 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 DAA17897 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 03:18:13 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA27639 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805051717.KAA27639@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: NABC Appeals Casebooks Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:15:04 -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 It took me three or four days, but I have been able to order the Dallas and Albuquerque NABC Appeals casebooks from the ACBL in Memphis. The cost is $11.95 to non-members of the ACBL, $10.75 to members. Don't know why, but there was no charge for mailing. To save time (the clerk didn't know what I was talking about), the "Item numbers" for ordering these are 230915 and 230919, respectively. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 04:20:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:20:09 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 EAA18188 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:19:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05239; Tue, 5 May 1998 11:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805051819.LAA05239@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:18:25 -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 Labeo wrote: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >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." > >> > ..........................cut................................. > >> > >>A partnership is required to have an > >>agreement as to the meaning of their calls > >>for all reasonably to be expected auctions. > > > ..........................cat................................. > > >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. > > > Labeo: I am curious to know whether it is all right to have a blanket > agreement providing that any undiscussed call will have the meaning > that would be expected as a matter of general bridge knowledge. The "blurb" applies only to conventions, I believe, not to other calls, but who knows? Maybe the principle is being extended to all bids by the ACBL Tournament Department. Here is the complete text of what I assume is the source for the blurb, taken from the ACBL's "Active Ethics" pamphlet: "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 seat? 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." I don't know who is responsible for this blurb (an apt word), which looks rather illegal to me. L40A: "A player may make any call or play...that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention, without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." This means that players are entitled to make mistakes in the use of a convention. Anyone who thinks that L40D gives the right to SOs to control conventions in any way they see fit should remember that L80F does not permit SO regulations that conflict with the Laws. If the blurb did not originate from the BoD, who has the responsibility for such regulations, then it has no standing and should be disregarded. If it came from the BoD, it ought to be rescinded. It it takes a part in any TD/AC ruling, the case should be appealed to the National Laws Commission. It is galling to be fixed by a pair who don't know what they are doing, but we should be willing to take the bad with the good. Such pairs give away far more points than they receive from their poor use of conventions. BLs don't accept that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 04:55:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:55:03 +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 EAA18381 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:54:54 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002183; 5 May 98 18:52 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 5 May 1998 19:01:29 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Self Explanations Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 19:01:28 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This failed the first time that I sent it so I am resending it now. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Martin > Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 3:20 PM > To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' > Subject: RE: Self Explanations > > Marv wrote: > > > ---------- > > From: Steve Willner > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: RE: Self Explanations > > Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 7:21 AM > > > > From: David Martin > > > 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. > > > > Does this mean opponents have an inherent right to create a UI > situation > > that otherwise wouldn't have existed? > > > > SO's have a clear right to regulate how answers are given > (L20F, > > L80F). Absent such regulation, I don't think players have any > right to > > require that answers come from a particular opponent. > ######## Can questions about leads signals and discards can be > addressed to a specific opponent? ######### The Laws > provide > > protection against MI and UI; that should be enough. > > L75D2 is pretty clear. When defending, you cannot correct > partner's > misexplanation until play is over, even if asked to do so by > another > player. Per L75D1, you can correct your own explanation, but > only > when told to do so by the TD, who must be called immediately > when you > realize you have made a mistake. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 04:57:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:57:50 +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 EAA18398 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:57:44 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002226; 5 May 98 18:52 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 5 May 1998 19:00:34 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Self Explanations Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 19:00:32 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This failed the first time that I sent it so I am reposting now. > Grattan wrote: > > SNIP > > > > ++++ On this subject I have been enjoying the ride; the scenery > along > the way has been quite fascinating. > > ####### At least your not walking! ######## From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 05:09:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 05:09:04 +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 FAA18451 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 05:08:56 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002192; 5 May 98 18:52 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 5 May 1998 19:09:42 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Self Explanations Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 19:09:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not sure if this was sent out correctly by my E-mail server so I am resending it now. Sorry for any inconvenience if you have already had a copy. > Marv wrote: > > David Martin wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > > > ####OLD#### 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 > > > explanation immediately but this correct explanation is of > course > UI > > > for his partner. #####OLD##### > > That would give the opponents the right to create UI, which many > are > doing, and which is intolerable. One opponent has UI, and you > want to > make sure the other has UI also. Not good. > > "A PLAYER MAY NOT CORRECT THE ERROR BEFORE THE FINAL PASS" > > Pardon me for shouting. > > To quote from the Preface to the Laws: "Note that 'may' becomes > very > strong in the negative: 'may not' is a stronger injuction than > 'shall > not,' just short of 'must not.'" > > > ######### When I wrote my original reply to Marv, I was fully > aware of the use of "may not" in the above quoted Law and of the > interpretation placed on it in the Preface to the Laws. Nevertheless, > I came to the conclusion that the use of "must" (the strongest > positive term) in Law 75A, ie. "must be fully and freely available", > is stronger than "may not" (as "must not" is the strongest negative > term) and, hence, in my original posting I concluded that "must be > fully and freely available" was "absolutely overriding". I can see no > reason (yet) to change that view. Consider the simple case where one > Defender has clearly given an incorrect explanation, the other clearly > realises this and knows the correct explanation of their agreements. > I do not suggest for a moment that the second Defender can do anything > under his own steam until the end of the play period because he is > clearly restrained by Law 75D2. However, if Declarer turns to him and > asks if his partner's original explanation was incorrect, then would a > reply along the lines of "I am restrained by Law 75D2 from saying or > indicating anything about that until the end of the play of the hand" > really be making their agreements "freely and fully available". I > think not. The best reply would be "Lets call the Director" and, > having done that, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which > the Director would not allow a correct explanation to be given unless > forbidden by some regulation of the SO. It is even more difficult to > see why the SO should have such a regulation, even if one did not > consider that such a regulation would be contrary to Law 75A. > ########## > > > The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since the TD > will > adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured by > the > misinformation. > > ######### Agreed but, on the positive side, it may be possible > to reduce the damage to Declarer by giving him the correct explanation > part way through the hand as damage from this point forward is now > impossible. ######## > > > ######### Forgetting the situation where an incorrect > explanation has been given for a moment, on the more general question > of whom one can ask about agreements, consider the situation with > leads, signals and discards during the play period. After the opening > lead, can I only ask the leader's partner about their leads? Can I > only ask the leader about their signals? I think not. So why should > explanations of calls be any different providing that it is Declarer > who is addressing the question to someone? ########### > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 09:11:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 09:11:28 +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 JAA19155 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 09:11:22 +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 LAA17979 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 11:11:53 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 11:13:15 +1200 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: "Michael H. Albert" Subject: Law 86C (redeals in team play) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dry as dust for a change: L86C: The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead he awards an adjusted score. (Again apologies for not having the new laws to hand -- this is from the '87 version) How strongly is this interpreted? That is, how much information does a contestant need in order to activate this law? [And by the way, isn't the contestant a team? And isn't the intention here "if any member of the team ..."? So if one player on the team knows the outcome is the "contestant" as a whole deemed to know it?] Is it enough to have seen one of your teammates and said "We had a good set" (or "without board X we had a good set")? [IMHO: The first would not activate 86C (after all teammates always expect a good set from you right?). The second (X being the board in question) would be marginal.] Say you finish early and compare with other early finishers from different matches who were playing the same deals. Does 86C apply now? [IMHO: The law says 86C is not activated, but if anything I'm less happy about this case than the one above.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 May 6 10:20:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 10:20:46 +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 KAA19366 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 10:20:36 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-26.access.net.il [192.116.198.26]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA10728; Wed, 6 May 1998 03:20:45 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354FAD8B.689A4F0A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 03:23:39 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Spring 4's References: <2$M0tQBDjlT1EwBw@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome back to "this club"........ John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Well, we're back. I played like one of my dogs below and the only thing hmmmmmmmmm - better to play like them , but not worse... you should try to join a CAT , who knows to play bridge better than dogs . As a very strong proof , cats have even a Laws CATs- committee ........ > that happened was Mr Stevenson fined me 3 imps for slow play ... so I > bought him a small whisky instead of a large one. Mr Stevenson will be > back haranguing us on Wednesday I guess. He's got the job of running the > final day (Tuesday). There's only four teams left so he should be able > to manage two tables :) I doubt it - too few for Quango ..but Rosario counted four tables. > -- > 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 Best wishes from Shobo , who "misscated" playing a Grand Slam om okb , the only dumb play which can make the contract .......... You don't need to be a good bridge player , better be a lucky cat !!! Friendly , cately , ......??? Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 13:34:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:34:17 +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 NAA19787 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:34:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ad2005270; 6 May 98 3:33 GMT Message-ID: <7YWZ07Afh8T1EwSd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 03:18:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Contract not agreed In-Reply-To: <5j63KZAd+ZS1EwoB@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: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >>>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. >> >> No, it doesn't. It means he made a mistake. Perhaps he intended to >>double, so five minutes later he believed he has. >> >> >I accept this point entirely but to rule any other way is perverse, for >the reason I gave. After all I must make a ruling to allow play to >continue - in this case to allow the score to be entered. The AC can >listen to the arguements. BTW the point about who passed last in another >posting in the thread is an excellent pointer which I hadn't thought of. >Thanks It is not perverse. People make mistakes all the time. It is not good directing to go into a type of situation with a fixed idea as to the answer. -- 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 May 6 13:35:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:35:16 +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 NAA19808 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:35:00 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2005273; 6 May 98 3:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 03:42:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: go back. In-Reply-To: <9805011726.aa24788@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >At 11:02 AM 4/29/98 +0000, E. wrote: >> > >> >>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 ? >> The Laws have a sence of humour. Law 39A cancels the 2S insuficient bid. >> "any call" is cancelled without penalty. >> Law 35D allows for the 3C bid to be cancelled without penalty. So the >> original offender has been sniped at by the Laws, giving his opps a >> considerable edge! >Law 35 applies only if the inadmissible call (3C) is condoned by a >subsequent call by North. That's not the case here. Are we really taking this one seriously? For once I am with Probst, who [sans doute] would say "Stop messing me about" and retire. However, if you *really* want a ruling on this board, then apply L74B2 [please look it up - I'm not quoting it]. 2S and 3C are not calls. ---------- Robin Barker wrote: [s] >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. I cannot believe that anyone considers "back to 2S" is not a call and "alright then I bid 3C" is a call. ---------- Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >> Law 35 applies only if the inadmissible call (3C) is condoned by a >> subsequent call by North. That's not the case here. >Is 3C an inadmissible call? I thought that term only applied to bids >of more than seven, doubling one's own contract, and such. Here, 3C is >a perfectly admissible bid; it just came at the wrong time. I'd say >L39 applies, and L35 does not. This makes more logical sense, too. > >Grattan: do we need a definition of "inadmissible call" in 2007? Probably. For now we shall just have to make do with the 1997 definition. It is clear from the preamble to L35 that Inadmissible Calls are [A] Doubles or redoubles not permitted by L19 [B] Bids, doubles or redoubles by a player requireed to pass [C] Bids of more than seven [D] Calls after the final pass If 3C were a call [which it is not: see above] then it would be inadmissible under [D] as defined in L35D. -- 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 May 6 13:34:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:34:26 +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 NAA19788 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:34:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2005280; 6 May 98 3:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 03:16:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: <1998May02.105300.1189.205095@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >For now, if there is a gap in the data, the agent provides no information >what-so-ever. >In this case, we are no worse off than we are today. What? Why? >>What would happen to casual or pick-up partnerships? Would they be >banned >>for being unwilling to spend far more time making and describing their >>agreements than they plan to spend playing on line? > >Currently, on OKBridge there exists a series of pre-defined convention >cards. >Casual and pickup partnerships typically agree to use one of these cards >as a base, perhaps adding in a favorite gadget or two. Plain text cards >for a number of common systems are provided by the OKBridge client and >new convention cards are continually being developed and made available. > My expectation is that precisely the same sort of development process >would extend to this new system. The average player might not have the >experience required to design a complete system file, however, they could >certainly agree to use an existing one. That's a terrible idea. You provide an extremely detailed "standard" system card in your new format, and when I say SAYC to a partner now opponents will check it. That means they will know at least 200 times as many agreements I have with my partner as I do! >I do not expect a system like the one which I described to be a panacea. >What I do believe is that it can provide a mechanism by which experienced >partnerships have a timely and convenient method to provide large amounts >of system information to other players. Equally importantly, I think >that it is possible to organize this information in such a matter that >important data does not get drowned out. > >I believe that it is important for players to lead by example. Different >organizations can pass all the regulations they want trying to legislate >behavior or morality or whatever. But in the end, what is truly >important are the implicit standards which are present within that >community. The implicit standard in the community of pickup partners is simplicity. >Plain and simple, its very annoying to have to go and type out alert >strings describing all the different pieces of information which the >other pair deserves to know during the course of an auction. Automating >this task will decrease the "cost" of disclosing methods and presumably >lead to more information being provided. > >It is true that there is a significant fixed cost associated with >designing the initial convention card. My hope is that a suitable user >interface can be developed to make this task as simple as possible. I think you will have to consider the total and complete annoyance that this is offering to the average player. -- 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 May 6 13:34:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:34:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA19800 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:34:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2005272; 6 May 98 3:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 04:29:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) In-Reply-To: <199805041547.LAA25280@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> In this particular case, I would rather determine where the bidding >> might conceivably end up and give an assigned score. >> Remark that L82C only speaks of "adjusted" score, not "artificial >> adjusted score". >Exactly so. David S. caught me on this very point not long ago. (To >defend myself, the main issue was something else, and I simply hadn't >thought about the question of assigned versus artificial.) An assigned >AS is clearly right. In this case, at first glance it looks like +1400 >for EW (in 2Cx) and +50 for NS (in 5C, East failing to take the double >finesse in diamonds), but I haven't analyzed the hand in detail. Let us look at the logic of this situation, since we are dealing here with a problem that has appeared with some frequency both here and in RGB. What does the Law on Director's Error mean? It means that the result on a board where the Director has made an error should, for each side, be the best thing that was at all likely to happen to them without the Director's error. Interestingly enough, both Mike Amos and I were asked by players at the Spring 4s what they should bid on a hand, obviously for ethical reasons. Both of us explained [politely] that the ones in purple jackets give the rulings, and the rest decide what to bid on hands. Now in the case quoted what would have happened without the Director's Error? Well, relying on Steve's "first glance", N/S *might* have got +50, or they might not: E/W *might* have got +1400, or they might not: how can it possibly be fair to the players to give them any score less than this? You have often heard me going on about the unfairness of giving away random A+s, and this is a great example: how would you feel if you were E/W: you got 1400 and 15 imps, and the Directors reduce it from 15 imps to 3 imps because *they* made a mistake, and when nobody knows whether you would have got 1400 without the mistake! Basically, you have fined E/W 12 imps for your own mistake! In the past there have also been comments about it being unfair to the field [*spit*] to give unbalanced adjustments. Well, that is a matter for the lawmakers, and by putting "considering both sides as non- offending" into L82C they have made their approach clear. In fact this unfairness to the field is totally trivial, and pales into insignificance as compared to fining players for your mistake! -- 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 May 6 15:02:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA19988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:02:36 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA19983 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:02:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA23554; Tue, 5 May 1998 22:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805060502.WAA23554@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:00:38 -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: ######### When I wrote my original reply to Marv, I was fully aware of the use of "may not" in the above quoted Law and of the interpretation placed on it in the Preface to the Laws. Nevertheless, I came to the conclusion that the use of "must" (the strongest positive term) in Law 75A, ie. "must be fully and freely available", is stronger than "may not" (as "must not" is the strongest negative term) and, hence, in my original posting I concluded that "must be fully and freely available" was "absolutely overriding". I can see no reason (yet) to change that view. Consider the simple case where one Defender has clearly given an incorrect explanation, the other clearly realises this and knows the correct explanation of their agreements. I do not suggest for a moment that the second Defender can do anything under his own steam until the end of the play period because he is clearly restrained by Law 75D2. However, if Declarer turns to him and asks if his partner's original explanation was incorrect, then would a reply along the lines of "I am restrained by Law 75D2 from saying or indicating anything about that until the end of the play of the hand" really be making their agreements "freely and fully available". I think not. ##### I think so. As with freedom of the press and freedom of speech, there are certain limits. L75D sets the limits associated with corrections of misexplanations. There is a general principle that actions not barred by the Laws don't thereby achieve legality. If the lawmakers wanted to give this "fishing expedition" right to players, they would have included that right in L75. ##### The best reply would be "Lets call the Director" and, having done that, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Director would not allow a correct explanation to be given unless forbidden by some regulation of the SO. It is even more difficult to see why the SO should have such a regulation, even if one did not consider that such a regulation would be contrary to Law 75A. ########## The Laws do not give the TD the right to vitiate the provisions of L75D2. Anyway, the TD is not to be called before "the earliest legal opportunity," so "Let's call the Director" at an earlier time is not legal. >The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since the TD >will adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured by >the misinformation. ######### Agreed but, on the positive side, it may be possible to reduce the damage to Declarer by giving him the correct explanation part way through the hand as damage from this point forward is now impossible. ######## Adding UI to defenders who already have UI isn't cricket. They are in enough trouble already. A player has no right to know that he has made a mistaken explanation, and no one has the right to see that he knows it. When a player says, "I was trying to protect declarer from further damage," that is hogwash. He was trying to protect his own side in an illegal way. ######### Forgetting the situation where an incorrect explanation has been given for a moment, on the more general question of whom one can ask about agreements, consider the situation with leads, signals and discards during the play period. After the opening lead, can I only ask the leader's partner about their leads? ####### #####Can I only ask the leader about their signals? I think not.##### When a card has been played that may constitute a signal, whether opening lead, later lead, discard, or a follow-suit, declarer should ask only the partner of the player about any special partnership agreement associated with that particular play. I know this isn't specified in the Laws, probably because the lawmakers couldn't imagine anyone's wanting to have a defender explain the meaning of his own play. At other times you can ask either defender for a general explanation of their play conventions, but should not attempt to force a player to violate L75D2 by eliciting a contradiction to something his partner has said. With play conventions so clearly shown on the ACBL CC, questions should rarely be necessary. This is one good reason for the ACBL's (unenforced) regulation requiring two cards on the table at all times. ##### So why should explanations of calls be any different providing that it is Declarer who is addressing the question to someone? ########### I believe that is known as "begging the question." There is no difference. L75D applies equally to plays and calls. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 21:01:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:01:31 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20850 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:01:24 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-114.uunet.be [194.7.13.114]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA14291 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:01:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35503EBF.32B8C191@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 12:43:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > > ######### When I wrote my original reply to Marv, I was fully > > aware of the use of "may not" in the above quoted Law and of the > > interpretation placed on it in the Preface to the Laws. Nevertheless, > > I came to the conclusion that the use of "must" (the strongest > > positive term) in Law 75A, ie. "must be fully and freely available", > > is stronger than "may not" (as "must not" is the strongest negative > > term) and, hence, in my original posting I concluded that "must be > > fully and freely available" was "absolutely overriding". I can see no > > reason (yet) to change that view. The original reason for this post is that the obligation on player by L75D2 contains "may not", whereas L75C only contains "shall". Now David drags in L75A, which contains "must". However both L75D2 and L75C are obligations put onto players, while L75A is only a "general principle". This general principle is often broken and an AS can be the result. I therefor do not believe that this argument of David's does anything to resolve the dilemma the player is put into. Since L75D2 very strongly tells him to do one thing, and L75C suggests that he shall do something opposite, the dilemma remains. I still vote in fabour of following L75D2 to the letter. David then proceeds to give another example on which I shall probably disagree with the majority view : > > Consider the simple case where one > > Defender has clearly given an incorrect explanation, the other clearly > > realises this and knows the correct explanation of their agreements. > > I do not suggest for a moment that the second Defender can do anything > > under his own steam until the end of the play period because he is > > clearly restrained by Law 75D2. However, if Declarer turns to him and > > asks if his partner's original explanation was incorrect, then would a > > reply along the lines of "I am restrained by Law 75D2 from saying or > > indicating anything about that until the end of the play of the hand" > > really be making their agreements "freely and fully available". I > > think not. So again a player is bound by one Law to initiate the breaking of another. > > The best reply would be "Lets call the Director" and, > > having done that, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which > > the Director would not allow a correct explanation to be given unless > > forbidden by some regulation of the SO. It is even more difficult to > > see why the SO should have such a regulation, even if one did not > > consider that such a regulation would be contrary to Law 75A. But that regulation exists : it is L75D2 ! By asking to call the director, one can already be in breach of L75D2, as it may well be argued afterwards that this alone is already UI to partner, enough to make him realize his mistake. Furthermore, the TD would not be allowed to make the information available to declarer either, out of fear of being slapped with director's error when partner suddenly realises his mistake. So the dilemma is still there, and any amount of you trying to wriggle out of it, simply to assure complete information to opponents is doomed to fail. Face up to it guys, in these situation, there is absolutely no way that full information can be insured to opponents. This is the result of an initial mistake by offenders and they shall face the consequences. > > ########## > > > > > > The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since the TD > > will > > adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured by > > the > > misinformation. > > > > ######### Agreed but, on the positive side, it may be possible > > to reduce the damage to Declarer by giving him the correct explanation > > part way through the hand as damage from this point forward is now > > impossible. ######## > > But this will always introduce UI to partner. I do not believe that this can ever be outweighed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 21:16:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:16:44 +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 VAA20914 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:16:28 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1009921; 6 May 98 11:11 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 6 May 1998 12:10:40 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Self Explanations Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:10:30 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > David Martin wrote: > > #####OLD#### When I wrote my original reply to Marv, I was fully > aware of the use of "may not" in the above quoted Law and of the > interpretation placed on it in the Preface to the Laws. Nevertheless, > I came to the conclusion that the use of "must" (the strongest > positive term) in Law 75A, ie. "must be fully and freely > available", is stronger than "may not" (as "must not" is the > strongest negative term) and, hence, in my original posting I > concluded that "must be fully and freely available" was "absolutely > overriding". I can see no reason (yet) to change that view. > Consider the simple case where one Defender has clearly given an > incorrect explanation, the other clearly realises this and knows > the correct explanation of their agreements. I do not suggest for > a moment that the second Defender can do anything under his own > steam until the end of the play period because he is clearly > restrained by Law 75D2. However, if Declarer turns to > him and asks if his partner's original explanation was incorrect, > then would a reply along the lines of "I am restrained by Law 75D2 > from saying or indicating anything about that until the end of the > play of the hand" really be making their agreements "freely and fully > available". I think not. ###OLD## > > I think so. As with freedom of the press and freedom of speech, there > are certain limits. L75D sets the limits associated with corrections > of misexplanations. There is a general principle that actions not > barred by the Laws don't thereby achieve legality. If the lawmakers > wanted to give this "fishing expedition" right to players, they would > have included that right in L75. > > ###OLD## The best reply would be "Lets call the Director" and, > having done that, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in > which the Director would not allow a correct explanation to be given > unless forbidden by some regulation of the SO. It is even more > difficult to see why the SO should have such a regulation, even if > one did not consider that such a regulation would be contrary to Law > 75A. #####OLD##### > > The Laws do not give the TD the right to vitiate the provisions of > L75D2. Anyway, the TD is not to be called before "the earliest legal > opportunity," so "Let's call the Director" at an earlier time is not > legal. > > ######### You can't have your cake and eat it! If the question is > illegal then asking it is an infraction and calling the Director after > an infraction has occurred is perfectly legal. If the question is > legal then the TD should be called if a correction is to be given. > Anyway, we can completely circumvent this particular objection by > considering the other example that I posted recently on this thread > (ie. where Declarer noticed that the verbal explantion contradicted > what was written on the convention card) and to which Grattan's reply > confirmed that an infraction has now occurred and the TD should be > called. ######### > > > >The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since the TD > >will adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured by > >the misinformation. > > ####OLD##### Agreed but, on the positive side, it may be possible to > reduce the damage to Declarer by giving him the correct > explanation part way through the hand as damage from this point > forward is now impossible. ###OLD##### > > Adding UI to defenders who already have UI isn't cricket. They are in > enough trouble already. A player has no right to know that he has > made a mistaken explanation, and no one has the right to see that he > knows it. > > When a player says, "I was trying to protect declarer from further > damage," that is hogwash. He was trying to protect his own side in > an illegal way. > > ######## I am only interested in Declarer protecting himself and have > *never* suggested that a Defender can do anything under his own steam. > ####### > > #####OLD#### Forgetting the situation where an incorrect > explanation has been given for a moment, on the more general question > of whom one can ask about agreements, consider the situation with > leads, signals and discards during the play period. After the > opening lead, can I only ask the leader's partner about their leads? > ####OLD### > > ##OLD###Can I only ask the > leader about their signals? I think not.###OLD## > > When a card has been played that may constitute a signal, whether > opening lead, later lead, discard, or a follow-suit, declarer should > ask only the partner of the player about any special partnership > agreement associated with that particular play. I know this isn't > specified in the Laws, probably because the lawmakers couldn't > imagine anyone's wanting to have a defender explain the meaning of > his own play. At other times you can ask either defender for a > general explanation of their play conventions, but should not attempt > to force a player to violate L75D2 by eliciting a contradiction to > something his partner has said. > > ######### If the Laws don't say this then why should we assume it? > ######### > > With play conventions so clearly shown on the ACBL CC, questions > should rarely be necessary. This is one good reason for the ACBL's > (unenforced) regulation requiring two cards on the table at all > times. > > ###OLD## So why should explanations of calls be any different > providing > that it is Declarer who is addressing the question to someone? > ####OLD####### > > I believe that is known as "begging the question." There is no > difference. L75D applies equally to plays and calls. > > ########## Law 75D applies equally to ***corrections of erroneous > explanations*** of calls and plays but it does not deal with Declarer > asking questions of Defenders. I am intrigued that the bit of Law 21 > that states that "replies should normally be given by the partner of > the player who made the call in question" only appears in clause F1 > and not in F2, hence it only applies to calls and only during the > auction period. ########## > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 21:37:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:37:26 +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 VAA20982 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:37:15 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1011532; 6 May 98 11:20 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 6 May 1998 12:19:32 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: FW: Self Explanations Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:19:28 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > David Martin wrote: > > > > > > > > ######### When I wrote my original reply to Marv, I was > fully > > > aware of the use of "may not" in the above quoted Law and of the > > > interpretation placed on it in the Preface to the Laws. > Nevertheless, > > > I came to the conclusion that the use of "must" (the strongest > > > positive term) in Law 75A, ie. "must be fully and freely > available", > > > is stronger than "may not" (as "must not" is the strongest > negative > > > term) and, hence, in my original posting I concluded that "must > be > > > fully and freely available" was "absolutely overriding". I can > see no > > > reason (yet) to change that view. > > The original reason for this post is that the obligation on player by > L75D2 contains "may not", whereas L75C only contains "shall". > Now David drags in L75A, which contains "must". > > However both L75D2 and L75C are obligations put onto players, while > L75A > is only a "general principle". This general principle is often broken > and an AS can be the result. > > ####### So what? Law 75A is still very stringly worded. ######## > > I therefor do not believe that this argument of David's does anything > to > resolve the dilemma the player is put into. > Since L75D2 very strongly tells him to do one thing, and L75C suggests > that he shall do something opposite ######## And so does Law 75A > #########, the dilemma remains. I still vote > in fabour of following L75D2 to the letter. > > David then proceeds to give another example on which I shall probably > disagree with the majority view : > > > > Consider the simple case where one > > > Defender has clearly given an incorrect explanation, the other > clearly > > > realises this and knows the correct explanation of their > agreements. > > > I do not suggest for a moment that the second Defender can do > anything > > > under his own steam until the end of the play period because he is > > > clearly restrained by Law 75D2. However, if Declarer turns to him > and > > > asks if his partner's original explanation was incorrect, then > would a > > > reply along the lines of "I am restrained by Law 75D2 from saying > or > > > indicating anything about that until the end of the play of the > hand" > > > really be making their agreements "freely and fully available". I > > > think not. > > So again a player is bound by one Law to initiate the breaking of > another. > > > > The best reply would be "Lets call the Director" and, > > > having done that, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in > which > > > the Director would not allow a correct explanation to be given > unless > > > forbidden by some regulation of the SO. It is even more difficult > to > > > see why the SO should have such a regulation, even if one did not > > > consider that such a regulation would be contrary to Law 75A. > > But that regulation exists : it is L75D2 ! > > By asking to call the director, one can already be in breach of L75D2, > as it may well be argued afterwards that this alone is already UI to > partner, enough to make him realize his mistake. > > > ######### So what should the Defender do when asked by Declarer? > Simply be rude and refuse to say anything? As I have already > mentioned in another posting, if the question is illegal then an > infraction occurred when it was asked and the TD should be called > anyway. ######## > > Furthermore, the TD would not be allowed to make the information > available to declarer either, out of fear of being slapped with > director's error when partner suddenly realises his mistake. > > So the dilemma is still there, and any amount of you trying to wriggle > out of it, simply to assure complete information to opponents is > doomed > to fail. > > Face up to it guys, in these situation, there is absolutely no way > that > full information can be insured to opponents. This is the result of > an > initial mistake by offenders and they shall face the consequences. > > > > > ########## > > > > > > > > > The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, since > the TD > > > will > > > adjust the score very favorably for them if they are injured > by > > > the > > > misinformation. > > > > > > ######### Agreed but, on the positive side, it may be > possible > > > to reduce the damage to Declarer by giving him the correct > explanation > > > part way through the hand as damage from this point forward is now > > > impossible. ######## > > > > > But this will always introduce UI to partner. I do not believe that > this can ever be outweighed. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 21:49:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:49:25 +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 VAA21024 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:49:01 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1016231; 6 May 98 11:48 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 6 May 1998 12:47:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: FW: Self Explanations Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:47:12 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry but I forgot when I first sent this to mark up my old comments. > Herman wrote: > > David Martin wrote: > > > > > > > > ####OLD##### When I wrote my original reply to Marv, > I was fully > > > aware of the use of "may not" in the above quoted Law and of > the > > > interpretation placed on it in the Preface to the Laws. > Nevertheless, > > > I came to the conclusion that the use of "must" (the > strongest > > > positive term) in Law 75A, ie. "must be fully and freely > available", > > > is stronger than "may not" (as "must not" is the strongest > negative > > > term) and, hence, in my original posting I concluded that > "must be > > > fully and freely available" was "absolutely overriding". I > can see no > > > reason (yet) to change that view. > > The original reason for this post is that the obligation on > player by > L75D2 contains "may not", whereas L75C only contains "shall". > Now David drags in L75A, which contains "must". > > However both L75D2 and L75C are obligations put onto players, > while L75A > is only a "general principle". This general principle is often > broken > and an AS can be the result. > > ####### So what? Law 75A is still very strongly worded. > ######## > > I therefor do not believe that this argument of David's does > anything to > resolve the dilemma the player is put into. > Since L75D2 very strongly tells him to do one thing, and L75C > suggests > that he shall do something opposite ######## And so does Law > 75A #########, the dilemma remains. I still vote > in fabour of following L75D2 to the letter. > > David then proceeds to give another example on which I shall > probably > disagree with the majority view : > > > > Consider the simple case where one > > > Defender has clearly given an incorrect explanation, the > other clearly > > > realises this and knows the correct explanation of their > agreements. > > > I do not suggest for a moment that the second Defender can > do anything > > > under his own steam until the end of the play period because > he is > > > clearly restrained by Law 75D2. However, if Declarer turns > to him and > > > asks if his partner's original explanation was incorrect, > then would a > > > reply along the lines of "I am restrained by Law 75D2 from > saying or > > > indicating anything about that until the end of the play of > the hand" > > > really be making their agreements "freely and fully > available". I > > > think not. > > So again a player is bound by one Law to initiate the breaking > of > another. > > > > The best reply would be "Lets call the Director" and, > > > having done that, it is difficult to envisage circumstances > in which > > > the Director would not allow a correct explanation to be > given unless > > > forbidden by some regulation of the SO. It is even more > difficult to > > > see why the SO should have such a regulation, even if one > did not > > > consider that such a regulation would be contrary to Law > 75A. > > But that regulation exists : it is L75D2 ! > > By asking to call the director, one can already be in breach of > L75D2, > as it may well be argued afterwards that this alone is already > UI to > partner, enough to make him realize his mistake. > > > ######### So what should the Defender do when asked by > Declarer? Simply be rude and refuse to say anything? As I have > already mentioned in another posting, if the question is illegal then > an infraction occurred when it was asked and the TD should be called > anyway. ######## > > Furthermore, the TD would not be allowed to make the information > available to declarer either, out of fear of being slapped with > director's error when partner suddenly realises his mistake. > > So the dilemma is still there, and any amount of you trying to > wriggle > out of it, simply to assure complete information to opponents is > doomed > to fail. > > Face up to it guys, in these situation, there is absolutely no > way that > full information can be insured to opponents. This is the > result of an > initial mistake by offenders and they shall face the > consequences. > > > > > ####OLD###### > > > > > > > > > The opponents don't lose protection by this policy, > since the TD > > > will > > > adjust the score very favorably for them if they are > injured by > > > the > > > misinformation. > > > > > > ####OLD##### Agreed but, on the positive side, it may > be possible > > > to reduce the damage to Declarer by giving him the correct > explanation > > > part way through the hand as damage from this point forward > is now > > > impossible. ####OLD#### > > > > > But this will always introduce UI to partner. I do not believe > that > this can ever be outweighed. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 21:53:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:53:44 +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 VAA21049 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 21:53:25 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1015845; 6 May 98 11:45 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 6 May 1998 12:44:52 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:44:51 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I came across an interesting situation one evening at the Young Chelsea recently. The auction went: N E S W 1D 1S X(1) P 2D (1) NOT alerted but negative, ie, take out (EBU & YC alerting regulations require an alert here). East now asks and discovers the truth. I am called to the table and rule under Law 21B1 that since East has not yet called, West can change his Pass if he wishes. West replaces it with 2C. Under Law 21B2, I now give North the opportunity to replace his 2D bid but he elects to let it stand. I now go on to explain about UI and withdrawn calls (Law 16C) but spot an interesting problem. The original bid of 2D shows a minimum hand with no great liking for Hearts whilst a free bid over the substituted call of 2C normally shows a much better hand. Thus, although North has not changed his call, the meaning of his 2D bid is now different and South clearly knows which type of hand North has. Is this UI? If so then which Law makes it so? After all, North has not changed his bid, it has been changed for him! Is this a gap in the UI laws? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 22:04:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:04:11 +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 WAA21129 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:04:04 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018158; 6 May 98 11:59 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 6 May 1998 12:58:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Play of Wrong Board in a Match Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:58:11 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was recently asked about a ruling in a 24 board league match when, in the second half, a completely erroneous board 25 was played at one table only. One side had gained a particularly good result on the board and wanted it to be played at the other table in order to keep the benefit of their good score. The other side argued that it was completely invalid as the match was only a 24 board one and therefore boards 1 to 24 only should be played. Fortunately, I was easily able to cancel the board on the grounds that it had not been shuffled and dealt at the table and Law 6D2 applied. However, if they had carelessly shuffled and dealt it along with the correct set of 13 to 24 then what should I do? The SO had no regulations other than the usual ones indicating the total number of boards to be played in the match (24) and the number to be played in each stanza (12). From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 22:11:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:11:03 +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 WAA21179 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:10:56 +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 HAA19882 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 07:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980506080527.2cefac80@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 08:05:27 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: References: <1998May02.105300.1189.205095@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:16 AM 5/6/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Richard Willey wrote: >>Currently, on OKBridge there exists a series of pre-defined convention >>cards. >>Casual and pickup partnerships typically agree to use one of these cards >>as a base, perhaps adding in a favorite gadget or two. Plain text cards >>for a number of common systems are provided by the OKBridge client and >>new convention cards are continually being developed and made available. >> My expectation is that precisely the same sort of development process >>would extend to this new system. The average player might not have the >>experience required to design a complete system file, however, they could >>certainly agree to use an existing one. > > That's a terrible idea. You provide an extremely detailed "standard" >system card in your new format, and when I say SAYC to a partner now >opponents will check it. That means they will know at least 200 times >as many agreements I have with my partner as I do! If you don't know the agreements that are contained within SAYC (or any other predefined system card) why would you agree to play the system? If the sequence is defined within the system you have agreed to play, why shouldn't the opponents be informed? It's not their fault you announced you were playing a system you may not understand. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 22:11:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:11:32 +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 WAA21186 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:11:08 +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 NAA01507 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:10:55 +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 NAA28364 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:10:54 +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 NAA05920 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:10:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 6 May 98 13:10:52 BST Message-Id: <5146.9805061210@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: go back. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Law 35 applies only if the inadmissible call (3C) is condoned by a > > subsequent call by North. That's not the case here. > > Is 3C an inadmissible call? I thought that term only applied to bids of > more than seven, doubling one's own contract, and such. Here, 3C is a > perfectly admissible bid; it just came at the wrong time. I'd say L39 > applies, and L35 does not. This makes more logical sense, too. > > Grattan: do we need a definition of "inadmissible call" in 2007? > Steve I think L35 defines "inadmissible calls": LAW 35 - INADMISSIBLE CALL CONDONED When, after any inadmissible call specified below, ... D. Call after Final Pass If the inadmissible call was a call after the final pass of the auction, To my mind, this defines a call after the final pass as an inadmissible call. On the auction N E S W 1S P 2S P 3S P P P 2S 3C law 35 applies. However, there is still the issue of L25. On the auction N E S W 1S P 2S P 3S P P P 3C Is 3C subject to L25 (following footnote #11, the second footnote to L31) or L39? Can L25B be applied to the last call of the auction, the first phrase "Until LHO calls," is awkward? 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 May 6 22:16:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:16:36 +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 WAA21227 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:16:26 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:15:50 +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 NAA20251 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 13:11:04 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: RE: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <01BD7812.02AD53E0@har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 12:09:24 +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, 5 May 1998 10:38:51 -0400 Craig Senior wrote: > One might assume that the actively ethical person would be faithful to his > wife and have no other mistress. I know that's a quaint notion, but somehow > it does seem to fit in a discussion of ethics. According to Law 4 it's OK if the TD doesn't mind: "In pair or team events, the contestants ... retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorised by the Director)." And sometimes it's compulsory: "In individual events ... partnerships change during a session." Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 22:42:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:42:16 +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 WAA21330 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:42:10 +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 IAA23039 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 08:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980506083737.38179d4c@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 08:37:37 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199805060502.WAA23554@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:00 PM 5/5/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >David Martin wrote: >######### Forgetting the situation where an incorrect >explanation has been given for a moment, on the more general question >of whom one can ask about agreements, consider the situation with >leads, signals and discards during the play period. After the >opening lead, can I only ask the leader's partner about their leads? >####### > >#####Can I only ask the >leader about their signals? I think not.##### > >When a card has been played that may constitute a signal, whether >opening lead, later lead, discard, or a follow-suit, declarer should >ask only the partner of the player about any special partnership >agreement associated with that particular play. I know this isn't >specified in the Laws, probably because the lawmakers couldn't >imagine anyone's wanting to have a defender explain the meaning of >his own play. L20F1 says that during the auction a player may ask questions and that replies "should normally be given by the partner of the player who made a call in question." L20F2 makes no mention of who should reply to questions posed during the play period. That would suggest to me that either the Laws are not concerned with who gives the explanation during the play period, or the same guidelines are in effect as during the auction. Either way, there is nothing in this law preventing a player from giving an explanation of his own call or play. If declarer asks a specific defender about a specific call, why shouldn't this be one of those times when the normal approach of partner explaining is not used? We can't know for sure, but perhaps when the lawmakers used "normally" they were making allowance for situations such as the one given earlier. It seems absurd to me that a defender can't answer declarer's question. If the answer results in UI information being available to the other defender, Law 16 is there for protection. In my opinion, it is more important to that declarer should be fully and correctly informed of the opponents' agreements than the defenders should be protected against possibly making available UI. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 6 22:53:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:53:47 +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 WAA21371 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:53:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000472; 6 May 98 12:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:28:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fifth Friday - may 1998 - announcement In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Which reminds me of something else... > >Months ago, somebody (DavidS???) announced a simultaneous tournament in >June'98. I can't find the mail anymore but is this still going to happen? Surely, June 30th: full details on my Bridgepage, specifically at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/hghs_pst.htm However, one warning: because I deal with a lot of small clubs and nearly all by snail mail, this is not like Herman's instant results: my results are at least a month later. -- 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 May 6 23:25:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:25:03 +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 XAA21459 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:24:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2006362; 6 May 98 13:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 14:03:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Play of Wrong Board in a Match In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >I was recently asked about a ruling in a 24 board league match when, in >the second half, a completely erroneous board 25 was played at one table >only. One side had gained a particularly good result on the board and >wanted it to be played at the other table in order to keep the benefit >of their good score. The other side argued that it was completely >invalid as the match was only a 24 board one and therefore boards 1 to >24 only should be played. > >Fortunately, I was easily able to cancel the board on the grounds that >it had not been shuffled and dealt at the table and Law 6D2 applied. >However, if they had carelessly shuffled and dealt it along with the >correct set of 13 to 24 then what should I do? The SO had no >regulations other than the usual ones indicating the total number of >boards to be played in the match (24) and the number to be played in >each stanza (12). In "obvious" situations I believe "custom + practice" is effectively part of the regulations. I believe it is implicit in the SO's regulations that not only are 24 boards to be played, but the 24 boards that everyone would understand. If 25 boards are played then the SO's regulation requires the score on one to be cancelled: custom + practice means they play #1 to #24, so cancel #25. I also consider the pair who would like the score kept are budding BLs, and I would have a word with them on their general approach to 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 Wed May 6 23:28:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:28:51 +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 XAA21478 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:28:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006364; 6 May 98 13:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:50:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980506080527.2cefac80@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >If you don't know the agreements that are contained within SAYC (or any >other predefined system card) why would you agree to play the system? Kindly suggest any sensible alternative when playing with a pickup partner from another continent. > If >the sequence is defined within the system you have agreed to play, why >shouldn't the opponents be informed? It's not their fault you announced >you were playing a system you may not understand. If they are reasonable people then there is no problem, especially if they don't have one of these unnecessary and game-damaging hyper-cards. -- 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 May 6 23:33:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:33:08 +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 XAA21525 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:32:57 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006365; 6 May 98 13:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:57:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >I came across an interesting situation one evening at the Young Chelsea >recently. > >The auction went: > >N E S W >1D 1S X(1) P >2D > >(1) NOT alerted but negative, ie, take out (EBU & YC alerting >regulations require an alert here). > >East now asks and discovers the truth. I am called to the table and >rule under Law 21B1 that since East has not yet called, West can change >his Pass if he wishes. West replaces it with 2C. Under Law 21B2, I now >give North the opportunity to replace his 2D bid but he elects to let it >stand. > >I now go on to explain about UI and withdrawn calls (Law 16C) but spot >an interesting problem. The original bid of 2D shows a minimum hand >with no great liking for Hearts whilst a free bid over the substituted >call of 2C normally shows a much better hand. Thus, although North has >not changed his call, the meaning of his 2D bid is now different and >South clearly knows which type of hand North has. Is this UI? If so >then which Law makes it so? After all, North has not changed his bid, >it has been changed for him! Is this a gap in the UI laws? When this was discussed on a previous occasion, I believe there was a feeling that the original 2D bid was withdrawn, and replaced with a new one, and the original one is UI under L16C. You say he has not 'changed' his bid, but the word 'change' does not appear in L16C. -- 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 May 7 00:09:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:09:31 +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 AAA21612 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:09:14 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1016618; 6 May 98 14:02 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:01:36 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Play of Wrong Board in a Match Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 15:01:35 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > David Martin wrote: > >I was recently asked about a ruling in a 24 board league match when, > in > >the second half, a completely erroneous board 25 was played at one > table > >only. One side had gained a particularly good result on the board > and > >wanted it to be played at the other table in order to keep the > benefit > >of their good score. The other side argued that it was completely > >invalid as the match was only a 24 board one and therefore boards 1 > to > >24 only should be played. > > > >Fortunately, I was easily able to cancel the board on the grounds > that > >it had not been shuffled and dealt at the table and Law 6D2 applied. > >However, if they had carelessly shuffled and dealt it along with the > >correct set of 13 to 24 then what should I do? The SO had no > >regulations other than the usual ones indicating the total number of > >boards to be played in the match (24) and the number to be played in > >each stanza (12). > > In "obvious" situations I believe "custom + practice" is effectively > part of the regulations. I believe it is implicit in the SO's > regulations that not only are 24 boards to be played, but the 24 > boards > that everyone would understand. If 25 boards are played then the SO's > regulation requires the score on one to be cancelled: custom + > practice > means they play #1 to #24, so cancel #25. > > I also consider the pair who would like the score kept are budding > BLs, and I would have a word with them on their general approach to > the > game. > > ######## A very sensible answer but, just in case it changes anything, > I should clarify a point that I omitted from the original posting. > The erroneous board 25 was played first before any of 13 to 24 in the > second stanza and, hence, could have allowed as a substitute for one > in the "normal" range. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 00:27:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:27:12 +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 AAA23907 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:27:01 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1020067; 6 May 98 14:18 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:17:25 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 15:17:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > David Martin wrote: > >I came across an interesting situation one evening at the Young > Chelsea > >recently. > > > >The auction went: > > > >N E S W > >1D 1S X(1) P > >2D > > > >(1) NOT alerted but negative, ie, take out (EBU & YC alerting > >regulations require an alert here). > > > >East now asks and discovers the truth. I am called to the table and > >rule under Law 21B1 that since East has not yet called, West can > change > >his Pass if he wishes. West replaces it with 2C. Under Law 21B2, I > now > >give North the opportunity to replace his 2D bid but he elects to let > it > >stand. > > > >I now go on to explain about UI and withdrawn calls (Law 16C) but > spot > >an interesting problem. The original bid of 2D shows a minimum hand > >with no great liking for Hearts whilst a free bid over the > substituted > >call of 2C normally shows a much better hand. Thus, although North > has > >not changed his call, the meaning of his 2D bid is now different and > >South clearly knows which type of hand North has. Is this UI? If so > >then which Law makes it so? After all, North has not changed his > bid, > >it has been changed for him! Is this a gap in the UI laws? > > When this was discussed on a previous occasion, I believe there was > a > feeling that the original 2D bid was withdrawn, and replaced with a > new > one, and the original one is UI under L16C. You say he has not > 'changed' his bid, but the word 'change' does not appear in L16C. > > ########## Agreed, but the word that Law 16C uses is "withdrawn" and > North has clearly not withdrawn the original 2D bid. However, since > posting this one, I have had a few thoughts of my own and may have > stumbled over a better answer. If the auction had gone: > > > N E S W > 1D 1S X(Alerted) 2C > 2D > > then South would think that North had a hand good enough to make a > free bid over 2C. The only reason that South knows that North does > not have this hand is because of the knowledge of West's withdrawn > Pass which is clearly UI. Hence, one could argue that any action by > South that uses this knowledge of North's hand is directly based on UI > about West's hand and therefore illegal. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 00:30:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:30:49 +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 AAA23924 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:30:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA11600 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 10:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26745; Wed, 6 May 1998 10:31:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 10:31:02 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805061431.KAA26745@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > the > result on a board where the Director has made an error should, for each > side, be the best thing that was at all likely to happen to them without > the Director's error. The exact language is "likely." (The wording "at all probable" is used for the OS, not relevant here.) In the ACBL, "likely" means one chance in three, but no doubt it has a different definition elsewhere. Regardless of the technical definition, "likely" means something that you reasonably expect _would_ happen if the board were played a few times (starting at the position where the error occurred*), not something that might just possibly happen if everything were to go perfectly for one side. Except for this very minor quibble, David's remarks are exactly on target. It's better if the TD doesn't make mistakes, or at least not mistakes that prevent a board from being played, but if he does botch one, it isn't right to punish the players for it. ----- *If you have already revoked, and later in the same hand the TD botches a ruling, you don't get your two tricks back because of the TD error! From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 00:52:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:52:30 +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 AAA24008 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:52:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023572; 6 May 98 14:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 14:18:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980506083737.38179d4c@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >We can't know for sure, but perhaps when the lawmakers used "normally" they >were making allowance for situations such as the one given earlier. If a pair have an agreement, but one of them cannot remember, the Director might send him away from the table while his partner explains it. This would not be permissible but for the word "normally" in the Laws. > It >seems absurd to me that a defender can't answer declarer's question. If >the answer results in UI information being available to the other defender, >Law 16 is there for protection. In my opinion, it is more important to >that declarer should be fully and correctly informed of the opponents' >agreements than the defenders should be protected against possibly making >available UI. It seems to me that a question specifically about opening leads should really not be answered by opening leader. After all, we do not want the de Wael situation, where LHO says 4th highest and RHO says 3rd and 5th, and it is claimed elsewhere in this thread that this is the correct answer under the Laws. Most questions of card play can be answered by either partner because everyone does them: both partners signal, for example. -- 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 May 7 02:26:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 02:26:19 +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 CAA24403 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 02:26:12 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb88.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.88]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00446 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 12:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980506122616.0071e410@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 12:26:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 5/6/98 +0100, David Martin wrote: >I came across an interesting situation one evening at the Young Chelsea >recently. > >The auction went: > >N E S W >1D 1S X(1) P >2D > >(1) NOT alerted but negative, ie, take out (EBU & YC alerting >regulations require an alert here). > >East now asks and discovers the truth. I am called to the table and >rule under Law 21B1 that since East has not yet called, West can change >his Pass if he wishes. West replaces it with 2C. Under Law 21B2, I now >give North the opportunity to replace his 2D bid but he elects to let it >stand. > >I now go on to explain about UI and withdrawn calls (Law 16C) but spot >an interesting problem. The original bid of 2D shows a minimum hand >with no great liking for Hearts whilst a free bid over the substituted >call of 2C normally shows a much better hand. Thus, although North has >not changed his call, the meaning of his 2D bid is now different and >South clearly knows which type of hand North has. Is this UI? If so >then which Law makes it so? After all, North has not changed his bid, >it has been changed for him! Is this a gap in the UI laws? > IMO L16C2 does cover this. The information about the meaning of North's hand derives from the withdrawn Pass by the NOS, and is thus UI. I'm less certain than you are that the content of the information is so clear-cut. In my methods, the 2D bid after 2C might still be based on a minimum opening, as long as the diamond suit is a good 6-bagger or better. It is true that the upper limit of 2D is higher than it would be after the Pass, but this information is likely to be of at most marginal value, and could well be revealed by the subsequent bidding anyway. Of course, the important question is not what MY methods are but the methods of the NS pair. If the free 2D bid, in their methods, does promise "a much better hand", then I think S is obliged under L16C2 to treat the 2D bid as showing that hand, rather than the minimum hand promised by the original 2D call. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 02:26:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 02:26:37 +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 CAA24409 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 02:26:32 +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 MAA12141; Wed, 6 May 1998 12:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980506121829.38173236@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 12:18:29 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.16.19980506080527.2cefac80@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:50 PM 5/6/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: > >>If you don't know the agreements that are contained within SAYC (or any >>other predefined system card) why would you agree to play the system? > > Kindly suggest any sensible alternative when playing with a pickup >partner from another continent. The answer certainly isn't to agree to play a system you don't know. Try a basic system light on conventions rather than SAYC. Goren comes to mind, or the system outlined in "Five Weeks to Winning Bridge." There will be no danger of missing a MSS or Jacoby NT or Drury call if you do. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 04:35:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 04:35:03 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f12.hotmail.com [207.82.250.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA25021 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 04:34:57 +1000 Received: (qmail 13476 invoked by uid 0); 6 May 1998 18:34:59 -0000 Message-ID: <19980506183459.13475.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 45.10.1.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 06 May 1998 11:34:59 PDT X-Originating-IP: [45.10.1.23] From: "richard willey" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: technology Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 11:34:59 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Tim Goodwin wrote: >>If you don’t know the agreements that are contained within SAYC (or >>any other predefined system card) why would you agree to play the >>system? >Kindly suggest any sensible alternative when playing with a pickup >partner from another continent. >>If the sequence is defined within the system you have agreed to >>play, why shouldn’t the opponents be informed? It’s not their >>fault you announced you were playing a system you may not >>understand. Tim and David are both raising valid points. If I can presume to summarize for the two individuals, David's major concern would appear to be that the hypertext card is providing an artificial level of accuracy. If the convention card were to provide an alert for an agreement which was not used by that partnership, this could could cause serious problems for the defending pair. Tim's point would appear to be that is a pair of individuals claim to be playing a system, then they naturally raise the expectation that they are actually playing the system in question. A ridiculous analogy might be the following. Suppose a pair announced that they were playing SAYC. One player opens 1N. My natural assumption, unless told otherwise is that the 1N opening is a strong bid, and not a weak balanced hand. I don't think that it is wrong to assume that players actually know the system which they claim to play. Perhaps for pickup partnerships, the solution should be to steer away from a system as as complex and artificial as SAYC and try to move towards a simplier standard. I don't believe that the existing method where the words SAYC mean all things to all people is appropriate. >If they are reasonable people then there is no problem, especially >if they don’t have one of these unnecessary and game-damaging hyper->cards. The purpose of the hyper-card is to provide a better organized and easier method of distributing information. The information which is distributed can be left to the descretion of the individuals involved. Richard ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 06:52:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 06:52:24 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA25325 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 06:52:16 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA10492 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:52:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.65) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010342; Wed May 6 15:51:31 1998 Received: by har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD790F.26F4F520@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 6 May 1998 16:51:02 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD790F.26F4F520@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: BLML Subject: RE: RE: Self Explanations Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 16:50:54 -0400 Encoding: 37 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry honey...I didn't mean to cheat. I was just being a rugged individualist. ---------- From: Jeremy Rickard[SMTP:J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 8:09 AM To: BLML Subject: Re: RE: Self Explanations On Tue, 5 May 1998 10:38:51 -0400 Craig Senior wrote: > One might assume that the actively ethical person would be faithful to his > wife and have no other mistress. I know that's a quaint notion, but somehow > it does seem to fit in a discussion of ethics. According to Law 4 it's OK if the TD doesn't mind: "In pair or team events, the contestants ... retain the same partnerships throughout a session (except in the case of substitutions authorised by the Director)." And sometimes it's compulsory: "In individual events ... partnerships change during a session." Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 08:17:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:17:50 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 IAA25516 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:17:44 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24171; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805062217.PAA24171@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: , , Subject: Risk-free psych Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 15:13:53 -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 (This is an RGB posting that I thought might be okay for BLML) > Steve Willner wrote: > (Jeremy Mathers) writes: > > I think (and the rulings I've seen back me up) that as long as > > partner continues to bid as if all of your bids are genuine, > > you've got no problems. > > (Even if, deep in his heart, he suspects). > > > I've no doubt there are rulings backing you up, but the above is > not what L75C says. You are obliged to disclose all relevant > partnership experience, even if you yourself don't use the > information. Thus if the reason for suspicion is holding > eight cards in the suit partner has preempted in, white on > red, there is not necessarily anything to disclose. But if > the suspicion is because partner has psyched the > same way twice in the last month, that very definitely has to > be disclosed, even if you have no intention of acting on the > suspicion. Law 73E is often overlooked, especially by ACBL TDs. Here it is: E. Deception A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not *protected* by concealed partnership understanding or experience). (emphasis mine) A reasonable interpretation of "protected" would be things like: (1) A conventional bid that asks about, or tells about, the psych or (2) an agreement (explicit or implied) that a psych will be likely in a given situation. It does not mean that when a partnership psychs once or twice in a give situation that "protection" is thereby established for future instances. L40A says that psyching is okay without prior announcement, "provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." "Based on" should have been "protected by" to be consistent with L73E. However, I think the two phrases are synonymous in these contexts. L75 says that only "special" partnership agreements must be disclosed, not all partnership agreements. The lawmakers put that word "special" in L75 for a reason, but many discussions involving L75 seem to ignore the word. L75C further states that one need not disclose inferences drawn from general knowledge and experience. Obviously such general knowledge and experience is nothing "special," even if a partnership has discussed it in a general way. Many years ago I psyched an opening 1S bid in first seat, not vul vs vul, when playing with expert first-time partner Z against fairly good opponents. LHO doubled, Z redoubled, RHO bid 3H, pass by me, LHO bid 4H, doubled by Z. Of course I did not pull the double (with my 9xxxx spades??), since any good player would know by now that I had psyched. But not this good player. Z had a 4-3-3-3 hand with three defensive tricks, and the vulnerable opponents would have had to be insane to bid like that with 13-14 HCP between them. After Z's desperate defense let them make an overtrick, he said, "Never psych with me. I never psych." Okay, I agreed not to do it again. But suppose he had said, "Sorry, I should have caught it. That was stupid of me, I know better," and several rounds later he holds a similar hand with favorable vulnerability and the bidding goes 1S by me, double on his right, redouble, 3H, P, 4H. Now, remembering his previous gaff, he will pass. Is this psych now "protected?" Should he tell declarer before leading, "My partner is liable to have psyched, considering the situation?" Should we have pre-Alerted the opposition that we sometimes psych opening bids in first seat with unfavorable vulnerability? If the answer is yes to either question, I don't agree. If anyone with sufficient general knowledge and experience should know that this had to be a psych, then the psych is not part of any "special partnership agreement." Having been awakened to what should have been part of his general knowledge, Z now has that general knowledge, which is nothing "special." He will employ that knowledge with other partners in the future, without discussion. To argue that he can do this only once per partnership without a disclosure statement is not logical, although ACBL TDs seem to think it is. When partner will allow for a psych before it becomes obvious by normal inference, that is "protection." If a particular psych is frequent enough that partner will catch it more often than he would with an unknown partner, then this constitutes a special partnership agreement that must be disclosed. If a partnership psychs frequently in many situations, that must be disclosed for the same reason. There is a deeper consideration here, involving the cases in which the partner of the psycher can make no use of the knowledge that partner may be psyching, but I'll leave that for another time. Hint: "Protection" may not apply. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com "Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 08:19:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:19:17 +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 IAA25535 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:19:09 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client242d.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.45]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA27432; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:19:32 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "David Martin" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Play of Wrong Board in a Match Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 23:19:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd793c$fcc046a0$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 Martin To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Date: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 4:21 PM Subject: RE: Play of Wrong Board in a Match > DWS wrote: > >> David Martin wrote: >> >I was recently asked about a ruling in a 24 board league match when, >> in >> >the second half, a completely erroneous board 25 was played at one >> table >> >only. One side had gained a particularly good result on the board >> and >> >wanted it to be played at the other table in order to keep the >> benefit >> >of their good score. The other side argued that it was completely >> >invalid as the match was only a 24 board one and therefore boards 1 >> to >> >24 only should be played. >> ######## A very sensible answer but, just in case it changes anything, >> I should clarify a point that I omitted from the original posting. >> The erroneous board 25 was played first before any of 13 to 24 in the >> second stanza and, hence, could have allowed as a substitute for one >> in the "normal" range. ######### NOPE. North would have been the dealer on board 25. His opps only would have been Vun. These conditions do not exist in boards 13 - 24. The setting down of conditions for a match take into account such details. To say that a match is of 24 boards takes into account the fact that the dealer is North on 5 occasions not six. To sub for a boards where N is indeed the dealer could not fulfill the regular change of Vun requirements. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 08:21:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:21:08 +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 IAA25550 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:21:01 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client242d.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.45]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA27669; Wed, 6 May 1998 23:21:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "David Martin" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Play of Wrong Board in a Match Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 23:21:25 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd793d$4ed3a0e0$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 oops six , not seven!! Anne -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Date: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 4:21 PM Subject: RE: Play of Wrong Board in a Match From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 08:32:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:32:01 +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 IAA25574 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:31:58 +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 IAA02423 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:32:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980507082520.0091a930@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 08:25:20 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980506121829.38173236@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.5.16.19980506080527.2cefac80@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:18 PM 5/6/98, Tim Goodwin wrote: >The answer certainly isn't to agree to play a system you don't know. Try a >basic system light on conventions rather than SAYC. Goren comes to mind, >or the system outlined in "Five Weeks to Winning Bridge." There will be no >danger of missing a MSS or Jacoby NT or Drury call if you do. SAYC actually doesn't have too much in the way of conventions - Jacoby 2NT, negative doubles to 2S, Michaels Cuebids, Blackwood, DOPI and Gerber over 1NT, and 2S is a transfer to either minor. The most common error that I observe with OKbridge pick-up pds is not knowing that in SAYC system is off after our 1NT overcall, except for 2C still being Stayman (which I think a poor compromise). But in any case I agree with the point that the hyper-card idea is going to work best with pairs who have taken the trouble to make concrete agreements in many situations, and have bothered to program their agent to talk at the right times. Neither of these is a trivial task. Pairs who have bothered to do so can rest easy that full disclosure has occurred (so long as their agent is an accurate reflection of their agreement) and pairs that haven't are certainly no worse than they are at the moment. I think a dual standard could exist, but I don't envisage hyper-cards being practical in the next few years. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 08:40:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:40:31 +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 IAA25613 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:40:24 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009208; 6 May 98 22:25 GMT Message-ID: <2vgGgDAWMOU1Ewp+@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 23:24:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed In-Reply-To: <199805051819.LAA05239@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199805051819.LAA05239@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >It is galling to be fixed by a pair who don't know what they are >doing, but we should be willing to take the bad with the good. Such >pairs give away far more points than they receive from their poor use >of conventions. BLs don't accept that. I disagree. I play bridge not for imps, matchpoints or masterpoints, but for fun. There is no fun in dicing it out with a pair which doesn't know its methods, even if the dice are loaded in my favour. If a pair wishes to play complicated methods, it should have the courtesy to discuss them properly. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 09:54:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 09:54:43 +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 JAA26044 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 09:54:33 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA10647; Wed, 6 May 1998 16:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 16:54:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199805062354.QAA10647@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed May 6 16:05 PDT 1998 > > In message <199805051819.LAA05239@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. > French" writes > >It is galling to be fixed by a pair who don't know what they are > >doing, but we should be willing to take the bad with the good. Such > >pairs give away far more points than they receive from their poor use > >of conventions. BLs don't accept that. Paul Barden writes > I disagree. I play bridge not for imps, matchpoints or masterpoints, > but for fun. There is no fun in dicing it out with a pair which doesn't > know its methods, even if the dice are loaded in my favour. If a pair > wishes to play complicated methods, it should have the courtesy to > discuss them properly. Yes, but in how much detail? But since matchpoints are not your objective, you shouldn't be concerned about whether their misunderstanding cost you some matchpoints unfairly, so your "I disagree" seems quite off the mark from Marvin's post. Or should we understand that you consider yourself a BL who does accept being fixed? I would rather expect that Marv meant some rather than all BLs. The questions I see are _how_ thoroughly a partnership should be expected to have discussed its methods, and which laws should be the basis for enforcement of such a standard. I agree that the laws declare the right of a player to misbid. What limitations to that right to the laws actually allow for? Are you suggesting that we should look to the proprieties, to punish a misunderstanding for its discourtesy? Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 10:05:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:05:02 +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 KAA26083 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:04:56 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017758; 6 May 98 23:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 00:37:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Play of Wrong Board in a Match In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >David Martin wrote: >>I was recently asked about a ruling in a 24 board league match when, in >>the second half, a completely erroneous board 25 was played at one table >>only. One side had gained a particularly good result on the board and >>wanted it to be played at the other table in order to keep the benefit >>of their good score. The other side argued that it was completely >>invalid as the match was only a 24 board one and therefore boards 1 to >>24 only should be played. >> >>Fortunately, I was easily able to cancel the board on the grounds that >>it had not been shuffled and dealt at the table and Law 6D2 applied. >>However, if they had carelessly shuffled and dealt it along with the >>correct set of 13 to 24 then what should I do? The SO had no >>regulations other than the usual ones indicating the total number of >>boards to be played in the match (24) and the number to be played in >>each stanza (12). > > In "obvious" situations I believe "custom + practice" is effectively >part of the regulations. I believe it is implicit in the SO's >regulations that not only are 24 boards to be played, but the 24 boards >that everyone would understand. If 25 boards are played then the SO's >regulation requires the score on one to be cancelled: custom + practice >means they play #1 to #24, so cancel #25. > > I also consider the pair who would like the score kept are budding >BLs, and I would have a word with them on their general approach to the >game. > So you're directing the YC duplicate with 10 tables and put out three board rounds and a late table walks in so you pull the third board of each set, 2 boards on tables 9 and 10, inserting pulled boards and use them to constitute an 11-table 12 round Blackpool, when another pair walks in so you change to share and relay, grabbing the second board off table 1 in the nick of time. The board sets are now 1 18, 4 5, 7 8, 10 11, 13 14, 16 17, (2 3), 19 20, 22 23, 25 6, 28 9, 12 15. Upstairs you converted 5x5's into 6 tables share and relay with a similar sort of outcome. But at the YC we consider this normal and everyone understands it. I'd want to play board 25 here because Liz Fraser's dog (Bracken - Basset hound with a mournful look) ate the JS out of board 19 [he left the duplicate alone and went to kibitz the match] while we were playing 18, in a match at a table in the corner of this general mayhem. (all this has happened:-) ) -- 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 May 7 10:05:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:05:38 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 KAA26098 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:05:30 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA06590; Wed, 6 May 1998 17:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805070005.RAA06590@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Paul Barden" , Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:02:11 -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 ---------- Paul Barden writes: Marvin L. French writes: > >It is galling to be fixed by a pair who don't know what they are > >doing, but we should be willing to take the bad with the good. Such > >pairs give away far more points than they receive from their poor use > >of conventions. BLs don't accept that. > > I disagree. I play bridge not for imps, matchpoints or masterpoints, > but for fun. There is no fun in dicing it out with a pair which doesn't > know its methods, even if the dice are loaded in my favour. If a pair > wishes to play complicated methods, it should have the courtesy to > discuss them properly. > I agree wholeheartedly that it's no fun. Good players should not have to play against people who don't know what they are doing. Abolish the stratified games, and the problem will go away. Bad players can then have fun bashing each other with crazy bids in restricted games (where conventions can be limited according to level of play). Or they can get bashed in open games, where they will get no points for a 45% score. In Reno a C player opened 3D against me, holding seven diamonds to the ace and three outside aces. I felt comfortable in my 3NT contract, knowing all I had to do was knock out her partner's three, maybe two, aces, since I had QJx diamonds opposite Kxx. Down four, for a zero. When I politely asked her why she hadn't opened 1D, she said she only had 12 points, and it takes 13 to open. Feeling that she ought to do something with this hand, she opened 3D. However, if we willingly play against such pairs, we must (per the Laws) tolerate their mistakes, even when we get hurt. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 13:58:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA26893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 13:58:37 +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 NAA26887 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 13:58:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012854; 7 May 98 3:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 18:41:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > DWS wrote: > >> David Martin wrote: >> >I came across an interesting situation one evening at the Young >> Chelsea >> >recently. >> > >> >The auction went: >> > >> >N E S W >> >1D 1S X(1) P >> >2D >> > >> >(1) NOT alerted but negative, ie, take out (EBU & YC alerting >> >regulations require an alert here). >> > >> >East now asks and discovers the truth. I am called to the table and >> >rule under Law 21B1 that since East has not yet called, West can >> change >> >his Pass if he wishes. West replaces it with 2C. Under Law 21B2, I >> now >> >give North the opportunity to replace his 2D bid but he elects to let >> it >> >stand. >> > >> >I now go on to explain about UI and withdrawn calls (Law 16C) but >> spot >> >an interesting problem. The original bid of 2D shows a minimum hand >> >with no great liking for Hearts whilst a free bid over the >> substituted >> >call of 2C normally shows a much better hand. Thus, although North >> has >> >not changed his call, the meaning of his 2D bid is now different and >> >South clearly knows which type of hand North has. Is this UI? If so >> >then which Law makes it so? After all, North has not changed his >> bid, >> >it has been changed for him! Is this a gap in the UI laws? >> >> When this was discussed on a previous occasion, I believe there was >> a >> feeling that the original 2D bid was withdrawn, and replaced with a >> new >> one, and the original one is UI under L16C. You say he has not >> 'changed' his bid, but the word 'change' does not appear in L16C. >> >> ########## Agreed, but the word that Law 16C uses is "withdrawn" and >> North has clearly not withdrawn the original 2D bid. It may be clear to you, but last time we discussed there was a substantial body of opinion that did not agree with you. What do you do, physically, with bidding boxes? When W is allowed to change his call, you are quite likely to put your card back in the box, contemplate, and then [perhaps] bring out the same card. You withdrew it, and then played it again. I think you should consider that, when the auction changes, people do withdraw calls, and then play them again, rather than not withdraw them. > However, since >> posting this one, I have had a few thoughts of my own and may have >> stumbled over a better answer. If the auction had gone: >> >> >> N E S W >> 1D 1S X(Alerted) 2C >> 2D >> >> then South would think that North had a hand good enough to make a >> free bid over 2C. The only reason that South knows that North does >> not have this hand is because of the knowledge of West's withdrawn >> Pass which is clearly UI. Hence, one could argue that any action by >> South that uses this knowledge of North's hand is directly based on UI >> about West's hand and therefore illegal. ######## No, that's a terrible answer. Just think points for a moment. Suppose you play that 2D over pass is 11-14, and if it is "free", ie over 2C, then it is 13-16. If South has 13 or 14 he will bid 2D again, and it is not based on UI, and is legal. But we want the knowledge that he is now 13-14 to be UI. -- 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 May 7 14:24:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:24:29 +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 OAA26973 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:24:18 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-26.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.192]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA06035; Thu, 7 May 1998 00:24:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3551382B.242F200B@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 00:27:23 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: Paul Barden , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed References: <199805070005.RAA06590@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > ---------- > Paul Barden writes: > > Marvin L. French writes: > > > >It is galling to be fixed by a pair who don't know what they are > > >doing, but we should be willing to take the bad with the good. > Such > > >pairs give away far more points than they receive from their poor > use > > >of conventions. BLs don't accept that. > > > > I disagree. I play bridge not for imps, matchpoints or > masterpoints, > > but for fun. There is no fun in dicing it out with a pair which > doesn't > > know its methods, even if the dice are loaded in my favour. If a > pair > > wishes to play complicated methods, it should have the courtesy to > > discuss them properly. > > > I agree wholeheartedly that it's no fun. Good players should not have > to play against people who don't know what they are doing. Abolish > the stratified games, and the problem will go away. Bad players can > then have fun bashing each other with crazy bids in restricted games > (where conventions can be limited according to level of play). Or > they can get bashed in open games, where they will get no points > for a 45% score. > > In Reno a C player opened 3D against me, holding seven diamonds to > the ace and three outside aces. I felt comfortable in my 3NT > contract, > knowing all I had to do was knock out her partner's three, maybe two, > aces, since I had QJx diamonds opposite Kxx. Down four, for a > zero. When I politely asked her why she hadn't opened 1D, she > said she only had 12 points, and it takes 13 to open. Feeling that > she ought to do something with this hand, she opened 3D. > > However, if we willingly play against such pairs, we must (per the > Laws) tolerate their mistakes, even when we get hurt. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) I think it not in the best interests of bridge that "good" players have the attitude that they cannot stand to play against "bad" players. To eliminate the stratification would not solve the problem. You would then be getting fixed in an open game. But then if we eliminate stratification, we should really regress and eliminate Flighted games. Just one big game and let the chips fall where they may. I do lots of work with beginning players and have many times been criticized for not sending them into the fray with the "big" guys who all say "We had to jump in, we didn't have the baby games to play in. If they don't try to play up, how are they going to get better". As it is now, when they do play up, they are criticized, embarassed, and go home saying we will never play that game again. I am thrilled that so many of the "good" players had to skip the process of learning the game and started out as "experts". I wish I could have been one of them. I have found that the higher ranking of the player, the nicer they are at the table. (high ranking meaning 5000+). Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 16:05:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 16:05:38 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 QAA27314 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 16:05:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA18479 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 22:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805070557.WAA18479@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 22:54:40 -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 Nancy T. Dressing wrote: > > I think it not in the best interests of bridge that "good" players have > the attitude that they cannot stand to play against "bad" players. It may not be in the best interests of bridge, but it's a fact that strong players enjoy playing against strong players more than against weak players. Why shouldn't they? People playing any game relish strong competition. > To eliminate the stratification would not solve the problem. You would then > be getting fixed in an open game. But then if we eliminate > stratification, we should really regress and eliminate Flighted games. That is nonsense, I'm afraid. Look at the game of tennis, enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of players. C players compete with C players, not with A players, which neither would enjoy. When you do too well in C, you move up to B, then maybe up to A. If you do badly, you go in the other direction. There is no stupid point system or stupid event in which a C player could get points by winning one game in a one-sided match against an A player. And, by the way, hardly anyone pays a top player to be his/her doubles partner in a competition. It's legal, but seldom seen. > Just one big game and let the chips fall where they may. Not "one big game," where do you get that idea? You have Open games in which anyone can compete on an equal basis, with many conventions allowed. You have a few restricted games for life masters only, with more conventions allowed. You have restricted games for non-life masters, for 199ers, for 99ers, and for novices, with conventions limited appropriately for each type of event. Except for life master events, anyone can "play up" if they want to compete against stronger opposition or use more conventions, but they get the same masterpoint awards as anyone else in the event. >I do lots of > work with beginning players and have many times been criticized for not > sending them into the fray with the "big" guys who all say "We had to > jump in, we didn't have the baby games to play in. If they don't try to > play up, how are they going to get better". Baby games have always been around. In the 50s we had junior games that were restricted to those having 10 masterpoints or less. It was quite an achievement, incidentally, to "graduate" from the juniors in less than two years. Points were hard to come by. We were free to play up, however, and most did. As I said above, you should be allowed to play up if you want to...on an equal basis. If someone wants to play against the "big" guys, they shouln't ask for special treatment in the scoring column. >As it is now, when they do > play up, they are criticized, embarassed, and go home saying we will > never play that game again. That shouldn't happen, especially with Zero Tolerance (which TDs should not have needed) being instituted. However, weak players often take offense where none is intended. Embarassment is almost inevitable when you go down 1100 against a strong pair. Welcome comments that are normal between good opponents ("If you had ducked the heart, I would have been endplayed") are taken as insulting criticisms by inexperienced players, who should be eager to know what they have done wrong. It seems like your players want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to play in tough competition, but with special treatment. If they don't want to play in baby games, they shouldn't act like babies. However, I agree they should be treated with kid gloves. It would help if players were required to identify their strat in some way. Nevertheless I believe that, as in tennis and other competitions, most people are more comfortable playing against people at their same level. This idea of enticing players into tougher arenas by showering them with unearned masterpoints is a mistake. It is very difficult for a TD to deal with a mixture of weak and strong players. He wants to be lenient with the former and strict with the latter, not an easy task when they are at the same table. > I am thrilled that so many of the "good" > players had to skip the process of learning the game and started out as > "experts". I wish I could have been one of them. As your sarcasm hints, the type you refer to is seldom a really good player. >I have found that the > higher ranking of the player, the nicer they are at the table. (high > ranking meaning 5000+). I agree with that. Of course many of them are pros looking for clients, which calls for good PR. Still, it's admirable of them. Lesser players are full of frustrations at not being better, which may explain their lack of "niceness." Let me add that some of those "nice" pros will extract every ounce of advantage possible if you are a weak pair. They won't offend you by saying they can see your cards, or ask you not to discuss hands that they have not yet played, or ask that you not show your previous scores when entering a new score. They're too nice for that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 18:47:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:47:52 +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 SAA27818 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:47:44 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25900 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:48:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3550B6AF.B702B9A3@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 21:14:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > > By asking to call the director, one can already be in breach of L75D2, > > as it may well be argued afterwards that this alone is already UI to > > partner, enough to make him realize his mistake. > > > > > > ######### So what should the Defender do when asked by Declarer? > > Simply be rude and refuse to say anything? As I have already > > mentioned in another posting, if the question is illegal then an > > infraction occurred when it was asked and the TD should be called > > anyway. ######## > > My suggestion is simply to lie. Sorry guys, but that's just how it is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 18:47:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:47:52 +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 SAA27817 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:47:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-58.uunet.be [194.7.13.58]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25892 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:48:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3550B647.36B09D7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 21:13:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > resolve the dilemma the player is put into. > > Since L75D2 very strongly tells him to do one thing, and L75C suggests > > that he shall do something opposite ######## And so does Law 75A ######### No it DOESN'T !!! (sorry for shouting) L75A does not say : Player so-and-so must do this-or-that L75A says : opponents must have access. L75D2 says that a player may not do something. L75C says that he shall do something. These two are active, the first one is passive. If the opponents read the CC, and know fully well what's going on, then L75A is fulfilled even though the players have given misinformation. > > , the dilemma remains. I still vote > > in fabour of following L75D2 to the letter. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 19:06:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 19:06:57 +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 TAA27872 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 19:06:51 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA28335 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Thu, 7 May 1998 11:06:27 +0200 Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 11:06:26 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Play of Wrong Board in a Match In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 6 May 1998, David Martin wrote: > > ######## A very sensible answer but, just in case it changes anything, > > I should clarify a point that I omitted from the original posting. > > The erroneous board 25 was played first before any of 13 to 24 in the > > second stanza and, hence, could have allowed as a substitute for one > > in the "normal" range. ######### So, let me get this right, instead of starting with boards 13-18 at one table and 19-24 at the other, they somehow mananged to start with board 20-25 at one of the tables, played board 25 and then discovered their mistake. In that case, I'd be in favor of simply letting the result stand. The rules only specify 24 boards, not which numbers they have. What matters is that the match is played under the same dealer/vuln. conditions for both teams and this is still the case. 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 Thu May 7 19:28:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 19:28:18 +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 TAA27931 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 19:28:12 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-138.uunet.be [194.7.14.138]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27183 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 11:28:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35517877.EA8C4ED2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 11:01:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Play of Wrong Board in a Match X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd793c$fcc046a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > >> ######## A very sensible answer but, just in case it changes > anything, > >> I should clarify a point that I omitted from the original posting. > >> The erroneous board 25 was played first before any of 13 to 24 in the > >> second stanza and, hence, could have allowed as a substitute for one > >> in the "normal" range. ######### > > NOPE. > North would have been the dealer on board 25. His opps only would have > been Vun. These conditions do not exist in boards 13 - 24. > The setting down of conditions for a match take into account such > details. To say that a match is of 24 boards takes into account the fact > that the dealer is North on 5 occasions not six. To sub for a boards > where N is indeed the dealer could not fulfill the regular change of Vun > requirements. > > Anne That is just one of the reasons why we do simply not use random board numbers for normal matches. However, the rules also state that if a board is marked incorrectly (such as dealer or vulnerability), then the markings on the board shall count. My response therfor is that the board 25 is played and shall also be played at the other table. The players (or the TD) shall next choose from among boards 13-24 11 that will complete the 12-board half match. One could even envisage the TD going to the other room, dragging board 9 out of that set and indicate that the board labeled 25 shall count as nr 9. But if the board is correctly played at one table - the result should stand and the board should also move to the other table. Suppose you have the following situation : players are playing preduplicated boards in a team tournament. At one table, E picks up the North cards. The board has not yet been played at the other table. How do you deal with this ? Simply - you have them play the board as is and take it to the other table where you make sure they make the same mistake. Board saved ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 21:43:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 21:43:12 +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 VAA28205 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 21:43:03 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013615; 7 May 98 10:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 11:50:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980506121829.38173236@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 01:50 PM 5/6/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >>>If you don't know the agreements that are contained within SAYC (or any >>>other predefined system card) why would you agree to play the system? >> >> Kindly suggest any sensible alternative when playing with a pickup >>partner from another continent. > >The answer certainly isn't to agree to play a system you don't know. Try a >basic system light on conventions rather than SAYC. Goren comes to mind, >or the system outlined in "Five Weeks to Winning Bridge." There will be no >danger of missing a MSS or Jacoby NT or Drury call if you do. I don't know Goren. I don't know Five Weeks to Winning Bridge. I play a simple form of SAYC and get no problems. I think you are going to create problems for me and the majority of other players out there. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB WBU Chief TD @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 21:45:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 21:45:43 +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 VAA28226 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 21:45:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013613; 7 May 98 10:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 11:50:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Risk-free psych In-Reply-To: <199805062217.PAA24171@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a one- syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB WBU Chief TD @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 22:30:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 22:30:39 +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 WAA28442 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 22:30:33 +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 IAA01477 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980507082555.37af2060@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 08:25:55 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3550B6AF.B702B9A3@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:14 PM 5/6/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >David Martin wrote: >> >> > >> > By asking to call the director, one can already be in breach of L75D2, >> > as it may well be argued afterwards that this alone is already UI to >> > partner, enough to make him realize his mistake. >> > >> > >> > ######### So what should the Defender do when asked by Declarer? >> > Simply be rude and refuse to say anything? As I have already >> > mentioned in another posting, if the question is illegal then an >> > infraction occurred when it was asked and the TD should be called >> > anyway. ######## >> > > >My suggestion is simply to lie. Sorry guys, but that's just how it is. Let me see if I have this straight. A defender has given an incorrect explanation of one of his partner's call. During the play of the hand, declarer becomes suspicious and asks the defender who actually made the call whether the explanation given was correct. Now, this defender is not supposed to answer the question because the Laws say an incorrect explanation by the defenders is not supposed to be corrected until the play is over. Please tell me I have misread this thread. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 7 23:07:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 23:07:23 +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 XAA28529 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 23:07:17 +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 IAA04402; Thu, 7 May 1998 08:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980507085845.3807afea@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 08:58:45 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Technology In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.16.19980506121829.38173236@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 5/7/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I play a simple form of SAYC and get no problems. Is there more than one form of SAYC? How does your partner know how you have simplified SAYC if you simply agree to play SAYC? My point is that if you agree to play SAYC, you have agreed to play a well-defined system. It is not the same as saying you will play standard American or standard ACOL where there is plenty of room for ambiguity. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 00:25:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 00:25:48 +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 AAA01195 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 00:25:41 +1000 Received: from default (hdn112-076.hil.compuserve.com [206.175.110.76]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA01971 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 07:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980507142708.006c305c@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 09:27:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Technology Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Kindly suggest any sensible alternative when playing with a pickup >>>partner from another continent. >> >>The answer certainly isn't to agree to play a system you don't know. Try a >>basic system light on conventions rather than SAYC. Goren comes to mind, >>or the system outlined in "Five Weeks to Winning Bridge." There will be no >>danger of missing a MSS or Jacoby NT or Drury call if you do. > > I don't know Goren. > I don't know Five Weeks to Winning Bridge. > I play a simple form of SAYC and get no problems. > I think you are going to create problems for me and the majority of >other players out there. "Goren", as of his last edition, was 2/1 GF; most on OKB in my experience prefer SAYC, at least for pickup partnerships. Five Weeks etc. is a 4cM system, probably with some other aspects (strong twos?) not in common use today. It's not unusual, at least at some novice/int. tables, to ask or be asked to play "SAYC, no transfers". SAYC on OKB doesn't include MSS or Drury. It's probably as close to traditional "Goren" as anything out there. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 01:16:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:16:04 +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 BAA01303 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:15:55 +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 PAA22156 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 15:15:58 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA17464; Thu, 7 May 98 15:15:56 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980507151601.007baa60@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 15:16:01 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Risk-free psych Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 07/05/98 +0100, you wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. > > This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a one- >syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. >David Stevenson > It may be, but only in a small part of Europe; in some other non-english-speaking, but related to initial poster's name, part, "psyche" is a swing mirror, "psychic" a 2-syllabe deceptive bid and "psych" hardly pronouceable and definitely not a word, perhaps a noise made by a drunk bridge player. 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 Fri May 8 01:42:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:42:13 +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 BAA01355 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:42:06 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA13451 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:42:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma013398; Thu May 7 10:41:38 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD79AD.04B02E00@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 7 May 1998 11:41:05 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD79AD.04B02E00@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Risk-free psych Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 11:40:57 -0400 Encoding: 38 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Surely you mean in England? I would suspect quite different words, let alone spelling, in Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Rome, Bucharest, Amsterdam etc. Just as the U.S. of A. is NOT the world (or even America) England or even Great Britain is not all of Europe. I also think we might allow other Europeans the choice of whether to follow the London or Washington spelling. If we are speaking of the Queen's English, psyche is correct. If we are talking about the lingua franca of usenet and of this ml, I don't know if there is a compelling case to insist upon it over psyche. (Or honour over honor or centre over center as in CHO) One might marshal(l) the argu(e)ment that the simpler spelling should prevail for non native speakers of English (or what passes for same in the U.S.). (Then there is the matter of idiomatic usage. Does the phrase "get psyched" carry the idea of get all charged up, get excited, start the adrenaline flowing in other parts of the world? I've often wondered why getting psyched in bridge produces such a contrary anger. I should have thought to expect a "good show, I'll get you next time" response.) ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 6:50 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Risk-free psych Marvin L. French wrote: >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a one- syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB WBU Chief TD @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 02:15:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 02:15:08 +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 CAA01654 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 02:15:02 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA03958; Thu, 7 May 1998 11:15:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003925; Thu May 7 11:14:49 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD79B1.A6D39BA0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 7 May 1998 12:14:15 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD79B1.A6D39BA0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , Paul Barden Subject: RE: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:14:13 -0400 Encoding: 13 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: Good players should not have to play against people who don't know what they are doing. Abolish the stratified games, and the problem will go away. You can then enjoy a two hour trip to the nearest club once a month to play in the 2 1/2 table Howell. And the Reno nationals will set new records of a different sort. NABC will stand for Nobody Anymore Bothers to Come. Once you make the decision to play matchpoint you have announced your intention to beat up on drunks anyhow...stratified just means they have had a few more rounds. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 02:51:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 02:51:51 +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 CAA01727 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 02:51:44 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21658; 7 May 98 9:51 PDT To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Risk-free psych In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 May 1998 11:50:13 PDT." Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 09:51:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805070951.aa21658@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. > > This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a one- > syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. I assume you mean "European English". English is the only language I know of in which an "e" at the end of a word can be silent---other than French, of course, which has a tendency to add a bunch of silent letters to the end of every word for no good reason, except perhaps to subsidize French ink manufacturers. Here's what Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (which is an American dictionary) has to say: "psych" is a verb, but it can also be spelled "psyche". It is one syllable. Webster's doesn't say that the word is also a noun---this usage seems to be a bridge invention. There's a separate entry for "Psyche", which is two syllables. Capitalized, it's a princess in Greek mythology. Not capitalized, its definitions are "soul, self" and "mind". Just out of curiosity, David, is "psyche" in the sense of "soul" used in England, and if so, do you pronounce it as two syllables or one? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 03:23:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:23:06 +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 DAA01841 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:22:57 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1007686; 7 May 98 17:16 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:10:02 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: FW: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:10:01 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > At 09:14 PM 5/6/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >David Martin wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > By asking to call the director, one can already be in breach of > L75D2, > >> > as it may well be argued afterwards that this alone is already UI > to > >> > partner, enough to make him realize his mistake. > >> > > >> > > >> > ####OLD##### So what should the Defender do when asked by > Declarer? > >> > Simply be rude and refuse to say anything? As I have already > >> > mentioned in another posting, if the question is illegal then an > >> > infraction occurred when it was asked and the TD should be called > >> > anyway. #####OLD### > >> > > > > >My suggestion is simply to lie. Sorry guys, but that's just how it > is. > > Let me see if I have this straight. > > A defender has given an incorrect explanation of one of his partner's > call. > > During the play of the hand, declarer becomes suspicious and asks the > defender who actually made the call whether the explanation given was > correct. > > Now, this defender is not supposed to answer the question because the > Laws > say an incorrect explanation by the defenders is not supposed to be > corrected until the play is over. > > Please tell me I have misread this thread. > > ######## I believe that you have interpreted the responses to this > thread correctly. I am personally saddened and even amazed by some of > the replies. All I know is that if one of my partners has given an > erroneous explanation and Declarer turns to me and asks if my > partner's original explanation was correct then I will answer NO and, > depending on the circumstances, either volunteer the correct > explanation immediately if Declarer wants it or else call the > Director. I would also expect my answer and all of the subsequent > correction to be UI for partner who must behave impeccably from now > own and I will regard any damage to our side as *entirely our own > fault*. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 03:35:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:35:32 +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 DAA01876 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:35:17 +1000 Received: from default (client852e.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.46]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA15712; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:35:23 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Paul Barden" , Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:34:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd79de$72658b80$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: Marvin L. French To: Paul Barden ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 07 May 1998 01:37 Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed > > >---------- >Paul Barden writes: > > Marvin L. French writes: \X/ \X/ \X/ > >> >It is galling to be fixed>> \X/ \X/ \X/ >> >I agree wholeheartedly that it's no fun. Good players should not have >to play against people who don't know what they are doing.> >In Reno a C player opened 3D against me, holding seven diamonds to >the ace and three outside aces. I felt comfortable in my 3NT >contract, >knowing all I had to do was knock out her partner's three, maybe two, >aces, since I had QJx diamonds opposite Kxx.> > ##### Mmmmm....... Now personally I would say there is nothing here to suggest the player who opened 3D did not know what she was doing, or that her partner expected anything but a pre-emptive holding from her. She made a judgement on the hand (maybe involuntarily, but there is no law against it) and it worked out well against a partnership whose methods got them out of their depth....... Two outside aces, was that? Well timed, madam! ##### Grattan ##### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 03:49:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:49:54 +1000 Received: from josephine.okbridge.com (root@josephine.okbridge.com [199.33.217.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA01945 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:49:46 +1000 Received: from blackwood (pender.okbridge.com [199.33.217.74]) by josephine.okbridge.com (8.8.2/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA22989 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 10:30:28 +0000 From: Wirt Gilliam Subject: Stratified Games To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.1 (Win32 - 021297), NetManage Inc. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01BD79B1.A6D39BA0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: Good players should not have to play against people who don't know what they are doing. Abolish the stratified games, and the problem will go away. ---------------------------- There are several different types of bridge, Board-A-Match Swiss KO's Flighted Games Stratified OKb MP's OKb Imps and on......... each requiring slightly different strategies. I LOVE the variety and don't want to see the stratified games abolished. Stratified games allow the flight C players to compete in flight A while still getting awards for competing at their level. And when they have a good game, they may even finish in the overalls in Flight A, which is nice. This keeps them coming back and learning more bridge, which is what bridge needs, now. Another aspect of the stratified game that needs changing is the abusive nature of the better players toward the less experienced players. "That's an alertable bid!!! You should alert it!!" in a berating tone of voice. "This is nonsense"!!!!! "Explain your auction!!!!"" in a gruff voice, rather than "Would you please explain your agreements about the double?" in a pleasant voice. And on...... These are all comments I've heard recently. I think you get the picture. I believe this is one of the reasons Zero Tolerance came about. Stratified games do require a little more patience for the better players. Thanks, Wirt Gilliam VP Customer Relations OKbridge, Inc. The Original & Largest Internet Bridge Club 4655 Cass St. Suite 204 San Diego, CA 92109 (619) 490-6770 (619) 490-6771 (fax) http://www.okbridge.com ****Your opinion is important to us! Let us know what you thought of our service. Please complete the brief survey at http://www.okbridge.com/csrsurvey.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 03:57:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:57:13 +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 DAA01990 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 03:57:08 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022813; 7 May 98 17:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 03:30:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed In-Reply-To: <199805070005.RAA06590@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199805070005.RAA06590@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes snip >However, if we willingly play against such pairs, we must (per the >Laws) tolerate their mistakes, even when we get hurt. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Try this one then at love all RHO Me LHO Pard P P 1H P 1N P 2H P P ? KQxx xx KJxx xxx If you bid 2S you go for 1100 LHO has sandbagged you with AJxx KQxxx AQ Qx but he *knew* what he was doing and knows I balance Bad bidding is part of the game and the skill is to recognise when it's happening. Winning at pairs is about coping with the non-level playing field. -- 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 Fri May 8 04:04:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 04:04:50 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02019 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 04:04:42 +1000 Received: from default (client9565.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.95.101]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA21054; Thu, 7 May 1998 19:05:02 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:01:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd79e2$30382e80$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: 07 May 1998 10:48 Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations >David Martin wrote: >> >> > By asking to call the director, >> > \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ >> > >> > ######### So what should the Defender do when asked by Declarer? >> > Simply be rude and refuse to say anything? As I have already >> > mentioned in another posting, if the question is illegal then an >> > infraction occurred when it was asked and the TD should be called >> > anyway. ######## >> > > >My suggestion is simply to lie. Sorry guys, but that's just how it is. ++++ A personal thought. Could one perhaps call the Director and say "I am being asked about an explanation given by my partner. Would you please say whether I am right in thinking that it is not the right time for me to comment upon his explanation? Or am I to answer the question?" I think it cannot be right either to lie or to respond ++++ Grattan++++ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 04:37:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 04:37:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA02187 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 04:37:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006943; 7 May 98 18:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:33:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) In-Reply-To: <199805061431.KAA26745@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> the >> result on a board where the Director has made an error should, for each >> side, be the best thing that was at all likely to happen to them without >> the Director's error. > >The exact language is "likely." (The wording "at all probable" is used >for the OS, not relevant here.) In the ACBL, "likely" means one chance >in three, but no doubt it has a different definition elsewhere. >Regardless of the technical definition, "likely" means something that >you reasonably expect _would_ happen if the board were played a few >times (starting at the position where the error occurred*), not >something that might just possibly happen if everything were to go >perfectly for one side. I still don't understand this answer despite re-reading. When you say the exact language is "likely" that is the word I used, as can be seen from the bit you quoted above. -- 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 May 8 04:44:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 04:44:24 +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 EAA02228 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 04:44:18 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017927; 7 May 98 18:17 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:24:24 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:24:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > >> > >> ########## Agreed, but the word that Law 16C uses is "withdrawn" > and > >> North has clearly not withdrawn the original 2D bid. > > It may be clear to you, but last time we discussed there was a > substantial body of opinion that did not agree with you. > > What do you do, physically, with bidding boxes? When W is allowed > to > change his call, you are quite likely to put your card back in the > box, > contemplate, and then [perhaps] bring out the same card. You withdrew > it, and then played it again. > > ######## But this is not legal. Law 21B2 says "*When* a player > elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1. > preceding), his LHO *may then* ........". The use of "then" implies > that the second call is changed *after* the first and not > provisionally withdrawn before the first call is changed. Also, the > use of the word "may" clearly allows the second player to *not change > his call*. Are you saying that it is impossible to avoid changing a > call in this situation? If so then this is clearly not supported by > the wording of Law 21B. ######## > > I think you should consider that, when the auction changes, people > do > withdraw calls, and then play them again, rather than not withdraw > them. > > > > However, since > >> posting this one, I have had a few thoughts of my own and may have > >> stumbled over a better answer. If the auction had gone: > >> > >> > >> N E S W > >> 1D 1S X(Alerted) 2C > >> 2D > >> > >> then South would think that North had a hand good enough to make a > >> free bid over 2C. The only reason that South knows that North does > >> not have this hand is because of the knowledge of West's withdrawn > >> Pass which is clearly UI. Hence, one could argue that any action > by > >> South that uses this knowledge of North's hand is directly based on > UI > >> about West's hand and therefore illegal. ######## > > No, that's a terrible answer. Just think points for a moment. > Suppose you play that 2D over pass is 11-14, and if it is "free", ie > over 2C, then it is 13-16. If South has 13 or 14 he will bid 2D > again, > and it is not based on UI, and is legal. But we want the knowledge > that > he is now 13-14 to be UI. > > ######## I think that you are mixing up your compass directions but > never mind, your meaning is clear. If North bids 2D with 13 or 14 > points then *only because of knowledge of West's withdrawn Pass* is > South able to deduce that the range is now 13-14 and not 13-16. > ######### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 06:23:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:23:10 +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 GAA02592 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:23:00 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022887; 7 May 98 20:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 20:47:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Risk-free psych In-Reply-To: <9805070951.aa21658@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. >> >> This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a one- >> syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. >I assume you mean "European English". English is the only language I >know of in which an "e" at the end of a word can be silent---other >than French, of course, which has a tendency to add a bunch of silent >letters to the end of every word for no good reason, except perhaps to >subsidize French ink manufacturers. > >Here's what Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (which is an >American dictionary) has to say: > >"psych" is a verb, but it can also be spelled "psyche". It is one >syllable. Webster's doesn't say that the word is also a noun---this >usage seems to be a bridge invention. > >There's a separate entry for "Psyche", which is two syllables. >Capitalized, it's a princess in Greek mythology. Not capitalized, >its definitions are "soul, self" and "mind". > >Just out of curiosity, David, is "psyche" in the sense of "soul" used >in England, and if so, do you pronounce it as two syllables or one? Yes, two syllables. My dictionary has only one reference to a bridge meaning, and that is for 'psychic bid'. The only meaning it gives for 'psych' is slang: a transitive verb meaning to subject to psychoanalysis: it gives 'psyche' as an alternative. ... and my spellchekka has just rejected 'psych'! -- 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 May 8 06:28:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:28:36 +1000 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA02615 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:28:29 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.31] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yXXGv-0007a2-00; Thu, 7 May 1998 21:28:05 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01bd79f6$8937e7a0$1f3563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 21:23:57 +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 >> >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. >> and DWS wrote: >> This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a one- >> syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. No it isn't, and yes it is. In England (DWS's post reminds me of nothing so much as the early 19th century Times headline: "Heavy fog in Channel - Europe isolated"), "psyche" is a two-syllable word ("syk-ee") meaning soul, spirit, mind; or a butterfly; or a cheval-glass. It derives from the word for the personification of the soul in Greek mythology, often depicted as a young woman with the wings of a butterfly (Psyche was the beloved of the god Eros). "Psych", also spelled "psyche", is a one-syllable verb ("syke") meaning to psychoanalyse; or to work out the psychological motivation of another; or to build up one's own psychological motivation for a particular task. The noun "psych[e]" in the context of a psychic bid at bridge is not admitted by either Chambers or the OED as an English word. Were it so, I could think of no etymological justification whatever for spelling it with a final "e" - it would be sufficiently obvious that the "y" sound is lengthened, both from context and because that is the norm in English. Adam Beneschan wrote: > >I assume you mean "European English". English is the only language I >know of in which an "e" at the end of a word can be silent---other >than French, of course, which has a tendency to add a bunch of silent >letters to the end of every word for no good reason, except perhaps to >subsidize French ink manufacturers. There is no such language as "European English". In French, the word "psyche" means only a cheval-glass, as far as I am aware, though my grasp of French has slipped a very long way since I acquired a degree in the language twenty years ago. We write "subsidise", but we are wrong to do so - the formation of verbs from nouns by use of the suffix "-ize" is in keeping with the Greek "-izein" and the German "-izieren", and the use of "s" instead of "z" in verbs other than those which derive from Latin and French ("surprise", for example) is a snobbish error to which our lexicographers have for some reason fallen prey. Adam continued: > >Here's what Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (which is an >American dictionary) has to say: > >"psych" is a verb, but it can also be spelled "psyche". It is one >syllable. Webster's doesn't say that the word is also a noun---this >usage seems to be a bridge invention. Seems, Adam? Nay, it is - I know not "seems". > >There's a separate entry for "Psyche", which is two syllables. >Capitalized, it's a princess in Greek mythology. Not capitalized, >its definitions are "soul, self" and "mind". Two countries - for once - united by a common language. > >Just out of curiosity, David, is "psyche" in the sense of "soul" used >in England, and if so, do you pronounce it as two syllables or one? I use it in that sense, and I pronounce it with two syllables. For other Davids, I cannot speak - but if I could, I would attempt greater accuracy. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 07:07:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:07:39 +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 HAA02808 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:07:34 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07377; 7 May 98 14:07 PDT To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 May 1998 21:23:57 PDT." <002e01bd79f6$8937e7a0$1f3563c3@david-burn> Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 14:07:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805071407.aa07377@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Were it so, I could think of no etymological justification > whatever for spelling [psych] with a final "e" - it would be sufficiently > obvious that the "y" sound is lengthened, both from context and > because that is the norm in English. What norm are you referring to? I can't think of too many one-syllable words whose only vowel is a "y" and which end in a consonant sound, but in the ones I can think of (such as "myth"), the "y" is short. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 07:13:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:13:43 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 HAA02829 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:13:37 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04094 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805072113.OAA04094@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:12:08 -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 I wrote: > >In Reno a C player opened 3D against me, holding seven diamonds to > >the ace and three outside aces. I felt comfortable in my 3NT > >contract, > >knowing all I had to do was knock out her partner's three, maybe two, > >aces, since I had QJx diamonds opposite Kxx.> That was a mistake on my part, it was only two outside aces, three altogether. Sorry for the exaggeration! and Grattan Endicott commented: > ##### Mmmmm....... Now personally I would say there is nothing here > to suggest the player who opened 3D did not know what she was doing, > or that her partner expected anything but a pre-emptive holding from her. > She made a judgement on the hand (maybe involuntarily, but there is no > law against it) and it worked out well against a partnership whose methods > got them out of their depth....... Two outside aces, was that? Well timed, > madam! ##### Grattan ##### > Absolutely right, and there was no criticism of her bidding. I would say that I found the situation amusing, but not enjoyable, if that is possible. Evidently my polite questioning of her, with her answer, was snipped. Why had she chosen to open 3D? Because she had been told that you had to have 13 points to open the bidding with one of a suit, and she only had 12. Feeling that she ought to do something with this hand, she opened at the three level. I did not question her judgment. A further part of the story is that nothing was marked on her card, while her partner's card had "light" checked under OPENING PREEMPTS. Feeling that they needed some education on this matter, I asked a woman TD to help them out. I wish I could remember her name, because she did a great job of patiently explaining their obligation to have understandings accurately shown on both cards, and told them that while the 3D bid was unusual, it was perfectly okay if her partner did not realize how strong it could be. She suggested, however, that if they were going to open preemptive bids of this strength, they should check "sound" instead of "light." I neither sought nor expected any redress for this disaster, since it's the sort of thing one has to expect in stratified games. They had their top, we had our zero. The usual outcome in a typical Western U. S. club or sectional game would have been to give our side avg+ while letting the opponents keep their top. Everyone's happy, no headache for the TD. Question: Should I appeal that sort of ruling on behalf of the other pairs in our field? Could one of those pairs appeal the decision at our table, if they hear about it? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 07:17:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:17:29 +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 HAA02851 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:17:23 +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 OAA16489 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA02470; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:20:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:20:34 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199805072120.OAA02470@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) David Burn said: |>> |>> Marvin L. French wrote: |>> |>> >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. |>> | | |and DWS wrote: | |>> This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a |one- |>> syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. | |No it isn't, and yes it is. In England (DWS's post reminds me of |nothing so much as the early 19th century Times headline: "Heavy fog |in Channel - Europe isolated"), "psyche" is a two-syllable word |("syk-ee") meaning soul, spirit, mind; or a butterfly; or a |cheval-glass. It derives from the word for the personification of the |soul in Greek mythology, often depicted as a young woman with the |wings of a butterfly (Psyche was the beloved of the god Eros). In the US, too. Usage meaning butterfly or glass, however, is outdated and would not be understood. |"Psych", also spelled "psyche", is a one-syllable verb ("syke") |meaning to psychoanalyse; Not a common usage in the US. In fact, I've never heard it used as such. It sounds to me to be a "dictionary" usage, not a spoken or written one. In this sense, "psych." is often pronounced "syke" and refers to a psychology class, text, syllabus, or the like. ("Psych. 101" is read "syke one-oh-one.") Note that this is a spoken abbreviation, not a word. |or to work out the psychological motivation of another; ...not how the word is used here. Americans say "get into his head," or "understand." 30 years ago, we might've said "grok," although "grok" strictly includes a very thorough understanding of the person's needs, goals. motivations, and beliefs (psyche? :)). In practice, it was used for the less strong case often. Today, in the US, "psych" is rarely used except as part of idiom: "to psych out" means actively to gain a psychological advantage over an opponent; "to psych up" is to build one's own morale. "Psych!" as an exclamation is sometimes used to indicate happiness about a very recent turn of events; in a sotto voce form to a single person, it voices approval. "Psyched (for)" means enthusiastically anticipating that for which the person is psyched. "Psyched out" means demoralized, not necessarily by an opponent, usually by oneself. "I'm psyched out [about this test]," means the student expects to fail. "Get psyched" means "to psych up" or is just an exclamation of happiness or approval. |or to build up one's own psychological motivation for a particular task. (That's "psych up.") |The noun "psych[e]" in the context of a psychic bid |at bridge is not admitted by either Chambers or the OED as an English |word. Were it so, I could think of no etymological justification |whatever for spelling it with a final "e" - it would be sufficiently |obvious that the "y" sound is lengthened, both from context and |because that is the norm in English. Agreed. "Psychic [action]" is common bridge jargon from the early days. Due to its age, it has reached the dictionaries. "Psych," the shortening of the previous, is a newer form of the word and is used as a noun or as a verb. The "e"-less spelling seems more appropriate as there is no "e" in "psychic," and because "psyche" is an English word pronounced differently and meaning something else. On the other hand, perhaps the pronunciation does suggest the "e;" the long "i" sound for the interior "y" is unusual in such a short word. English pronunciation of "y"s, however, is so non-uniform that such an argument seems weak. (Examples: "sync," "rhythm," "lynch.") The bottom line, however, is that there is no authority to whom to refer in the case of bridge jargon. I, personally, have been convinced that "psych" is the best spelling, but to be dogmatic about it is an overbid. --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 May 8 07:58:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:58:34 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 HAA03026 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 07:58:28 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA08636 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805072158.OAA08636@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Psych vs Psyche Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:55:55 -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: > >>"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. > > This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a > one-syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. It has been forgotten by most Americans (if they ever knew) that "psych" is actually short for "psychic," a term coined by American Dorothy Rice Sims, who originated the practice, in 1931. Over time American players shortened the word to "psych" and used it as a verb too, although "psychic" remained as an adjective (e.g., a psychic bid). A one-syllable "psyche" is therefore a misspelling in the U. S., like "judgement" for "judgment." Europeans love those e's, Americans don't. In an ACBL Bulletin (February 1978) article by Don Oakie, who was commissioned by the BoD to state the ACBL's position on psychs, he used "psych" for the verb and "psychic bid" instead of a one-word noun. The Laws also use "psychic bid," so I guess that the one-word noun is informal, although "psych" is used as a noun in the ACBL's *Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*. Incidentally, that Bulletin article marked the beginning of the ACBL's long-standing campaign against psychs. *The Bridge World* (i.e., Edgar Kaplan) argued against the implicit message of Oakie's article, which was: "It's all right to psych (sic) as long as you never do it." "Psyche," two syllables, was the name of a beautiful Greek princess, Cupid's beloved, who eventually achieved immortality. The word is also used as a reference to the human soul; also, the mind, the mental life. IMO using that spelling for a one-syllable word is inappropriate, but if other countries choose to confusedly spell "psych" as "psyche" while retaining the one-syllable pronunciation, that's their business. It's perfectly okay for Europeans and others to employ their spelling (honour) and vocabulary (bonnet) idiosyncracies on the internet, so I should not have implied that a one-syllable "psyche" is incorrect for everyone. However, other countries should concede that American English is the language of choice for the internet, and adhering to American usages for the sake of uniform communication might be a good idea. If BLML were a British mailing list rather than an international one, I would use "psyche" and "judgement" spellings in order to conform with British practice. I might even put "full stops" outside of "inverted commas". Or is that right? Meanwhile, I'll amend the note: Attention Americans: "Psych" is a one-syllable word, "psyche" is a two-syllable word. Okay? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 08:30:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 08:30:35 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 IAA03131 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 08:30:29 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA12537; Thu, 7 May 1998 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805072229.PAA12537@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Wirt Gilliam " , Subject: Re: Stratified Games Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 15:26:36 -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 Wirt Gilliam wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: >> Good players should not have to play against people who don't >> know what they are doing. Abolish the stratified games, and the >> problem will go away. > > There are several different types of bridge, > (snip) > each requiring slightly different strategies. > I LOVE the variety and don't want to see the stratified games > abolished. Stratified games allow the flight C players to > compete in flight A while still getting awards for competing at > their level. Inordinately high awards, if masterpoints are to have any objective meaning. A C player gets two masterpoints for a 45% game, while an A player in the same section gets one masterpoint for a 60% game. Masterpoints are not supposed to represent how well one does against one's peers, but are supposed to be an objective measure of bridge skill. The present policy makes masterpoints a joke, and the achievement of life master status meaningless. (snip) > Another aspect of the stratified game that needs changing is > the abusive nature of the better players toward the less > experienced players. > "That's an alertable bid!!! You should alert it!!" in a > berating tone of voice. > "This is nonsense"!!!!! > "Explain your auction!!!!"" in a gruff voice, rather than > "Would you please explain your agreements about the double?" in > a pleasant voice. And on...... > These are all comments I've heard recently. Maybe your opponents didn't realize you were "less experienced," since you play with pros. > I think you get the > picture. I believe this is one of the reasons Zero Tolerance > came about. Stratified games do require a little more patience > for the better players. I fully agree, as regards behavior toward B & C players. Toward experienced players, who should be ethical and know the Laws and regulations, patience should not be necessary. > > Thanks, Wirt Gilliam > VP Customer Relations > OKbridge, Inc. The Original & Largest Internet Bridge Club > 4655 Cass St. > Suite 204 > San Diego, CA 92109 > (619) 490-6770 > (619) 490-6771 (fax) > http://www.okbridge.com > > ****Your opinion is important to us! > Let us know what you thought of our service. Please complete > the brief survey at http://www.okbridge.com/csrsurvey.html > This blurb is hardly connected with the subject of your message, and would be more appropriate on RGOKB or even RGB than on BLML. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 09:24:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:24:14 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03293 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:24:08 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-11.ts-4.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.155]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA09638; Thu, 7 May 1998 19:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35523F8B.84F0B142@idt.net> Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 16:11:07 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: Wirt Gilliam , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Stratified Games References: <199805072229.PAA12537@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have no quarrel with stratified games per se. It seems to me they are similar to the old open pairs games, but with better seeding!. What I do object to are the outsized awards to the lower strata participants. Several years ago I won the round robin stage of the local Grand National competition (alright, I did have SOME help:), only to discover that the team that won flight B had received more master points than me. It is my contention that, at least as far as overall awards are concerned, no Flight B pair should win more points than the lowest overall award in Flight A. A more sensible structure would be something like this, assuming six pairs would get overall awards: Flight A 1. 30 2. 26 3. 24 4. 23 5. 22 6. 21 Flight B 1. 20 2. 16 3... Flight C 1. 10 etc. This is only an example of course, and still seems to reward the lower flights excessively. I'm sure someone could come up with something more equitable, since I have not made a study of the subject, but the principle should be the same; to get the number of points an "A" player gets, you have to beat the "A" players. This would slow up the accumulation of masterpoints, I assume, but would help make them more meaningful. Irv Marvin L. French wrote: > > Wirt Gilliam wrote: > > > Marvin L. French writes: > > >> Good players should not have to play against people who don't > >> know what they are doing. Abolish the stratified games, and the > >> problem will go away. > > > > There are several different types of bridge, > > (snip) > > each requiring slightly different strategies. > > > I LOVE the variety and don't want to see the stratified games > > abolished. Stratified games allow the flight C players to > > compete in flight A while still getting awards for competing at > > their level. > > Inordinately high awards, if masterpoints are to have any objective > meaning. A C player gets two masterpoints for a 45% game, while an A > player in the same section gets one masterpoint for a 60% game. > Masterpoints are not supposed to represent how well one does against > one's peers, but are supposed to be an objective measure of bridge > skill. The present policy makes masterpoints a joke, and the > achievement of life master status meaningless. > > (snip) > > > Another aspect of the stratified game that needs changing is > > the abusive nature of the better players toward the less > > experienced players. > > "That's an alertable bid!!! You should alert it!!" in a > > berating tone of voice. > > "This is nonsense"!!!!! > > "Explain your auction!!!!"" in a gruff voice, rather than > > "Would you please explain your agreements about the double?" in > > a pleasant voice. And on...... > > These are all comments I've heard recently. > > Maybe your opponents didn't realize you were "less experienced," > since you play with pros. > > > I think you get the > > picture. I believe this is one of the reasons Zero Tolerance > > came about. Stratified games do require a little more patience > > for the better players. > > I fully agree, as regards behavior toward B & C players. Toward > experienced players, who should be ethical and know the Laws and > regulations, patience should not be necessary. > > > > Thanks, Wirt Gilliam > > VP Customer Relations > > OKbridge, Inc. The Original & Largest Internet Bridge Club > > 4655 Cass St. > > Suite 204 > > San Diego, CA 92109 > > (619) 490-6770 > > (619) 490-6771 (fax) > > http://www.okbridge.com > > > > ****Your opinion is important to us! > > Let us know what you thought of our service. Please complete > > the brief survey at http://www.okbridge.com/csrsurvey.html > > > This blurb is hardly connected with the subject of your message, and > would be more appropriate on RGOKB or even RGB than on BLML. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 09:27:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:27:58 +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 JAA03317 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:27:53 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015742; 7 May 98 23:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 21:43:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: > > SNIP >> >> >> >> ########## Agreed, but the word that Law 16C uses is "withdrawn" >> and >> >> North has clearly not withdrawn the original 2D bid. >> >> It may be clear to you, but last time we discussed there was a >> substantial body of opinion that did not agree with you. >> >> What do you do, physically, with bidding boxes? When W is allowed >> to >> change his call, you are quite likely to put your card back in the >> box, >> contemplate, and then [perhaps] bring out the same card. You withdrew >> it, and then played it again. >> >> ######## But this is not legal. Law 21B2 says "*When* a player >> elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1. >> preceding), his LHO *may then* ........". The use of "then" implies >> that the second call is changed *after* the first and not >> provisionally withdrawn before the first call is changed. Also, the >> use of the word "may" clearly allows the second player to *not change >> his call*. Are you saying that it is impossible to avoid changing a >> call in this situation? If so then this is clearly not supported by >> the wording of Law 21B. ######## Good thing we were not talking about L21 then. We were talking about L16, which does not contain the word "change". >> >> I think you should consider that, when the auction changes, people >> do >> withdraw calls, and then play them again, rather than not withdraw >> them. >> >> >> > However, since >> >> posting this one, I have had a few thoughts of my own and may have >> >> stumbled over a better answer. If the auction had gone: >> >> >> >> >> >> N E S W >> >> 1D 1S X(Alerted) 2C >> >> 2D >> >> >> >> then South would think that North had a hand good enough to make a >> >> free bid over 2C. The only reason that South knows that North does >> >> not have this hand is because of the knowledge of West's withdrawn >> >> Pass which is clearly UI. Hence, one could argue that any action >> by >> >> South that uses this knowledge of North's hand is directly based on >> UI >> >> about West's hand and therefore illegal. ######## >> >> No, that's a terrible answer. Just think points for a moment. >> Suppose you play that 2D over pass is 11-14, and if it is "free", ie >> over 2C, then it is 13-16. If South has 13 or 14 he will bid 2D >> again, >> and it is not based on UI, and is legal. But we want the knowledge >> that >> he is now 13-14 to be UI. >> >> ######## I think that you are mixing up your compass directions but >> never mind, your meaning is clear. If North bids 2D with 13 or 14 >> points then *only because of knowledge of West's withdrawn Pass* is >> South able to deduce that the range is now 13-14 and not 13-16. >> ######### Yes, that's ok. -- 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 May 8 10:17:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:17:12 +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 KAA03523 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:17:05 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yXar0-0006uB-00; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:17:35 +0100 Message-ID: <0s3GOTAYmkU1EwJ$@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 00:54:00 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980506083737.38179d4c@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.5.16.19980506083737.38179d4c@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 10:00 PM 5/5/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >>David Martin wrote: .....................cut....................... > >L20F1 says that during the auction a player may ask questions and that >replies "should normally be given by the partner of the player who made a >call in question." L20F2 makes no mention of who should reply to questions >posed during the play period. That would suggest to me that either the >Laws are not concerned with who gives the explanation during the play >period, or the same guidelines are in effect as during the auction. Either >way, there is nothing in this law preventing a player from giving an >explanation of his own call or play. If declarer asks a specific defender >about a specific call, why shouldn't this be one of those times when the >normal approach of partner explaining is not used? ..........................cut........................... > Labeo: the use of 'retain' in Law 41B suggests to me that conditions remain the same as during the auction. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 10:17:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:17:12 +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 KAA03522 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:17:03 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yXar1-0006uC-00; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:17:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 01:07:00 +0100 To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: Labeo Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Martin writes >Tim wrote: > > >> At 09:14 PM 5/6/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >David Martin wrote: >> >> > All I know is that if one of my partners has given an >> erroneous explanation and Declarer turns to me and asks if my >> partner's original explanation was correct then I will answer NO Labeo: We can take it you are the authority in your partnership on system agreements? Your partner is never right when you disagree and the Director will never rule damage to opponents because your 'correction' was wrong? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 10:17:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:17:13 +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 KAA03524 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:17:05 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yXar4-0006uC-00; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:17:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 01:10:44 +0100 To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psych vs Psyche In-Reply-To: <199805072158.OAA08636@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199805072158.OAA08636@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>>"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. >> >> This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a >> one-syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. > >It has been forgotten by most Americans (if they ever knew) that >"psych" is actually short for "psychic," a term coined by American >Dorothy Rice Sims, who originated the practice, in 1931. Over time >American players shortened the word to "psych" and used it as a verb >too, although "psychic" remained as an adjective (e.g., a psychic >bid). A one-syllable "psyche" is therefore a misspelling in the >U. S., like "judgement" for "judgment." Europeans love those e's, >Americans don't. > >IMO using that spelling for a one-syllable word is inappropriate, but >if other countries choose to confusedly spell "psych" as "psyche" >while retaining the one-syllable pronunciation, that's their >business. It's perfectly okay for Europeans and others to employ >their spelling (honour) and vocabulary (bonnet) idiosyncracies on the >internet, so I should not have implied that a one-syllable "psyche" >is incorrect for everyone. However, other countries should concede >that American English is the language of choice for the internet, and >adhering to American usages for the sake of uniform communication >might be a good idea. Labeo: I have never objected to the use by Americans of 'American English' with its idiosyncratic spellings an' all.... why should I? ...but I do not think you should object either to the English using English. And it is a curious thing, but over here we read that the official language of the game internationally is just that - 'English'. ('English' - 'the language of the English'.) -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 10:25:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:25:01 +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 KAA03571 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:24:54 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-037.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.42]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA18636 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <355103D9.4FC@lightspeed.net> Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 17:44:09 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) References: <199805072120.OAA02470@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > [extended snip, spelling of "psych" discussed.] > > The bottom line, however, is that there is no authority to whom > to refer in the case of bridge jargon. Well, there's always The Bridge World which came down heavily on the side of "psych" some years ago. Of course, "psychic" isn't an accurate term to begin with, but I don't think we'll be switching to "bluff" or some other descriptive word any time soon. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 10:33:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:33:15 +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 KAA03595 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:33:10 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020778; 8 May 98 0:17 GMT Message-ID: <68XFKXAZpkU1Ewo5@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 00:57:13 +0100 To: "Rickard, Jeremy" Cc: BLML From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Jeremy Rickard writes > >On Tue, 5 May 1998 10:38:51 -0400 Craig Senior >wrote: > >> One might assume that the actively ethical person would be faithful to his >> wife and have no other mistress. I know that's a quaint notion, but somehow >> it does seem to fit in a discussion of ethics. > Labeo: or tell his wife about it if he had a mistress? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 10:36:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:36:42 +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 KAA03613 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:36:33 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yXb9l-0003M9-00; Fri, 8 May 1998 01:36:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 01:12:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Risk-free psych In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. > > This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a one- >syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. > Oh for goodness sike this argument's sych, contain your psyche 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 Fri May 8 10:36:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:36:56 +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 KAA03627 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:36:48 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020766; 8 May 98 0:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:30:23 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <0NtKBNA7jpR1EwTd@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >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. > .........................................cut.......................... >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. > > ******************** ******************** ...................................cut................................ Labeo: I think Herman is a Director part of his time. So I think what he says must be in the guise of devil's advocate. After all, when he is a Director he is no doubt doing his duty by the laws and upholding them at every turn, so it is hardly likely when he becomes a player that he really spends his time pulling them down. It wouldn't do his credibility as a Director much good, would it? Of course, if as TD he conducts tournaments with scant regard for what the laws say, I presume his SO is heavily insured against claims for return of entry fees? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 10:44:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:44:36 +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 KAA03651 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:44:14 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002983; 8 May 98 0:17 GMT Message-ID: <67S1bKANujU1Ew4z@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:54:05 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) In-Reply-To: <002e01bd79f6$8937e7a0$1f3563c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <002e01bd79f6$8937e7a0$1f3563c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes >>> >>> Marvin L. French wrote: >>> >>> >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. >>> > > >and DWS wrote: > >>> This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a >one- >>> syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. > >No it isn't, and yes it is. In England (DWS's post reminds me of >nothing so much as the early 19th century Times headline: "Heavy fog >in Channel - Europe isolated"), "psyche" is a two-syllable word >("syk-ee") meaning soul, spirit, mind; or a butterfly; or a >cheval-glass. It derives from the word for the personification of the >soul in Greek mythology, often depicted as a young woman with the >wings of a butterfly (Psyche was the beloved of the god Eros). >"Psych", also spelled "psyche", is a one-syllable verb ("syke") >meaning to psychoanalyse; or to work out the psychological motivation >of another; or to build up one's own psychological motivation for a >particular task. The noun "psych[e]" in the context of a psychic bid >at bridge is not admitted by either Chambers or the OED as an English >word. Were it so, I could think of no etymological justification >whatever for spelling it with a final "e" - it would be sufficiently >obvious that the "y" sound is lengthened, both from context and >because that is the norm in English. > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> >>I assume you mean "European English". English is the only language I >>know of in which an "e" at the end of a word can be silent---other >>than French, of course, which has a tendency to add a bunch of silent >>letters to the end of every word for no good reason, except perhaps >to >>subsidize French ink manufacturers. > >There is no such language as "European English". In French, the word >"psyche" means only a cheval-glass, as far as I am aware, though my >grasp of French has slipped a very long way since I acquired a degree >in the language twenty years ago. We write "subsidise", but we are >wrong to do so - the formation of verbs from nouns by use of the >suffix "-ize" is in keeping with the Greek "-izein" and the German >"-izieren", and the use of "s" instead of "z" in verbs other than >those which derive from Latin and French ("surprise", for example) is >a snobbish error to which our lexicographers have for some reason >fallen prey. > > >Adam continued: > >> >>Here's what Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (which is an >>American dictionary) has to say: >> >>"psych" is a verb, but it can also be spelled "psyche". It is one >>syllable. Webster's doesn't say that the word is also a noun---this >>usage seems to be a bridge invention. > >Seems, Adam? Nay, it is - I know not "seems". > >> >>There's a separate entry for "Psyche", which is two syllables. >>Capitalized, it's a princess in Greek mythology. Not capitalized, >>its definitions are "soul, self" and "mind". > >Two countries - for once - united by a common language. > >> >>Just out of curiosity, David, is "psyche" in the sense of "soul" used >>in England, and if so, do you pronounce it as two syllables or one? > >I use it in that sense, and I pronounce it with two syllables. For >other Davids, I cannot speak - but if I could, I would attempt greater >accuracy. > Labeo: well, that's all useful stuff - we would never have known what we were talking about otherwis(z?)e....... and if I recall correctly, the international bridge organiz(s!)ers use the term 'psychic'; they must have foreseen what confusion 'psych(e)' would create. Or is language a living thing, developing by usage? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 11:02:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:02:06 +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 LAA03694 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:01:59 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004523; 8 May 98 0:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 01:04:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > I think you should consider that, when the auction changes, people do >withdraw calls, and then play them again, rather than not withdraw them. > The TD says "put your bid away" and reverts the auction. When it gets back you may choose to make the same call, but for a period that call *did not exist* and was withdrawn precisely because the opportunity for a different call *did exist* -- 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 Fri May 8 11:02:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:02:18 +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 LAA03701 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:02:12 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb129.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.129]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA14880 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 21:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980507210222.00724428@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 21:02:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Director's error (gasp!) In-Reply-To: References: <199805061431.KAA26745@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:33 PM 5/7/98 +0100, David S wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> the >>> result on a board where the Director has made an error should, for each >>> side, be the best thing that was at all likely to happen to them without >>> the Director's error. >> >>The exact language is "likely." (The wording "at all probable" is used >>for the OS, not relevant here.) In the ACBL, "likely" means one chance >>in three, but no doubt it has a different definition elsewhere. >>Regardless of the technical definition, "likely" means something that >>you reasonably expect _would_ happen if the board were played a few >>times (starting at the position where the error occurred*), not >>something that might just possibly happen if everything were to go >>perfectly for one side. > > I still don't understand this answer despite re-reading. When you say >the exact language is "likely" that is the word I used, as can be seen >from the bit you quoted above. > The complete phrase, quoted by Steve, is "at all likely". Its meaning is quite different from "likely", whatever standard is used to quantify the latter. "At all likely" would, by most people, be accepted as describing any event with a non-negligible probability, possibly quite unexpected. This might be in the realm of 2% to 10% (although it obviously includes higher probability events as well). "Likely", OTOH, means something that is at least quite forseeable. A case could be made that "likely" means > 50%, but in common usage many would accept a lesser standard on the order of 1 chance in 3. Obviously this is an imprecise art, but the difference could well be significant in determining a score adjustment. The "at all likely" standard could require us to assign a result which _might_ have happened, even if the necessary circumstances required a quite unlikely combination of conicidences. To be a "likely" result, it needs to be one among two to four more or less probable outcomes. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 11:05:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:05:01 +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 LAA03733 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:04:52 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb129.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.129]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA30634 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 21:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980507210504.00686cf8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 21:05:04 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) In-Reply-To: <9805071407.aa07377@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:07 PM 5/7/98 PDT, Adam wrote: >> Were it so, I could think of no etymological justification >> whatever for spelling [psych] with a final "e" - it would be sufficiently >> obvious that the "y" sound is lengthened, both from context and >> because that is the norm in English. > >What norm are you referring to? I can't think of too many >one-syllable words whose only vowel is a "y" and which end in a >consonant sound, but in the ones I can think of (such as "myth"), the >"y" is short. > > -- Adam Are you suggesting that people who deliberately distort their holdings during the auction are in need of medical attention? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 11:12:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:12:27 +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 LAA03754 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:12:19 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022443; 8 May 98 0:36 GMT Message-ID: <1e1k16B5qkU1EwKG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 00:58:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Martin writes >Tim wrote: > > snip >> ######## I believe that you have interpreted the responses to this >> thread correctly. I am personally saddened and even amazed by some of >> the replies. All I know is that if one of my partners has given an >> erroneous explanation and Declarer turns to me and asks if my >> partner's original explanation was correct then I will answer NO and, >> depending on the circumstances, either volunteer the correct >> explanation immediately if Declarer wants it or else call the >> Director. I would also expect my answer and all of the subsequent >> correction to be UI for partner who must behave impeccably from now >> own and I will regard any damage to our side as *entirely our own >> fault*. ######### Seems about right David. I'd say "No" and call the Director myself. I don't think I'd volunteer anything before he arrived. Cheers John -- 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 Fri May 8 13:51:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 13:51:33 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 NAA04078 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 13:51:18 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20571 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805080351.UAA20571@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 20:49:38 -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: (snip) > All I know is that if one of my partners has given an > erroneous explanation and Declarer turns to me and asks if my > partner's original explanation was correct then I will answer NO and, > depending on the circumstances, either volunteer the correct > explanation immediately if Declarer wants it or else call the > Director. I would also expect my answer and all of the subsequent > correction to be UI for partner who must behave impeccably from now > own and I will regard any damage to our side as *entirely our own > fault*. ######### You are not only violating L75D2, you may be unnecessarily penalizing your own side. If the misinformation given by partner did no harm, but your correction did (through UI to partner, who must now perhaps misdefend so as not to use the UI), you have shot yourself in the foot. If the misinformation did harm, then you are supposed to take your medicine when the hand is over. L75D2 is written this way because it can be very difficult to show that someone has taken advantage of UI arising from the correction of a misexplanation. Trying to sidestep the penalty you may have coming because of the misinformation, by correcting it before play is complete, just isn't legal. You are not protecting declarer, you are protecting your partnership. The TD will protect declarer, you don't have to. Situations like this would seldom arise if players would get their information from the convention card, which provides rather complete information about defensive leads and signals. The law is necessarily different for rubber bridge, with no TD to help. In the Laws of Contract Bridge, under paragraph 4 of PROPRIETIES, entitled *Partnership Agreements,* the wording is: "It is improper for a player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation to correct the error immediately." That's it. This implies that the correction can be made later on, whether or not an opponent asks for one, if a player feels at any time that a correction will be more ethical at that time than when the auction is over (or for a defender, until play is complete). The same wording would have been used in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge if it was intended that players be allowed to provide opponents the protection that a TD can provide. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 15:35:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 15:35:28 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA04363 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 15:35:21 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA03416 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 22:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805080535.WAA03416@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Psych vs Psyche Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:32:59 -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 In answer to my words: > >It's perfectly okay for Europeans and others to employ > >their spelling (honour) and vocabulary (bonnet) idiosyncracies on the > >internet, so I should not have implied that a one-syllable "psyche" > >is incorrect for everyone. However, other countries should concede > >that American English is the language of choice for the internet, and > >adhering to American usages for the sake of uniform communication > >might be a good idea. > > Labeo wrote: I have never objected to the use by Americans of 'American > English' with its idiosyncratic spellings an' all.... why should I? > ...but I do not think you should object either to the English using > English. And it is a curious thing, but over here we read that > the official language of the game internationally is just that - > 'English'. ('English' - 'the language of the English'.) Hey, I didn't object, I said it's perfectly okay! "Idiosyncracies" was not a good word choice since it has a pejorative meaning, please excuse it. I didn't want to say "peculiarities," which is more accurate but is also perceived as pejorative by many. I wanted a word that describes the vocabulary differences between peoples who speak the same language. Serbs and Croats both speak Serbo-Croatian, but the Serbs say "hleb" for bread, like the Russians, while the Croats say "kruh." Each word is "peculiar" to the group of people who use it, but saying so doesn't mean that either word is inferior in any way. So, please change "idiosyncracies" to "peculiarities," but keep in mind that the latter word is neutral. I guess I should have written "American" instead of "American English," but I didn't want to seem chauvinistic. My German phrase book contains the sentence "Ich spreche Americanisch, nicht Englisch," so maybe that way of expressing the dichotomy *is* more appropriate. Most of the internet communications that I see, on bridge or any other subject, use American spellings (defense, not defence), which leads me to believe that American usage prevails for the most part. As to the official language of the game, I have no knowledge on that subject. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 16:30:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA04495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 16:30:21 +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 QAA04490 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 16:30:14 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h54.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id KAA00584; Fri, 8 May 1998 10:30:41 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35534114.836@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:29:56 -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: Director's error Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="VIT.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="VIT.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Herman De Wael wrote: >In this particular case, I would rather determine where the bidding >might conceivably end up and give an assigned score. >. >In this case, even NS might well receive the most favourable result that >is still likely after their forgetting of the system (this might still >be -500 in their defavour). >A split score of -500 to NS(B), +800 to EW(A) is a possible outcome in >this situation. >Which would then lead to -3 for team B and +10 for team A. I absolutly agree with your method of adjusting in that (and similar) cases. But I absolutly disagree with your estimation -500 or even -800. Let us see what would probably happen without TD's error: North had already passed over South's 2 Clubes - and after double he might (for me - with almost 100%) estimate that in Spade's contract he had 3-4 tricks more than in Club's. And bid 2 Spades - after that everybody at the table would understand that Spade were natural... And never mind about cjntracts in Clubs or in red... It provides to the possible part-score-results from 140 (for Spade contract, 9 tricks) till 150 (for Club contract, 11 tricks) till game-results from400 (for 5 Clubs) till 300 (for 5 Spades defendidng) David Stevenson wrote: > Let us look at the logic of this situation, since we are dealing here >with a problem that has appeared with some frequency both here and in >RGB. What does the Law on Director's Error mean? It means that the >result on a board where the Director has made an error should, for each >side, be the best thing that was at all likely to happen to them without >the Director's error. > > Now in the case quoted what would have happened without the Director's >Error? Well, relying on Steve's "first glance", N/S *might* have got >+50, or they might not: E/W *might* have got +1400, or they might not: >how can it possibly be fair to the players to give them any score less >than this? > > You have often heard me going on about the unfairness of giving away >random A+s, and this is a great example: how would you feel if you were >E/W: you got 1400 and 15 imps, and the Directors reduce it from 15 imps >to 3 imps because *they* made a mistake, and when nobody knows whether >you would have got 1400 without the mistake! Basically, you have fined >E/W 12 imps for your own mistake! > >In fact this unfairness to the field is totally trivial, and pales into >insignificance as compared to fining players for your mistake! Yes, TD should not punish players for his (TD) mistakes. But in this very case 1400 was TD's award, gifted to EW by TD... And he (TD) should take it back - his award, it is not punishment. I guess that best results in the board was 400 for EW and 140 for NS - that provides to (after adding 100 - according with Herman's idea) 500 and 240 or +3imps for one team and -4 imps for another. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 17:37:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 17:37:40 +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 RAA04667 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 17:37:30 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h4.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id LAA04491; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:37:44 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <355350CC.517@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:37:00 -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: Director's error References: <35534114.836@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Sorry for making error in my previous poster: 240 + 400 = 640, +12imps for another team:) (result of another table +400, not -400) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 19:47:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:23 +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 TAA04939 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:14 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-234.uunet.be [194.7.9.234]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10901 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:47:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3552C6A5.FA676242@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:47:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.5.16.19980507082555.37af2060@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > > >My suggestion is simply to lie. Sorry guys, but that's just how it is. > > Let me see if I have this straight. > > A defender has given an incorrect explanation of one of his partner's call. > > During the play of the hand, declarer becomes suspicious and asks the > defender who actually made the call whether the explanation given was correct. > > Now, this defender is not supposed to answer the question because the Laws > say an incorrect explanation by the defenders is not supposed to be > corrected until the play is over. > This one is easy : of course not ! L75D2 specifically prohibits the answering of this question in the negative ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 19:47:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:28 +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 TAA04951 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:19 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-234.uunet.be [194.7.9.234]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10914 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:47:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3552CFC8.A1F6F8B6@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:26:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: The De Wael School - a summary X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This subject has created a lot of mails, and I will add some more. I would like to show you what I mean, and perhaps thus convert some more of you. Let's begin with stating our aim : As it was first posed, just before I put my foot in, the question was asked in the form of "what advice should we give to aplayer who askes what he should do if a situation of this type arises". We are not here to rule, we are here to advice. That is why I can flatly say that we shall break a Law. We shall rule on the breaking of the Law later, and I feel that we must indeed advice a player to break one rule rather than another, since I (IMHO) feel the player is put into a situation where he can no longer follow all the Laws fully. Let's now state the problem the Player is facing. Let's call him A. A has made a call on a previous round, intending this call to mean something (meaning A1). His partner, B, has however explained this call to the opponents as meaning B1. Next, B has called. Now depending on the meaning of the previous call, this call has two entirely different meanings, A2 and B2. It is clear that B is intending to show B2. That is however UI to A. Now comes A, and he asks us three questions : 1) What shall I bid. How should I interpret the call by B ? 2) When shall I tell my opponents (and the TD) about the misinformation provided by partner ? 3) How shall I explain my partner's bid to opponents, if they ask me before the moment of 2) It would seem the answer to these questions depends on the actual meaning of the first call. However, player A is now facing the dilemma, and he cannot go and read his CC to figure out which of the explanations A1 or B1 is the correct one. We shall therefor classify not according to the meaning of the call, but according to the degree of certainty in the mind of A after hearing his partner's explanation. I see five possibilities, although these are not discrete, but rather a continuous spectrum : 1) A is absolutely certain he bid correctly and his partner is mistaken 2) A is reasonably certain, but he has some doubts. Maybe his partner is right after all 3) A knows not what to think 4) A is reasonably certain his partner got the thing right 5) A is absolutely certain he has made a mistake, his partner did give the correct explanation Now let's see what we shall answer to the three questions posed by player A. 1) What shall he bid. I think the readers of blml are absolutely agreed on this one. Since the explanation by partner is UI, A shall always bid according to meanings A1 and A2 of the bidding. This is obvious to us, but we must not forget that to the majority of players this is a surprising answer and one we should really impress them with. Remark that the Laws make absolutely no distinction as to what the meaning really is. Thus there is also no distinction as to which of the 5 situations A is facing. He shall always bid according to A2. (We all know of cases where the bidding on its own suggests meaning B, and we know that in those cases A might be allowed to wake up) 2) When shall he inform opponents. Firstly, L75D2 is clear : not before the bidding is over, if he is declarer or dummy, and not before the end of play if he becomes defender. The footnote to L75 also establishes that the player in situation 5) is not obliged to inform defenders before the lead, although it is of course no mistake to do so. I would tell player A4 to take the most certain route and explain his doubts to opponents. In situations 1 through 3 it is clear that opponents must be informed before the lead. 3) What to tell opponents in the meantime. The player in situation 5) has it easy : he shall simply tell the truth = meaning B2. The player in situation 4) should do the same. Wouldn't you be very harsh on this player for trying to tell partner he has made a mistake in so subtle a manner ? The player in situation 3) is in the same position as any player who has forgotten his system. I feel that explanations such as "I don't remember, it can be C or D" are actually giving partner more UI than opponents AI. The best thing to do is simply to say what you think and quit fooling around. If it is wrong, you accept the consequences. There is no reason to let opponents in onto your doubts. Agreed with my recommendation to players ? So if he IS uncertain, is it not best to explain B2 rather than A2, just so as to not tell partner he misinterpreted your previous call. Then to situation 2). Is there really a difference with all the previous ones ? The player is uncertain and he is not obliged to tell opponents the two possible meanings. Would you rule against him simply on the matter of the degree of uncertainty ? And so on to situation 1). The only difference between this player and the previous one is that this player is certain he is lying. You would probably not rule against player 2, then why should you rule against player 1 ? Simply because he is honest enough to tell you he was absolutely certain of giving a wrong information ? And besides still : is it a wrong information ? The laws very cleverly avoided the problem of "knowing" which is the correct system in their handling of the problem in 1). Is it not reasonable to assume that this also applies to problem 3) ? Or turn it around. Suppose the best advice we can give to player A in situation 1) is to explain the bidding as A2, and in situation 5) to explain B2, then what advice to we give the players in situations 2,3,4) ? I feel that is the best reason why we should allow a player to, in effect "lie". Because the only way we really have of knowing that he lies is for him to tell us. We should not encourage a player to benefit from lying to the TD. Better to have the Laws (and our application of them) depend on thing we can actually observe, and not on the state of mind of the player in question. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 19:47:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:24 +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 TAA04942 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:16 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-234.uunet.be [194.7.9.234]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10908 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:47:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3552C77D.CE16A98B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:51:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: FW: Self Explanations X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd79e2$30382e80$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >My suggestion is simply to lie. Sorry guys, but that's just how it is. > > ++++ A personal thought. Could one perhaps call the Director and say > "I am being asked about an explanation given by my partner. Would you > please say whether I am right in thinking that it is not the right time for > me to comment upon his explanation? Or am I to answer the question?" > I think it cannot be right either to lie or to respond ++++ Grattan++++ > > This will (must) be interpreted by the TD as an infraction of L75D2 also. There is no single means by which one can assure that opponents have the correct meaning AND not breaking L75D2 at the same time. But face it : defenders HAVE already had a mistaken information about a preevious call. Surely the extra misinformation is not going to matter much. And one can always ask the original explainer if HE is still certain of his original misexplanation. HE is not bound by L75D2 into revealing he probably made a mistake. Once he has realised this of his own accord, I am free to also correct the second misexplanation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 19:47:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:32 +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 TAA04958 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:47:22 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-234.uunet.be [194.7.9.234]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10920 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:47:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3552D1A0.7F04A00C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:34:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psych vs Psyche X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199805080535.WAA03416@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > > I guess I should have written "American" instead of "American > English," but I didn't want to seem chauvinistic. My German phrase > book contains the sentence "Ich spreche Americanisch, nicht > Englisch," so maybe that way of expressing the dichotomy *is* more > appropriate. > Most of the internet communications that I see, on bridge or any > other subject, use American spellings (defense, not defence), which > leads me to believe that American usage prevails for the most part. > That is because more than half the writers are Americans, and less than a quarter are British. The others have picked up throughout the years and thus acquired more American than British spellings. I for one never knew there was a difference between defense and defence. Now that I know, I will write it with a C, because (sorry) I feel that British English is the world standard, not American. As to psych, since the word seems to have originated in America, maybe the British could accept the spelling without E as the world standard ? > As to the official language of the game, I have no knowledge on that > subject. > The official language of Bridge around the world is "Broken English". I had the immense pleasure of telling that joke at the start of the first World Bridge Junior Camp, which for many American juniors was their first meeting with non-english speaking opponents (and partners, in the individual) They appreciated I warned them and told me it was strange to hear others speak this Bridge Language. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 21:56:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 21:56:06 +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 VAA05294 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 21:55:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2013508; 8 May 98 11:43 GMT Message-ID: <+KJ4AAA$quU1EwrA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:21:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psych vs Psyche In-Reply-To: <3552D1A0.7F04A00C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >> I guess I should have written "American" instead of "American >> English," but I didn't want to seem chauvinistic. My German phrase >> book contains the sentence "Ich spreche Americanisch, nicht >> Englisch," so maybe that way of expressing the dichotomy *is* more >> appropriate. >> Most of the internet communications that I see, on bridge or any >> other subject, use American spellings (defense, not defence), which >> leads me to believe that American usage prevails for the most part. >> > >That is because more than half the writers are Americans, and less than >a quarter are British. The others have picked up throughout the years >and thus acquired more American than British spellings. I for one never >knew there was a difference between defense and defence. Now that I >know, I will write it with a C, because (sorry) I feel that British >English is the world standard, not American. > >As to psych, since the word seems to have originated in America, maybe >the British could accept the spelling without E as the world standard ? Which British? The 4%[*] who post to the internet, or the 96% who don't? We are not talking here Internet communication but *spelling*. I spell the way that is expected by the vast majority of my peers. If i change from spelling "psyche" to "psych" then the majority of people who read my words will be puzzled. >> As to the official language of the game, I have no knowledge on that >> subject. >> > >The official language of Bridge around the world is "Broken English". I >had the immense pleasure of telling that joke at the start of the first >World Bridge Junior Camp, which for many American juniors was their >first meeting with non-english speaking opponents (and partners, in the >individual) They appreciated I warned them and told me it was strange >to hear others speak this Bridge Language. We have a few posters here who post in Broken English. Why not? I do think that people who post to this medium should post in their own version of English and leave their various readers to work it out. [*] Statistics invented, as usual. -- 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 May 8 22:05:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 22:05:54 +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 WAA05416 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 22:05:45 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1020102; 8 May 98 12:00 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 8 May 1998 12:53:49 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: FW: Self Explanations Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:53:47 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > >> >David Martin wrote: > >> >> > > All I know is that if one of my partners has given an > >> erroneous explanation and Declarer turns to me and asks if my > >> partner's original explanation was correct then I will answer NO > > Labeo: We can take it you are the authority in your partnership on > system agreements? Your partner is never right when you > disagree and the Director will never rule damage to opponents > because your 'correction' was wrong? > > ########## I was deliberately only talking about clear cut cases. I > would reply differently if there was any doubt and usually one knows > when this is the case. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 22:28:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 22:28:27 +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 WAA05584 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 22:28:20 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1020114; 8 May 98 12:02 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 8 May 1998 12:56:20 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: FW: Self Explanations Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:56:19 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo still wrote! > >> >David Martin wrote: > >> >> > > All I know is that if one of my partners has given an > >> erroneous explanation and Declarer turns to me and asks if my > >> partner's original explanation was correct then I will answer NO > > Labeo: We can take it you are the authority in your partnership on > system agreements? Your partner is never right when you > disagree and the Director will never rule damage to opponents > because your 'correction' was wrong? > > ########## A second thought. If there is damage to opponents then the > TD will adjust the score and rightly so. ###### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 22:45:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 22:45:11 +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 WAA05709 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 22:44:56 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1000289; 8 May 98 12:39 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 8 May 1998 13:19:43 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:19:42 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MAD DOG wrote: > > I think you should consider that, when the auction changes, people > do > >withdraw calls, and then play them again, rather than not withdraw > them. > > > The TD says "put your bid away" and reverts the auction. When it gets > back you may choose to make the same call, but for a period that call > *did not exist* and was withdrawn precisely because the opportunity > for > a different call *did exist* > > > ###### I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer that I gave > earlier! IE. the above may be what TDs do but it is not what Law 21B > says. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 8 23:19:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 23:19:29 +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 XAA05846 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 23:19:21 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic24.cais.com [207.226.56.24]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA01446 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 13:19:46 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980508092333.006dacf0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 09:23:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: technology In-Reply-To: <19980506183459.13475.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by stmpy.cais.net id NAA01446 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:34 AM 5/6/98 PDT, richard wrote: >>>Tim Goodwin wrote: >>>If you don=92t know the agreements that are contained within SAYC (or=20 >>>any other predefined system card) why would you agree to play the=20 >>>system? > >>Kindly suggest any sensible alternative when playing with a pickup=20 >>partner from another continent. > >Tim and David are both raising valid points. >If I can presume to summarize for the two individuals, David's major=20 >concern would appear to be that the hypertext card is providing an=20 >artificial level of accuracy. If the convention card were to provide an= =20 >alert for an agreement which was not used by that partnership, this=20 >could could cause serious problems for the defending pair. > >Tim's point would appear to be that is a pair of individuals claim to be= =20 >playing a system, then they naturally raise the expectation that they=20 >are actually playing the system in question. > >A ridiculous analogy might be the following. >Suppose a pair announced that they were playing SAYC. >One player opens 1N. > >My natural assumption, unless told otherwise is that the 1N opening is a= =20 >strong bid, and not a weak balanced hand. > >I don't think that it is wrong to assume that players actually know the=20 >system which they claim to play. Perhaps for pickup partnerships, the=20 >solution should be to steer away from a system as as complex and=20 >artificial as SAYC and try to move towards a simplier standard. I don't= =20 >believe that the existing method where the words SAYC mean all things to= =20 >all people is appropriate. SAYC is a red herring here. Even if you agree to play an essetially all-natural system (such as Goren or EHAA), that system will still have i= ts fine points and its subtle inferenences, albeit about natural rather than conventional auctions, and any supplied writeup at the level of detail being contemplated here will include those. A pickup partnership cannot and should not be expected to understand their "basic" system at that lev= el of detail -- even if both partners think they do, their understandings ar= e unlikely to coincide. A pickup partnership on OKBridge has to agree to play *some* system, and there's a world of difference between "let's play Goren" and "let's play according to the standard Goren 20-page hyper-card". Even the simple requirement that such a partnership must at least *read* the system as defined in detail by some third party (even if it contains virtually no conventions) would present a major obstacle to pickup partnerships, who just want to sit down at their computers and play a little virtual 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 Fri May 8 23:47:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 23:47:08 +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 XAA06011 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 23:47:02 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic24.cais.com [207.226.56.24]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA02137 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 13:47:27 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980508095120.006e2668@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 09:51:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Risk-free psych In-Reply-To: <199805062217.PAA24171@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While I agree with Marvin's viewpoint on this subject in general, permit me to pick a nit... At 03:13 PM 5/6/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >L40A says that psyching is okay without prior announcement, >"provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership >understanding." "Based on" should have been "protected by" >to be consistent with L73E. However, I think the two phrases >are synonymous in these contexts. I think they mean quite different things. I read "based on" as referring to agreements about when a psych is likely. I read "protected by" as referring to agreements about subsequent bidding designed to ascertain whether a particular bid was in fact a psych. Of course, neither L40A nor L73D prohibit such agreements; they merely make it clear that they must be properly disclosed. But the ACBL has declared that *any* agreements about psychs are prima facie conventional, and therefore can be (and are!) barred under L40D. In this context, the distinction is critical. I would argue that psychs based on partnership agreement are not conventions -- they are psychs, which are something entirely different -- and cannot be regulated under L40D, whereas I could accept that agreements which "protect" psychs are necessarily conventional (i.e. "asking" bids) and can be (not necessarily should be, but that's for another thread) banned. 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 May 9 01:07:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 01:07:50 +1000 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08655 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 01:07:41 +1000 Received: from mike (ip199.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.199]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01036 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980508110751.00729d0c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:07:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a summary In-Reply-To: <3552CFC8.A1F6F8B6@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:26 AM 5/8/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Let's now state the problem the Player is facing. Let's call him A. >A has made a call on a previous round, intending this call to mean >something (meaning A1). His partner, B, has however explained this call >to the opponents as meaning B1. >Next, B has called. Now depending on the meaning of the previous call, >this call has two entirely different meanings, A2 and B2. >It is clear that B is intending to show B2. >That is however UI to A. > >Now comes A, and he asks us three questions : > >1) What shall I bid. How should I interpret the call by B ? >2) When shall I tell my opponents (and the TD) about the misinformation >provided by partner ? >3) How shall I explain my partner's bid to opponents, if they ask me >before the moment of 2) > >It would seem the answer to these questions depends on the actual >meaning of the first call. However, player A is now facing the dilemma, >and he cannot go and read his CC to figure out which of the explanations >A1 or B1 is the correct one. > >We shall therefor classify not according to the meaning of the call, but >according to the degree of certainty in the mind of A after hearing his >partner's explanation. I see five possibilities, although these are not >discrete, but rather a continuous spectrum : > >1) A is absolutely certain he bid correctly and his partner is mistaken >2) A is reasonably certain, but he has some doubts. Maybe his partner >is right after all >3) A knows not what to think >4) A is reasonably certain his partner got the thing right >5) A is absolutely certain he has made a mistake, his partner did give >the correct explanation > >Now let's see what we shall answer to the three questions posed by >player A. > >1) What shall he bid. > >I think the readers of blml are absolutely agreed on this one. Since >the explanation by partner is UI, A shall always bid according to >meanings A1 and A2 of the bidding. This is obvious to us, but we must >not forget that to the majority of players this is a surprising answer >and one we should really impress them with. > >Remark that the Laws make absolutely no distinction as to what the >meaning really is. As has been discussed in other threads, agreement on this point is far from universal. Whilst I agree that this is the current state of the Law as interpreted and applied by most knowledgeable sorts, I and others have challenged the conventional wisdom that the text of the Laws either do or should require this interpretation. Just to treat the extreme cases (1 and 5), it is perfectly clear that L16 forbids our utilization of the knowledge of partner's confusion in deciding what to bid (case 1). But equally clearly, the Laws presume that we will base our bidding decisions in part on true partnership agreements. So the notion that true information regarding our methods is UI is somewhat dubious. The usual presumption made in analyzing the #5 cases is that A has forgotten his methods, and has only been "awakened" to his error by partner's behavior. While this will often be true, it will frequently be false. Other possibilities are: a) A remembers immediately upon making the mistake, or before partner's behavior can tip him off. b) A has not made a mental mistake in bidding but simply a logistical error, such as a mis-spoken bid or a wrong card pulled from the bidding box. c) Partner's subsequent bidding, while theoretically reconcilable with A's original thinking, is at least sufficiently remarkable to cause A to reconsider his original assumptions (e.g., the 2D-3D sequence, where the 2D bidder momentarily and mistakenly thought he was playing Flannery). d) A was psyching (psycheing?) and knew from the start what his bid was supposed to show. Nothing in the text of L16 (or any others) requires us to assume that A has indeed forgotten his methods, but it is the essential first step in applying the usual L16 analysis to this type of situation. Even ignoring the dubiousness of this first step, the construction of LA's is a rickety business, requiring the extrapolation of A's presumed state of mind at the time of his "error" into a set of methods which is, at best, unfamiliar to this partnership and, at worst, not actually played by anybody at all. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 01:37:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 01:37:05 +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 BAA08748 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 01:37:00 +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 IAA16635 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 8 May 1998 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id IAA03274; Fri, 8 May 1998 08:40:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:40:11 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199805081540.IAA03274@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Mayne wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |> [extended snip, spelling of "psych" discussed.] |> |> The bottom line, however, is that there is no authority to whom |> to refer in the case of bridge jargon. | |Well, there's always The Bridge World which came down heavily on the side |of "psych" some years ago. Of course, "psychic" isn't an accurate term to |begin with, but I don't think we'll be switching to "bluff" or some other |descriptive word any time soon. Edgar Kaplan, said authority, is no longer available. --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 May 9 02:32:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 02:32:02 +1000 Received: from krypton.tip.nl (krypton.tip.nl [195.18.64.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09033 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 02:31:50 +1000 Received: from marian by krypton.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0yXq7G-00144CC; Fri, 8 May 1998 18:35:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980508182956.00887740@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t701321@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 18:29:56 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed In-Reply-To: <199805072113.OAA04094@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:12 PM 07-05-98 -0700, you wrote: >I wrote: > >> >In Reno a C player opened 3D against me, holding seven diamonds to >> >the ace and three outside aces. I felt comfortable in my 3NT >> >contract, >> >knowing all I had to do was knock out her partner's three, maybe >two, >> >aces, since I had QJx diamonds opposite Kxx.> > >That was a mistake on my part, it was only two outside aces, three >altogether. Sorry for the exaggeration! > >and Grattan Endicott commented: > >> ##### Mmmmm....... Now personally I would say there is nothing here > >> to suggest the player who opened 3D did not know what she was >doing, >> or that her partner expected anything but a pre-emptive holding >from her. >> She made a judgement on the hand (maybe involuntarily, but there is >no >> law against it) and it worked out well against a partnership whose >methods >> got them out of their depth....... Two outside aces, was that? Well >timed, >> madam! ##### Grattan ##### >> >Absolutely right, and there was no criticism of her bidding. I would >say that I found the situation amusing, but not enjoyable, if that is >possible. Evidently my polite questioning of her, with her answer, >was snipped. Why had she chosen to open 3D? Because she had been told >that you had to have 13 points to open the bidding with one of a >suit, and she only had 12. Feeling that she ought to do something >with this hand, she opened at the three level. I did not question her >judgment. > >A further part of the story is that nothing was marked on her card, >while her partner's card had "light" checked under OPENING PREEMPTS. >Feeling that they needed some education on this matter, I asked a >woman TD to help them out. I wish I could remember her name, because >she did a great job of patiently explaining their obligation to have >understandings accurately shown on both cards, and told them that >while the 3D bid was unusual, it was perfectly okay if her partner >did not realize how strong it could be. She suggested, however, that >if they were going to open preemptive bids of this strength, they >should check "sound" instead of "light." > >I neither sought nor expected any redress for this disaster, since >it's the sort of thing one has to expect in stratified games. They >had their top, we had our zero. The usual outcome in a typical >Western U. S. club or sectional game would have been to give our side >avg+ while letting the opponents keep their top. Everyone's happy, no >headache for the TD. Question: Should I appeal that sort of ruling on >behalf of the other pairs in our field? Could one of those pairs >appeal the decision at our table, if they hear about it? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > Hi, If TD's give a+, inthis situation, i think they do a bad job. He should let the result stand. Perhaps appealing wil warn th SO that this TD shouldnt lead more tournaments (i hope). Antd, no other pair can appeal against a decision at another table say the rules. regards and hope you zero didnt cost too much, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 04:06:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 04:06:20 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 EAA09270 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 04:06:10 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28354 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 11:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805081806.LAA28354@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Psych vs Psyche Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:03:36 -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 > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >> > >> I guess I should have written "American" instead of "American > >> English," but I didn't want to seem chauvinistic. My German phrase > >> book contains the sentence "Ich spreche Americanisch, nicht > >> Englisch," so maybe that way of expressing the dichotomy *is* more > >> appropriate. > >> Most of the internet communications that I see, on bridge or any > >> other subject, use American spellings (defense, not defence), which > >> leads me to believe that American usage prevails for the most part. > >> > > > >That is because more than half the writers are Americans, and less than > >a quarter are British. The others have picked up throughout the years > >and thus acquired more American than British spellings. I for one never > >knew there was a difference between defense and defence. Now that I > >know, I will write it with a C, because (sorry) I feel that British > >English is the world standard, not American. > Let see...half the writers are American, and less than a quarter are British, and the others have picked up more American than British spellings, but you say that British English is the world standard? Perhaps you mean in foreign language classes, but I am speaking of the internet, where "honour," "defence," etc., are rarely seen. I do not maintain that everyone should conform to American usage, and agree that everyone should use the spellings they feel comfortable with. I merely said that uniformity "might be a good idea." If that was too strong, I apologize (with a z). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Attention Americans: "Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 04:27:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 04:27:20 +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 EAA09379 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 04:27:14 +1000 Received: from default (client08dc.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.220]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA27508; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:27:46 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Mark Abraham" Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 19:22:14 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7aae$3977e9a0$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: Mark Abraham To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 April 1998 04:31 Subject: Re: Self Explanations >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.>>Mark Abraham ++++ On a personal view I go along with this, but where partner has explained the auction in a way that fits the player's actual holding the player making the correction needs to be secure in the certainty that the Director will accept his version of the meaning as the correct one; since they have *demonstrated* a partnership disagreement the prima facie evidence is that an understanding is lacking and the partnership will need to overcome the possible view that they do not have a true understanding to announce. ACs should be sceptical and ask what the evidence is for the 'corrected' meaning - and if there is nothing more than a player's bald assertion the innocent opponents are entitled to the margin of doubt. ++++ Grattan +. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 04:27:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 04:27:17 +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 EAA09373 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 04:27:09 +1000 Received: from default (client08dc.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.220]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA27488; Fri, 8 May 1998 19:27:41 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Michael H. Albert" Subject: Re: Law 86C (redeals in team play) Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:41:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7aa8$972942c0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Michael H. Albert To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: 06 May 1998 00:46 Subject: Law 86C (redeals in team play) > >L86C: > The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority > to order one board redealt when the final result of > a match without that board could be known to a contestant. > Instead he awards an adjusted score. >> >How strongly is this interpreted? That is, how much information does a >contestant need in order to activate this law? > >[And by the way, isn't the contestant a team? And isn't the intention here >"if any member of the team ..."? So if one player on the team knows the >outcome is the "contestant" as a whole deemed to know it?] \x/ some removed \x/ ++++ A team is a 'contestant'. It was believed that a contestant could only be aware of the state of the match where there had been a comparison of scores (which might be by the players, on vuegraph, or however). It was not thought desirable to permit a single board to be replayed if any player who was to replay it could know or have a fair idea of the margin in the match when playing the fresh board. The Committee intends by this law to avoid that possibility absolutely; if a player who is to play the board knows the position in the match, or has had any contact with anyone who does, Law 86C is to be applied. The Director's discretion to allow the replay of a single board is removed from him in these circumstances, in the 1997 Laws as much as in the 1987 Laws.++++Grattan Endicott++++As a personal postscript to this I would suggest that the fact it is worthwhile replaying a single board may tell the players something about the margin in some circumstances, so Directors need to be thoughtful in their approach to the discretion vested in them by Law 6D3.+ > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 06:42:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 06:42:01 +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 GAA09841 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 06:41:44 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-109.access.net.il [192.116.198.109]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA00641; Fri, 8 May 1998 23:40:25 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35536E69.5C406026@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 23:43:21 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Goldsmith CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) References: <199805072120.OAA02470@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > Subject: English-free zone (was: Risk-free psych) > > David Burn said: > > |>> > |>> Marvin L. French wrote: > |>> > |>> >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. > |>> > | > | > |and DWS wrote: > | > |>> This is an international mailing list. In Europe "psyche" is a > |one- > |>> syllable word, and "psych" is not a word. > | > |No it isn't, and yes it is. In England (DWS's post reminds me of > |nothing so much as the early 19th century Times headline: "Heavy fog > |in Channel - Europe isolated"), "psyche" is a two-syllable word > |("syk-ee") meaning soul, spirit, mind; or a butterfly; or a > |cheval-glass. It derives from the word for the personification of the > |soul in Greek mythology, often depicted as a young woman with the > |wings of a butterfly (Psyche was the beloved of the god Eros). > > --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 I am happy to see and read the world-wide education and culture of this list's members ... Jeff quoted the main source of "Psyche" , from the Greek Mythology ......... all people using "PS..." at bridge table , should read the myths and legends of Ancient Greece ., to protect themselves form unpleasant interpretation. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 06:55:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 06:55:27 +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 GAA09890 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 06:55:21 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yXtUK-0007KPC; Fri, 8 May 98 15:11 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 15:13:25 +0000 To: From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: ACBL 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <199805081806.LAA28354@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just noticed that the ACBL version of the 1997 Laws are now online at http://www.acbl.org/info/laws97/laws97nj/index.html. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 08:09:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 08:09:02 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10032 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 08:08:56 +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 SAA12808 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 18:09:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA28631; Fri, 8 May 1998 18:09:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:09:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: suggested over another X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk About ten days ago, I posed the following: > 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? There were five replies, all sent to BLML. Three people thought the hesitation suggested bidding 5D, and two couldn't tell. My last question was a trick, of course; I'm pleased nobody fell for it. Perhaps I should have told everyone that this hand came up over twenty years ago, when no respectable player would preempt and then bid again. (Nowadays it seems routine.) I was at the other table, where we bid and made 4S with no trouble. I had filled out the entry slip last, hence was acting as team captain. At the table where the above auction occurred, our erratic teammate had little defense and bid 5D. (He probably should have bid it on the previous round.) That turned out to be a useful sacrifice, something like -300 (or maybe -100) instead of -420, and that turned out to swing some fraction of the match (W/L scoring with fractions). The player who hesitated held J-eighth of diamonds and some defense but not enough to beat 4S. He was in fact considering 5D and took awhile to convince himself that bidding again really was a bad idea even if partner had diamond support, which wasn't guaranteed with this particular partner. The opponents called the TD, who ruled "result stands" (without explanation, AFIAK), and the opponents appealed. It was my duty as captain to present our side's case, but the player who hesitated said that since the TD had ruled in our favor, no explanation was needed. I accepted this argument, and the AC duly ruled against us, adjusting the score to 4S making. At the time, I thought the 5D bidder had to believe that the hesitation was based on a defensive hand thinking of double. It wouldn't have occurred to me that this player was considering 5D, and I still don't know what took him so long to pass. This argument was never presented to the AC, and I don't know how they would have reacted to it. I'm not even sure what version of the Laws was in force. I think the hand came up at Bridge Week in 1975, and the new Laws came into force in the US on July 30 of that year. Could Bridge Week (a summer tournament in Los Angeles) have been in August? And even after the comments from the list (thanks to all!), I still don't know what the right ruling should have been (had the AC heard the case for both sides). The AC did see the hesitator's hand at the start of the hearing and may have been influenced by that. So... how many mistakes do you count altogether in this sorry episode, and which one was the worst? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 08:50:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 08:50:42 +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 IAA10122 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 08:50:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013474; 8 May 98 22:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 23:06:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <01bd7aae$3977e9a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: Mark Abraham >>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.>>Mark Abraham >++++ On a personal view I go along with this, but where partner has >explained the auction in a way that fits the player's actual holding the >player making the correction needs to be secure in the certainty >that the Director will accept his version of the meaning as the correct >one; since they have *demonstrated* a partnership disagreement the >prima facie evidence is that an understanding is lacking and the >partnership will need to overcome the possible view that they do not >have a true understanding to announce. ACs should be sceptical and >ask what the evidence is for the 'corrected' meaning - and if there is >nothing more than a player's bald assertion the innocent opponents >are entitled to the margin of doubt. ++++ Grattan +. What you are saying is that if you cannot demonstrate the meaning of the call then there is every chance you will be ruled against even though you know you have given a correct explanation. Fair enough. But the suggestion that has been put on this thread is that you should not describe the correct methods at all at such a time. What say you? -- 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 May 9 09:08:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 09:08:09 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA10165 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 09:08:02 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA23015; Fri, 8 May 1998 18:07:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca1-09.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.41) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023000; Fri May 8 18:07:27 1998 Message-ID: <35538FC4.2E47@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 16:05:40 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix6.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: suggested over another References: <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote, inter alia: It was my duty as > captain to present our side's case, but the player who hesitated said > that since the TD had ruled in our favor, no explanation was needed. I > accepted this argument, and the AC duly ruled against us, adjusting the > score to 4S making. The side presenting the appeal has the burden of proof to make a prima facie case for changing the director's ruling. This means it must advance facts and arguments that are sufficient to cause the AC to grant it the relief sought. If appealing side falls short of meeting its burden, no response nor rebuttal from respondent is necessary (or desireable). However, once a prima facie case is made, the burden of proof shifts to respondent to present a rebuttal. Failure to rebut a prima facie presentation will result in a decision for appellants. In the situation you presented, you were correct that no explanation was needed initially. However, your continued silence after appellant's presentation may have acted as a forfeiture on your team's position. You needed to judge whether the AC deemed appellant's presentation sufficient to meet their burden; if so, it was incumbent on you to speak. Incidentally, the players who were at the table should have attended the AC hearing; while a team captain may speak for them, an AC will always prefer to hear from the actors themselves. > Could Bridge Week (a summer tournament in Los > Angeles) have been in August? Bridge Week has always been held over the July 4 holiday. On the other issues you raised, I'll defer to the comments of others. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 13:54:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 13:54:29 +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 NAA10727 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 13:53:36 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-20.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.124]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA00503 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 23:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3553D42A.692AED1D@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 23:57:31 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Re: Psych vs Psyche References: <199805081806.LAA28354@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Marvin L. French wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> I guess I should have written "American" instead of "American > > >> English," > > Attention Americans: "Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a > two-syllable word. I think we all knew that. Why not just write in what is comfortable for each of us. I lived in Canada for many years so I never knew which spelling was correct!!!! I would guess that most of the non-USA-Canada folks are using English because they know that probably 90% of us can only converse with them in English. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 14:20:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 14:20:26 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA10780 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 14:20:19 +1000 Received: from mike (ip42.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.42]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA03956 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 00:20:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980509002031.007288b0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 00:20:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:09 PM 5/8/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >About ten days ago, I posed the following: > >> 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? > >There were five replies, all sent to BLML. Three people thought the >hesitation suggested bidding 5D, and two couldn't tell. My last >question was a trick, of course; I'm pleased nobody fell for it. > >Perhaps I should have told everyone that this hand came up over twenty >years ago, when no respectable player would preempt and then bid >again. (Nowadays it seems routine.) I was at the other table, where >we bid and made 4S with no trouble. I had filled out the entry slip >last, hence was acting as team captain. > >At the table where the above auction occurred, our erratic teammate had >little defense and bid 5D. (He probably should have bid it on the >previous round.) That turned out to be a useful sacrifice, something >like -300 (or maybe -100) instead of -420, and that turned out to swing >some fraction of the match (W/L scoring with fractions). The player >who hesitated held J-eighth of diamonds and some defense but not enough >to beat 4S. He was in fact considering 5D and took awhile to convince >himself that bidding again really was a bad idea even if partner had >diamond support, which wasn't guaranteed with this particular partner. > >The opponents called the TD, who ruled "result stands" (without >explanation, AFIAK), and the opponents appealed. It was my duty as >captain to present our side's case, but the player who hesitated said >that since the TD had ruled in our favor, no explanation was needed. I >accepted this argument, and the AC duly ruled against us, adjusting the >score to 4S making. > >At the time, I thought the 5D bidder had to believe that the hesitation >was based on a defensive hand thinking of double. It wouldn't have >occurred to me that this player was considering 5D, and I still don't >know what took him so long to pass. This argument was never presented >to the AC, and I don't know how they would have reacted to it. I'm not >even sure what version of the Laws was in force. I think the hand came >up at Bridge Week in 1975, and the new Laws came into force in the US >on July 30 of that year. Could Bridge Week (a summer tournament in Los >Angeles) have been in August? And even after the comments from the >list (thanks to all!), I still don't know what the right ruling should >have been (had the AC heard the case for both sides). The AC did see >the hesitator's hand at the start of the hearing and may have been >influenced by that. > >So... how many mistakes do you count altogether in this sorry episode, >and which one was the worst? :-) > I think that the hesitation suggests bidding over passing. In general, we don't know what the hesitator was thinking, and as you implicitly point out, it doesn't matter anyway. By a disciplined bidder, the hesitation simply doesn't parse--he has no legitimate problem regardless of his hand. But this player _did_ hesitate, and was evidently considering some action. It seems much more likely that the action he was contemplating was a 5D sacrifice rather than a double, and so the effective, if unintentional, message carried by the hesitation is "Pard, I'd like to takte the sacrifice, but I guess I just can't." The worst mistake in this story, IMO, was made by the TD to let the result stand. We haven't seen the 5D bidder's actual hand, but you stipulate that Pass is a LA, and as I've said, the slow pass over 4S suggests an interest in sacrificing. Even if the case is less clear-cut than it seems, the TD should have ruled for the NOS and let your side carry the burden of the appeal. The argument that the hesitator could have been considering a penalty double has little merit. A hand which looks anything like a weak jump overcall in diamonds can hardly be confident of a set of 4S. Even if he thought a set more likely than not, he should be thrilled to have pushed the opponents too high, and settle cheerfully for the expected plus score on defense. Mistakes: 3. The hesitation without any real problem, the illegal 5D bid after the hesitation, and the TD's sorry ruling. I don't count the feeble attempt to cobble up a bogus argument as a real mistake. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 14:32:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 14:32:10 +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 OAA10811 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 14:32:04 +1000 Received: from mike (ip42.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.42]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA15552 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 00:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980509003215.00725c58@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 00:32:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <35538FC4.2E47@popd.ix.netcom.com> References: <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:05 PM 5/8/98 -0700, Jon Brissman wrote: >Steve Willner wrote, inter alia: > > It was my duty as >> captain to present our side's case, but the player who hesitated said >> that since the TD had ruled in our favor, no explanation was needed. I >> accepted this argument, and the AC duly ruled against us, adjusting the >> score to 4S making. > >The side presenting the appeal has the burden of proof to make a prima >facie case for changing the director's ruling. This means it must >advance facts and arguments that are sufficient to cause the AC to grant >it the relief sought. If appealing side falls short of meeting its >burden, no response nor rebuttal from respondent is necessary (or >desireable). However, once a prima facie case is made, the burden of >proof shifts to respondent to present a rebuttal. Failure to rebut a >prima facie presentation will result in a decision for appellants. > >In the situation you presented, you were correct that no explanation was >needed initially. However, your continued silence after appellant's >presentation may have acted as a forfeiture on your team's position. >You needed to judge whether the AC deemed appellant's presentation >sufficient to meet their burden; if so, it was incumbent on you to >speak. Incidentally, the players who were at the table should have >attended the AC hearing; while a team captain may speak for them, an AC >will always prefer to hear from the actors themselves. > Maybe I have misunderstood your point here, but you seem to suggest that Steve had a duty to present a case for his team. I agree that by failing to do so, he was effectively forfeiting his case to the appellants, but perhaps that was for the best, since the correct decision appears to have been reached. If you believe that the Laws support the appeal by your opponents, do you have some legal or ethical obligation to fight anyway? We often make much of contestants' obligation to play to their maximum advantage. Does this extend to an obligation to pursue an appeal or to resist an appeal, even when you believe the Laws to support the position of the opponents? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 15:14:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 15:14:26 +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 PAA10964 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 15:14:20 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id AAA04792; Sat, 9 May 1998 00:14:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-02.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.66) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma004771; Sat May 9 00:13:48 1998 Message-ID: <3553E5A2.53D9@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 22:12:02 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix13.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Dennis" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: suggested over another References: <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19980509003215.00725c58@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 04:05 PM 5/8/98 -0700, Jon Brissman wrote: > > > >The side presenting the appeal has the burden of proof to make a prima > >facie case for changing the director's ruling. This means it must > >advance facts and arguments that are sufficient to cause the AC to grant > >it the relief sought. If appealing side falls short of meeting its > >burden, no response nor rebuttal from respondent is necessary (or > >desireable). However, once a prima facie case is made, the burden of > >proof shifts to respondent to present a rebuttal. Failure to rebut a > >prima facie presentation will result in a decision for appellants. > > > >In the situation you presented, you were correct that no explanation was > >needed initially. However, your continued silence after appellant's > >presentation may have acted as a forfeiture on your team's position. > >You needed to judge whether the AC deemed appellant's presentation > >sufficient to meet their burden; if so, it was incumbent on you to > >speak. Incidentally, the players who were at the table should have > >attended the AC hearing; while a team captain may speak for them, an AC > >will always prefer to hear from the actors themselves. > > > Maybe I have misunderstood your point here, but you seem to suggest that > Steve had a duty to present a case for his team. I agree that by failing to > do so, he was effectively forfeiting his case to the appellants, but > perhaps that was for the best, since the correct decision appears to have > been reached. > > If you believe that the Laws support the appeal by your opponents, do you > have some legal or ethical obligation to fight anyway? We often make much > of contestants' obligation to play to their maximum advantage. Does this > extend to an obligation to pursue an appeal or to resist an appeal, even > when you believe the Laws to support the position of the opponents? > Michael: You're reading too much into my response. My only purpose was set forth the evidentiary burden in appeals committee cases. I stated at the end that I would defer to others regarding the other points raised in the posting. I'm a Law and Order guy; I would never recommend that an appeal should be fought or resisted if the law was clearly on appellant's side. Disregard this case, then reread my comments as an overview on the production of evidence, testimony and arguments before any appeals committee. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 20:08:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:08:17 +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 UAA11511 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:08:09 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yY6YZ-0006TV-00; Sat, 9 May 1998 11:08:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 09:51:34 +0100 To: Jan Kamras Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199804292348.QAA09586@mh2.cts.com>, Jan Kamras writes >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. > Labeo: I agree. Herman misdirects himself as to the function of the TD and it is difficult to know how to say politely that, as a TD, he is there to judge how the laws apply to the situation in front of him and not to apply his own ideas of what the laws should be. He is entitled to have opinions on what would be better laws, but until the laws are altered he is not a competent TD if he is not applying the laws as they are. Within those laws he has scope to modify actions and decisions at times, but not in ways that the laws do not provide. Much of the best discussion on BLML has to do with how to make use of that discretion, and much of the most misguided discussion comes from attempts to bend the laws - such as Herman is proposing in this case - but the TD is not the judge of what the law should be, he is the instrument of what the law is. (Let us add that discussion here of what would be better law is good, since some of the ideas may be picked up in future law changes - probably just those ideas you least like? :-) ) -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 20:09:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:09:30 +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 UAA11522 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:09:24 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1020198; 9 May 98 10:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 10:50:51 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Risk-free psych In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Adam Beneschan wrote: >>> >>> Marvin L. French wrote: >>> >>> >"Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a two-syllable word. >>> ...............................cut............................ > The only meaning it gives for 'psych' is slang: a transitive verb >meaning to subject to psychoanalysis: it gives 'psyche' as an >alternative. > > ... and my spellchekka has just rejected 'psych'! > Labeo: Oxford English Dictionary: 'Psych': ........4.n&v. Bridge (Usually 'Psyche') A psychic bid. 'Psyche'n&v.:....... see Psych. Actually, I think OED is wrong; it should be 'a psychic call'! -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 20:13:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:13:52 +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 UAA11554 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:13:45 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1020201; 9 May 98 10:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 09:23:16 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <9804291646.aa00419@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9804291646.aa00419@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >> >> > 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. > Labeo: The laws are surely set up on the basis that all four players at the table will hear all that is said. The big delusion is to suppose that when three players are involved in a discussion in the middle of the hand, with the fourth player excluded, that fourth player will not, most of the time, know exactly or very closely what is going on. Quite a lot of players know what the game is about and recognise the situations. Tournament Directors should, whenever they can, keep all four players at the table so that they hear what is said, leaving no argument subsequently about whether they have the information on which it is suggested they are acting. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 20:18:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:18:48 +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 UAA11585 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 20:18:41 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027659; 9 May 98 10:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 10:16:07 +0100 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980429235228.00686ba0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980429235228.00686ba0@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes > ............cut............ >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. ....cut................. > Labeo: I think the argument that the 'integrity of the competition' demands that you extract a full penalty is a slur on the sportsmanlike ethical qualities of the game. The principle established in Law 92A - that occurrences at a table are solely matters for the players at that table - extends also to the position described. The integrity of the competition is composed of the results of whatever happens legally at all the tables comprising the competition; what happens at table 29 is not the business of the players at tables 1 - 28 even though the scores from that table will affect them. (With its rule that all contestants shall play to the best of their current ability at all times, the WBF would no doubt have to decide how to balance this against what some describe as 'active ethics'). -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 21:01:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 21:01:04 +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 VAA11683 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 21:00:55 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-150.access.net.il [192.116.198.150]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA25057; Sat, 9 May 1998 13:44:41 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35543443.51C38258@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 13:47:31 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Martin CC: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Unchanged Call With Different Meaning References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Your excellencies !!!!!!!! honorable Ladies & gentlemen !!!!! I am not the Galactic Authority for Logic , but ....IMHO the moment the call comes back to X , after Z (X's LHO) called , that very moment Z's call was withdrawn !!!!!!!! >From here on Law 26 applies.... As much as I understand bridge logic , there should be no reason that the bid "2D" during the auction 1D-1S-X-P-2D or 1D-1S-X-2Cl-2D should show different strength , in non-HUM systems. Dany Martin wrote: > > MAD DOG wrote: > > > > I think you should consider that, when the auction changes, people > > do > > >withdraw calls, and then play them again, rather than not withdraw > > them. > > > > > The TD says "put your bid away" and reverts the auction. When it gets > > back you may choose to make the same call, but for a period that call > > *did not exist* and was withdrawn precisely because the opportunity > > for > > a different call *did exist* > > > > > > ###### I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer that I gave > > earlier! IE. the above may be what TDs do but it is not what Law 21B > > says. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 22:48:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 22:48:37 +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 WAA11951 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 22:48:31 +1000 Received: from default (cph42.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.42]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA03523 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 14:48:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805091248.OAA03523@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 14:49:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: (account of hand snipped. Marv's opponent pre-empted with 3D on something like Axx Ax Axxxxxx x). > I neither sought nor expected any redress for this disaster, since > it's the sort of thing one has to expect in stratified games. I'd say that everyone should expect an occasional undeserved bottom in pairs events everywhere, even in the finals of international championships. Bridge simply includes a certain amount of randomness in the results. > They > had their top, we had our zero. The usual outcome in a typical > Western U. S. club or sectional game would have been to give our side > avg+ while letting the opponents keep their top. I suppose "usual" and "typical" are exaggerations. I also suppose that I should not bite on this troll. But I can't resist. The TD is apparently adjusting the score. The TD must have found some irregularity where your opponents are the offending side. It is an unusual interpretation of L12 to allow the offending side to keep a score obtained through an irregularity while adjusting for the non-offenders. Scratch "unusual". Substitute "outrageous". > Everyone's happy, no > headache for the TD. Until he gets his name posted on BLML. > Question: Should I appeal that sort of ruling on > behalf of the other pairs in our field? I don't think you should ever appeal on behalf of the other pairs in your field. Like so many other strange goings-on, this ruling has just given (less than) half the field a present of one matchpoint (or one half, depending on your scoring methods), neatly taking the same amount away from as many other contestants. The entire concept of a "field" is that these things average out in the long run, and so by definition it is absurd to "protect the field". My advice is to appeal only when your purpose is to improve your score. To try to teach TDs how to conduct their business is close to not obeying L81C5 > Could one of those pairs > appeal the decision at our table, if they hear about it? No. Some of my fellow mathematicians may not like my saying so, but L92A is generally interpreted to exclude appeals from everyone else. The only other way it could get to a committee would be for the TD to refer it there using L83. In the theoretical (at least I hope so) case you have set up, the TD would be unlikely to do so. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 9 22:51:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 22:51:20 +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 WAA11967 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 22:51:14 +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 IAA17096 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 08:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980509084139.38eff1a8@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 08:41:39 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980509002031.007288b0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 AM 5/9/98 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Mistakes: 3. The hesitation without any real problem, the illegal 5D bid >after the hesitation, and the TD's sorry ruling. I don't count the feeble >attempt to cobble up a bogus argument as a real mistake. Haven't some people suggested that the hesitation suggested defense and thus suggested pass over 5D? Does this make both pass and 5D illegal? You may have guessed, I don't think the 5D bid was illegal. If the player had instead chose to pass _because of the hesitation_ wouldn't that be illegal? Anyway, when a player has selected a call that could have been suggested by the UI, I don't think this should be called illegal. The call is certainly subject to review by a director and and AC, but illegal? If it is considered illegal, won't there be situations where a player cannot make any call because all would be considered illegal? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 10 00:08:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 00:08:22 +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 AAA12106 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 00:08:16 +1000 Received: from default (client0833.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.51]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA17899; Sat, 9 May 1998 15:08:48 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Self Explanations Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 14:58:05 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7b52$7d31eac0$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 May 1998 00:27 Subject: Re: Self Explanations >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: Mark Abraham >>I don't see that these are tricky situations at all. >>> >>>Misinformation was given, and a correct explanation was given at the >>>correct time. > >>++++ On a personal view I go along with this> David Stevenson:- > What you are saying is that if you cannot demonstrate the meaning of >the call then there is every chance you will be ruled against even >though you know you have given a correct explanation. Fair enough. But >the suggestion that has been put on this thread is that you should not >describe the correct methods at all at such a time. What say you? > ++++ You are right that I did not comment upon the last point; there are just a few things on which I am reluctant to make personal comment away from the current position of the Committee ('C'). So I return to wearing my formal clothes; in doing so I set a general style that my personal views or musings will be contained in square [..........] brackets. So, C position:- 1. The absolute intention was (and is until changed) that player A should never comment upon his partner's (B's) explanation of his (A's) call until the laws admit of giving a correction. The stance of the C is that in the case of any doubt as to the meaning of a law the interpretation is resolved by reference to the intentions of the C when introducing the law. If a committee member proposes words and states the purpose of them, the C has adopted the purpose if it makes no further comment in adopting the words. 2. [The introduction of 'normally' in 20F1 may have been injudicious]; it was desired to allow that there might be special conditions - screens, written explanations - in which the SO would wish to provide for a comment to be made; beyond that, the Director might come upon rare exceptional and unforeseen circumstances in which he would need powers to allow an explanation to be given abnormally by A. [Nothing I have been reading in this thread resembles such a position. The wording of 75C makes it plain enough that the C has no thought of A responding in respect of his own call.] 3. You will note that, at my instigation, the words 'in his opinion' were inserted by the C in 75D2. This is to stress that *no matter how certain* a player may be in his own mind that his view is the correct one, it remains a question to be resolved whether there is an agreement, and if so whether A or B has it right, for which reason it is not desired that corrections or comment upon explanations should be made prematurely. The C has set the time for them and it did not do so randomly. [I fully understand that some of the distinguished contributors to this thread would have it otherwise, but otherwise it is not.] 4. The laws provide that certain questions may be asked. They *do not* allow that such questions may be addressed to a specific opponent. It is not the player's prerogative to determine who shall answer him. They do place the responsibility upon the responders to questions that each shall explain his partner's calls. It is intended that anything other than this must be authorized by the Director; players should follow normal procedure until the Director tells them to do something else. Any correction should not be offered until the Director is present. [In the event that a question is addressed to the 'wrong' opponent by Declarer before the hand has been played out it would be my view that his best action is not to speak, but to refer the questioner to his partner for a reply by gesture of hand and arm. If the questioner wishes to pursue the point, let him call the Director and complain that he is not getting an answer. Neither by look or attitude should anything be done IMO to indicate whether a correction would or would not be appropriate]. 5. Concerning the Declarer who corrects an explanation at the end of the auction but does not have a hand to match his correction I agree this is what the laws now require; [given the kind of doubts expressed in (3) above I think the Declarer who is not absolutely certain he can justify his correction - and is on the point of offering a 'correction' that is likely to mislead opponents - is better able to defend his virtue if he allows the doubts to prevail and discusses the problem after the hand is over]. 6. [The circumstances in (5), and the law position, cause me some disquiet; I have added the subject to my list of possible agenda items - which I shall discuss shortly with the Chairman - for Lille.] Does this add anything to the lengthy accumulation on this subject? What have I missed out? ++++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 10 08:53:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 08:53:34 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA15619 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 08:53:26 +1000 Received: from default (client0956.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.9.86]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA30470; Sat, 9 May 1998 23:53:49 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 23:54:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7b9d$5c5506c0$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: 09 May 1998 14:35 Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Marvin L. French wrote: (account of hand snipped \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ > Could one of those pairs > appeal the decision at our table, if they hear about it? No. Some of my fellow mathematicians may not like my saying so, but L92A is generally interpreted to exclude appeals from everyone else. The only other way it could get to a committee would be for the TD to refer it there using L83. In the theoretical (at least I hope so) case you have set up, the TD would be unlikely to do so. ++++ Law 92A is considered by 'C' to exclude appeals from any contestant not at the table where the matter occurred which is the subject of appeal. C does not consider players other than those involved at the table should have rights of appeal against a ruling and has constructed the Law to that effect. But, yes, the Director is empowered to take the item to AC. ++++ Grattan ++++ [On the side of the angels, again, Jens! - G. ] Note: In style recently adopted by G.E. :- 'C' = WBF Laws Committee. [.......] square brackets enclose personal thoughts not represented as C positions. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 10 12:37:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 12:37:46 +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 MAA15994 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 12:37:39 +1000 Received: from mike (ip182.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.182]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA05021 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 22:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980509223750.00727a60@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 22:37:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980509084139.38eff1a8@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980509002031.007288b0@pop.mindspring.com> <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:41 AM 5/9/98, Tim wrote: >At 12:20 AM 5/9/98 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>Mistakes: 3. The hesitation without any real problem, the illegal 5D bid >>after the hesitation, and the TD's sorry ruling. I don't count the feeble >>attempt to cobble up a bogus argument as a real mistake. > >Haven't some people suggested that the hesitation suggested defense and >thus suggested pass over 5D? Does this make both pass and 5D illegal? You >may have guessed, I don't think the 5D bid was illegal. If the player had >instead chose to pass _because of the hesitation_ wouldn't that be illegal? > Anyway, when a player has selected a call that could have been suggested >by the UI, I don't think this should be called illegal. The call is >certainly subject to review by a director and and AC, but illegal? If it >is considered illegal, won't there be situations where a player cannot make >any call because all would be considered illegal? > >Tim L16 states that you "may not choose from among" etc. To do so is a violation of that Law and hence illegal. It is not necessarily an unethical act--a player may be unaware of his legal obligations, or as in this case among many others, there may be a difference of opinion as to whether the facts do or do not bar a particular option. But given that a particular action meets the conditions stipulated in L16, i.e., a LA which might demonstrably have been suggested over others, it is illegal to take such an action. Could the hesitation really suggest a pass? Emphatically not. It might well have been meaningless, of course, but we are to assume that the hesitator was contemplating some alternative action to passing. I think the odds are quite high that the contemplated action was a sacrifice, based simply on the relative frequency of weak jump overcalls for which sacrificing is at least somewhat attractive, compared to the frequency of such hands for which a double seems right. But I think this distinction is slightly beside the point. Partner's hesitation suggests an unusual interest in some alternative contract than 4S undoubled, and so improves the odds on ANY action other than passing. Of course we haven't seen the actual hand and so we are relying on Steve's original characterization of Pass as a LA, but given that, I am prepared to stand by my earlier use of the word "illegal". Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 10 16:43:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA16632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 16:43:07 +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 QAA16626 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 16:43:00 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029940; 10 May 98 6:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 06:52:14 +0100 To: Anton Witzen Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980508182956.00887740@pop1.tip.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.2.32.19980508182956.00887740@pop1.tip.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >At 02:12 PM 07-05-98 -0700, you wrote: >>I wrote: >> >>> >In Reno a C player opened 3D against me, holding seven diamonds to >>> >> >> >> >> >Hi, >If TD's give a+, inthis situation, i think they do a bad job. >He should let the result stand. Perhaps appealing wil warn th SO that this >TD shouldnt lead more tournaments (i hope). >Antd, no other pair can appeal against a decision at another table say the >rules. >regards and hope you zero didnt cost too much, >Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) Labeo: If it had been that the lady was showing her One Openers as 13+HCP on the CC she is surely allowed to judge whether to open One or Three, and whilst many of us would think Aces made it a One Opener even by her methods, the choice would be hers. I understood the CC was not well completed but even that does not mean she was not entitled to take her view. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 10 18:14:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA16737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 18:14:08 +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 SAA16729 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 18:14:01 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-185.uunet.be [194.7.13.185]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19211 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 10:14:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35555C9F.599AFDCD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 09:51:59 +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 Labeo wrote: > > Labeo: I agree. Herman misdirects himself as to the function of the TD > and it is difficult to know how to say politely that, as a TD, > he is there to judge how the laws apply to the situation in > front of him and not to apply his own ideas of what the laws > should be. He is entitled to have opinions on what would be > better laws, but until the laws are altered he is not a > competent TD if he is not applying the laws as they are. > Within those laws he has scope to modify actions and decisions > at times, but not in ways that the laws do not provide. > Much of the best discussion on BLML has to do with how to > make use of that discretion, and much of the most misguided > discussion comes from attempts to bend the laws - such as > Herman is proposing in this case - but the TD is not the > judge of what the law should be, he is the instrument of > what the law is. (Let us add that discussion here of what > would be better law is good, since some of the ideas may be > picked up in future law changes - probably just those ideas > you least like? :-) ) > -- Labeo I must again stress a simple point. The De Wael school is not a school of directors. I have absolutely no single quarrel with any of you as to how to deal with this when it happens. I have never stated that when I break L75C, I shall go unpunished. The De Wael school is merely an advice to players, stating that when they find themselves in this situation, it is better for them to break L75C than to break L75D2. I think that all the examples provided have shown that it is indeed better for the offending side to act in this manner. I suppose most of you would agree on that score. Where our disagreements begin, is as to whether it is legal for a player to choose to break a Law, and as to whether it is ethical for him to do so in search for the least penalty. I believe it is, you may disagree. I will continue to act in this manner, and advise (ze?) players to do the same. I will afterwards punish them by applying misinformation on their second call. I will accept the same if it happens to me. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 10 18:14:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA16743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 18:14:16 +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 SAA16738 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 18:14:09 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-185.uunet.be [194.7.13.185]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA19217 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 10:14:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35555DFE.ECC9F629@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 09:57:50 +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: <01bd7b52$7d31eac0$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > So, C position:- > 1. The absolute intention was (and is until changed) that player A should > never comment upon his partner's (B's) explanation of his (A's) call until > the laws admit of giving a correction. The stance of the C is that in > the case of any doubt as to the meaning of a law the interpretation is > resolved by reference to the intentions of the C when introducing the > law. If a committee member proposes words and states the purpose > of them, the C has adopted the purpose if it makes no further > comment in adopting the words. Does this include responding to the next question in a manner consistent with partner's previous (erroneous) reply ? Please reply personally if you wish. If this matter has not been discussed by the C, we (I) would still like to know how Mr G.E. would resolve this dilemma at the table. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 11 03:24:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 03:24:12 +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 DAA20203 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 03:24:01 +1000 Received: from default (client0915.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.9.21]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA32518; Sun, 10 May 1998 18:24:35 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: David Stevenson speaks to the World! Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:07:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7c36$1909e900$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD7C41.0FFB7C60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD7C41.0FFB7C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ :=20 =20 I spoke with David Stevenson this morning and he asked me=20 to put it around that he will be out of touch for four or five=20 days at least. He is in hospital having a check done on some=20 problem to do with his digestive tract. Should anyone wish to get a message to David an e-mail=20 sent to me will be printed out and relayed by snail-mail =20 overnight Monday or Tuesday. =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD7C41.0FFB7C60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18=20 8DJ           &nbs= p;    =20 : 
 
I spoke with David Stevenson this = morning and he=20 asked me
to put it around that he will be out = of touch=20 for four or five 
days at least. = He is in=20 hospital having a check done on some
problem to do with his digestive tract.
Should anyone wish to get a = message to=20 David an e-mail 
sent to me will be printed out and relayed by = snail-mail=20  
overnight Monday or Tuesday.
 

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

 
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD7C41.0FFB7C60-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 11 03:24:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 03:24:13 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20208 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 03:24:06 +1000 Received: from default (client0915.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.9.21]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA32545; Sun, 10 May 1998 18:24:38 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Rickard, Jeremy" Cc: Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:12:09 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7c36$c4285e20$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: Jeremy Rickard To: BLML Date: 02 May 1998 02:09 Subject: Re: ACBL Statement on Conventions > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Jens & Bodil wrote: >> >"Marvin L. French" wrote: >> >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. > ++++ I confirm that the matter was not pursued. The reason is that it was already decided by the WBF Laws Committee ('C') some years previously that various international bodies were acting within the law when they banned psychics of conventional opening bids in pairs events. It was Zone 1 (myself speaking for the Zone) that put the question. The precedent is established and C has ruled. C agrees that the power under Law 40D to regulate conventions is without limits. ++++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 11 08:24:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 08:24:28 +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 IAA20833 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 08:24:21 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic109.cais.com [207.226.56.109]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA29653 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 22:24:48 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980510182901.006dbbd4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:29:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: References: <01bd7aae$3977e9a0$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:06 PM 5/8/98 +0100, David wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>++++ On a personal view I go along with this, but where partner has >>explained the auction in a way that fits the player's actual holding the >>player making the correction needs to be secure in the certainty >>that the Director will accept his version of the meaning as the correct >>one; since they have *demonstrated* a partnership disagreement the >>prima facie evidence is that an understanding is lacking and the >>partnership will need to overcome the possible view that they do not >>have a true understanding to announce. ACs should be sceptical and >>ask what the evidence is for the 'corrected' meaning - and if there is >>nothing more than a player's bald assertion the innocent opponents >>are entitled to the margin of doubt. ++++ Grattan +. > > What you are saying is that if you cannot demonstrate the meaning of >the call then there is every chance you will be ruled against even >though you know you have given a correct explanation. Fair enough. But >the suggestion that has been put on this thread is that you should not >describe the correct methods at all at such a time. What say you? If the correct legal view for the TD and AC is that the fact that a player disagrees with his partner's explanation of the meaning of a bid constitutes a prima facie presumption that partnership understanding is lacking, absent hard evidence to the contrary, then shouldn't this be the correct view for the player as well? That would mean that if my partner offers an explanation that I don't think is right, but I don't have hard evidence to back up my prospective alternate explanation, I should tell the opponents, at the appropriate time, not what I believe the agreed meaning to be, but rather that we have no agreement, since that is, in fact, the legally appropriate prima facie assumption. In other words, if I offer what I believe to be the correct information, a committee will later decide that I in fact have no agreement and that my explanation constituted misinformation, so I must say that I have no agreement, to avoid giving misinformation. 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 May 11 17:02:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 17:02:02 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 RAA21859 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 17:01:52 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA27401 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 00:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805110701.AAA27401@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:59:32 -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 Jens wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > They > > had their top, we had our zero. The usual outcome in a typical > > Western U. S. club or sectional game would have been to give our side > > avg+ while letting the opponents keep their top. > > I suppose "usual" and "typical" are exaggerations. I also suppose > that I should not bite on this troll. But I can't resist. > > The TD is apparently adjusting the score. The TD must have found > some irregularity where your opponents are the offending side. It is an > unusual interpretation of L12 to allow the offending side to keep a > score obtained through an irregularity while adjusting for the > non-offenders. Scratch "unusual". Substitute "outrageous". I know it seems unbelievable, but this sort of ruling is very common throughout this part of the U. S. Why not? No one complains, because the OS gets to keep its top and the NO gets an avg+ (60%, or whatever they averaged on the rest of the deals, whichever is better). The TDs don't have to convene an AC, and everybody likes them because they avoid giving out bad scores. Recall the RENO NABC ruling I described a while back, when the OS used a treatment that was illegal in ACBL-land without Alerting or Pre-Alerting (super-light third hand opening, 7 HCP). The OS retained the top that the bid got them, while we were given avg+. This was a typical ruling, nothing unusual in these parts. That is why I would like to see "TD Memos" for reporting such instances of malfeasance, analogous to Player Memos, but who would they go to? Who would care? > > Everyone's happy, no > > headache for the TD. > > Until he gets his name posted on BLML. Don't tempt me. I've got enough TD enemies now without doing that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 00:33:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 00:33:44 +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 AAA25314 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 00:33:38 +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 KAA19891 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 10:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29981; Mon, 11 May 1998 10:33:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:33:58 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: suggested over another X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > The worst mistake in this story, IMO, was made by the TD to let the result > stand. This is certainly a candidate; I'm not sure it is the worst. > The argument that the hesitator could have been considering a penalty > double has little merit. A hand like x xxx Axxxxx AQx would have bid 3D and then doubled; at least that's what I would have done opposite a reliable partner in those days. The 4D bid suggested a modicum of defense; otherwise the player would have passed or bid 5D. Of course today 4D suggests nothing other than three trumps or so. Opposite the actual, erratic, partner, if dealt the above, I might well have thought for awhile and passed. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 06:34:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 06:34:57 +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 GAA26605 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 06:34:50 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yYzIC-0000Qz-00; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:35:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 08:43:36 +0100 To: Nancy T Dressing Cc: bridge laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psych vs Psyche In-Reply-To: <3553D42A.692AED1D@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3553D42A.692AED1D@pinehurst.net>, Nancy T Dressing writes > > >Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > Herman De Wael wrote: >> > > >Marvin L. French wrote: .........cut..................... >> >> Attention Americans: "Psych" is a one-syllable word; "psyche" is a >> two-syllable word. > > I think we all knew that. Why not just write in what is comfortable >for each of us. I lived in Canada for many years so I never knew which >spelling was correct!!!! I would guess that most of the non-USA-Canada >folks are using English because they know that probably 90% of us can >only converse with them in English. > Labeo: ....... or with each other at times, although many can use Spanish, and a number French, Russian and other languages. But I agree with what you are saying - if we all had to spell uniformly the world's educational systems would explode. Society has to learn to live with its differences; bridge players should be well aware of this, even if BLML makes clones (or is it 'clowns'?) of us all. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 06:37:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 06:37:35 +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 GAA26628 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 06:37:29 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1007859; 11 May 98 20:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 01:01:18 +0100 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <35555C9F.599AFDCD@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <35555C9F.599AFDCD@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Labeo wrote: >> >> Labeo: I agree. Herman misdirects himself ..............................cut............................... > > >Where our disagreements begin, is as to whether it is legal for a player >to choose to break a Law, and as to whether it is ethical for him to do >so in search for the least penalty. > >I believe it is, you may disagree. > .............................cut............................... Labeo: That we disagree is not the point. The Laws disagree. Law 72A1 and more particularly Law 72B2. Of course deliberately and knowingly to break a law is serious misconduct. Before embarking upon such a course you should consult the Director for guidance how to act, and when playing a Director is inevitably a role model for others. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 07:33:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 07:33:51 +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 HAA26747 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 07:33:40 +1000 Received: from default (client8644.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.68]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA14651; Mon, 11 May 1998 22:34:05 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: David Stevenson - Update 1 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:32:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7d24$47d555a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0032_01BD7D2D.1B2BD660" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01BD7D2D.1B2BD660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : Monday - 2230 hours GMT+1.=20 I spoke again with David this evening. He reports initial results of tests; rather indefinite - problem is=20 probably dietary, some slight suspicion of a=20 'touch of diabetes'; he expects to be put on a=20 strict diet,and permitted no alcohol intake. I suppose he'll take his misery out on us! :-)) His guess is he'll be "kicked out of hospital midweek,=20 possibly on Wednesday". Printouts of your various=20 messages are in the mail to him, will arrive=20 tomorrow a.m.. +++ Grattan +++ =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01BD7D2D.1B2BD660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18=20 8DJ           &nbs= p;    =20 :
 
Monday - 2230 hours GMT+1.
I spoke again with David this = evening. He=20 reports
initial results of tests; rather = indefinite -=20 problem is
probably dietary, some slight suspicion of a
'touch of diabetes'; he expects to be put on a
strict diet,and permitted no alcohol intake. I suppose
he'll take his misery out on=20 us!    :-))
 
His guess is he'll be "kicked out of hospital = midweek,=20
possibly on Wednesday".   Printouts = of your=20 various
messages are in the mail to = him, will=20 arrive
tomorrow a.m.. +++ Grattan=20 +++
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;  =20

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

 
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01BD7D2D.1B2BD660-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 08:02:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 08:02:05 +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 IAA26812 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 08:01:59 +1000 Received: from mike (ip233.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.233]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19299 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 18:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980511180210.007296e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:02:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:33 AM 5/11/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" > >> The worst mistake in this story, IMO, was made by the TD to let the result >> stand. > >This is certainly a candidate; I'm not sure it is the worst. > >> The argument that the hesitator could have been considering a penalty >> double has little merit. > >A hand like x xxx Axxxxx AQx would have bid 3D and then doubled; at >least that's what I would have done opposite a reliable partner in >those days. The 4D bid suggested a modicum of defense; otherwise the >player would have passed or bid 5D. Of course today 4D suggests >nothing other than three trumps or so. > You and I have radically different ideas about what constitutes a non-vul pre-emptive 3D bid if you're submitting the above as a likely candidate. One of the principal characteristics of a reasonable pre-empt is the relatively high ratio of offense to defense, and this hand fails badly on that count. But certainly some _might_ choose to play this way. The point remains, the hesitation over 4S suggests an unusual degree of interest in some action other than defending 4S undoubled. The hesitator's partner cannot be allowed a successful guess as to which action to take (i.e., double or sacrifice), if Pass is, as you have said, a LA. This is an important point, because the general theme is quite common. In a competitive auction, one player hesitates before passing the opponents' bid. It may not be clear what the hesitator has in mind, but it is clear that he is considering either bidding again or doubling. Can his partner legally exploit such a pause in deciding whether to pass the bidding out? I certainly hope not. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 08:08:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 08:08:51 +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 IAA26833 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 08:08:44 +1000 Received: from default (client155b.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.91]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA22746 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 23:09:18 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Fw: Self Explanations Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:46:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7d26$448d92c0$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 : As Eric requests: -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Grattan Endicott Date: 11 May 1998 17:46 Subject: Re: Self Explanations >At 01:59 PM 5/11/98 +0100, you wrote: > >>++You will have seen the reply to the Stevenson >>request for an extended opinion. I think it probably >>covers what you ask. ++ G ++ [Note: my personal >>view of this law (75D2) is that the stipulated >>procedure is to call the Director at the due time >>and then to announce in front of him that in your >>opinion partner has given an erroneous explanation. >>You then wait for the Director to instruct you as >>to what you do next; the law does not carry you to >>the point of stating your own belief of the correct >>explanation. This may not be how it happens >>in usual situations, but here the question is what >>the law provides. There is no doubt that when >>this position is reached there will be a proportion >>of cases where the TD or AC will subsequently >>rule that an agreement did not in fact exist, and >>where there is an agreement the correcting player >>will sometimes be discovered to have got confused, >>or to have forgotten, rather than the player >>giving the original explanation. I consider the >>Director should normally ask you to state your >>version of the agreed meaning, which you do >>under the protection of the Director's instruction.] > >Perfectly clear and excellent reply; thank you. I will not post someone >else's private e-mail to a list, but do urge you to post this to BLML for >everyone to see. /eric > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 09:53:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 09:53:28 +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 JAA26972 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 09:53:22 +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 SAA08498 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 18:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00546; Mon, 11 May 1998 18:26:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:26:49 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805112226.SAA00546@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: suggested over another X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > This is an important point, because the general theme is quite common. In a > competitive auction, one player hesitates before passing the opponents' > bid. It may not be clear what the hesitator has in mind, but it is clear > that he is considering either bidding again or doubling. Can his partner > legally exploit such a pause in deciding whether to pass the bidding out? I > certainly hope not. If we phrase the last sentence more neutrally, I think Michael's opinion is in a very small minority. Clearly the pause is UI, and one is not allowed to "exploit" it, but if it does not suggest one alternative over another (i.e. if one cannot tell which alternative action partner was considering), none of the LA's is rendered illegal. This is completely the standard argument after a slow forcing pass, for example. As we discussed only a couple of weeks ago, it seems to apply even if the pass is not forcing. Some people think this is because "demonstrably" has been added to L16A. Others think this was always the rule, and the change only clarified matters. Double may become illegal, since partner can bid on if that is what he was thinking about. But if partner was thinking about doubling, in what way was bidding on suggested? Did I misunderstand the discussion of the last few weeks? From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 16:20:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 16:20:15 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 QAA27645 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 16:20:00 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA29139 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 23:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805120620.XAA29139@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 23:18:22 -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 Having bought the two casebooks for Dallas and Albuquerque NABC appeals cases, I would like to share some of my thoughts on a few(?) of the cases, and will be interested in BLMLers' comments. Even though these are ACBL-land cases, many of them have wider application. Rich Colker was the editor for both casebooks, and has done his usual fine job. For those unfamiliar with ACBL casebooks, an expert panel examines the appeals cases at an NABC, and comments on the decisions of both the TDs and ACs. TDs and ACs are given a score by each panelist, which are summed and averaged. The editor inserts comments about both the case and the panelists' opinions. Regardless of what anyone says to the contrary, when I see scores like 80.2 and 60.3 it is obvious that the range is 0-100, even if the raw scores might be something like 0, 1, 2, 3, which have been turned into percentages. Only the most naive would think that the impressive-looking percentage scores convey an accurate evaluation, and I am not going to report them. Okay, here goes. This case is more tame than many that will follow, but is important for the precedent that it might set. Dealer: South S- AKQT8532 H- 7 D- J76 C- 9 S- 9 S-764 H- K542 H- AQJ3 D- A982 D- KQ C- AQT6 C- 7543 S- J H- T986 D- T543 C- KJ82 West North East South (usual directions) P 1D 2S Dbl P 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) P 4S P P Dbl All pass (1) Break in tempo Down 300, a good save, since E-W could make game. The TD ruled that a pass for North was not a logical alternative, and E-W appealed. The AC, chaired by Alan LeBendig, were of the unanimous opinion that it was clear North was planning to slow-bid the hand and never intended to defend at the four level. So, passing the double of 4H was not a logical alternative. The AC did not say how they were able to read North's mind. There was nothing in the AC write-up concerning any N-S agreement about the 2S bid. I think that the proper disposition of the hand would be an assigned score of +790 for E-W, the most favorable result that was likely (note the squeeze position). Most of the commentators thought the AC decision was wrong (Bobby Wolff said "unspeakable"), but a minority agreed with it. What does BLML think? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 17:29:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 17:29:24 +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 RAA27772 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 17:29:19 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-050.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.55]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA15734 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 00:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3556AD82.2FE8@lightspeed.net> Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 00:49:22 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 References: <199805120620.XAA29139@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Snip] Form of scoring? Vulnerability? Did I miss it? > Dealer: South > > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 > > S- 9 S-764 > H- K542 H- AQJ3 > D- A982 D- KQ > C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 > > West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass > > (1) Break in tempo > > Down 300, a good save, since E-W could make game. The TD ruled that a > pass for North was not a logical alternative, and E-W appealed. The > AC, chaired by Alan LeBendig, were of the unanimous opinion that it > was clear North was planning to slow-bid the hand and never intended > to defend at the four level. So, passing the double of 4H was not a > logical alternative. I find this very interesting. What level were the players? In adequate competition, the 3S bid is *very* unusual and indicates some sort of tactical shot. So, South has something to think about at his turn, almost whatever his hand. South ought not double without an impressive reason, IMO, given that he trusts partner. (I *hate* this kind of bidding even when on purpose, but that's for another ng). Therefore, my strong inclination is to rule against N-S. But, before I made a ruling, I'd want to talk to North. I want to hear what he has to say. I could be persuaded that a North who bids this way will not tolerate a double. It's difficult to assemble a set of North's peers who would bid this way, so I think listening to this North is not foolish. Assuming I roll it back to 4Hx, I'm too sleepy to analyze the play. It looks a little complicated.... (Is Marv suggesting that making 6 is likely? I don't see it that way at 12:30 a.m.) The AC did not say how they were able to read > North's mind. There was nothing in the AC write-up concerning any N-S > agreement about the 2S bid. The AC doesn't have to read his mind. It has to look at logical alternatives for this player's peers. That's complicated. Also, the implication here is that you can't get a feel for the veracity of North by talking to him. My guess is that a good committee can get to the truth in excess of 90% of the time. It's not psychic powers that committees need, it's fact-finding skill. --JRM > > I think that the proper disposition of the hand would be an assigned > score of +790 for E-W, the most favorable result that was likely > (note the squeeze position). > > Most of the commentators thought the AC decision was wrong (Bobby > Wolff said "unspeakable"), but a minority agreed with it. What does > BLML think? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 18:32:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 18:32:08 +1000 Received: from sxhab.compuserve.net (sxhab.compuserve.net [149.174.177.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA27980 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 18:32:02 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from aamta.compuserve.net (nthnsaab.ibmnotes.compuserve.com [149.174.177.77]) by sxhab.compuserve.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA27425.; Tue, 12 May 1998 04:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 85256602.004CC690 ; Tue, 12 May 1998 04:26:39 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:06:07 +0200 Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Dealer: South S- AKQT8532 H- 7 D- J76 C- 9 S- 9 S- 764 H- K542 H- AQJ3 D- A982 D- KQ C- AQT6 C- 7543 S- J H- T986 D- T543 C- KJ82 West North East South (usual directions) P 1D 2S Dbl P 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) P 4S P P Dbl All pass (1) Break in tempo<< How do you suppose to beat 4 hearts with a passed partner?! Even if you beat it, 4 S will be cold most times. I guess both did right - the TD protected the innocent and the AC made the right bridge decision. Just my 2c worth. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 21:05:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 21:05:29 +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 VAA28452 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 21:05:22 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-249.uunet.be [194.7.9.249]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09973 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:05:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35582600.D9717798@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:35:44 +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 Labeo wrote: > > In message <35555C9F.599AFDCD@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Labeo wrote: > >> > >> Labeo: I agree. Herman misdirects himself > ..............................cut............................... > > > > > >Where our disagreements begin, is as to whether it is legal for a player > >to choose to break a Law, and as to whether it is ethical for him to do > >so in search for the least penalty. > > > >I believe it is, you may disagree. > > > .............................cut............................... > > Labeo: > That we disagree is not the point. The Laws disagree. Law 72A1 and > more particularly Law 72B2. Of course deliberately and knowingly to > break a law is serious misconduct. Before embarking upon such a > course you should consult the Director for guidance how to act, and > when playing a Director is inevitably a role model for others. > -- Labeo I agree with what you say, not with the Laws you quote. It's Laws 75D2 and 75C that are in disagreement. Your quoting of L72B2 can just as easily refer to L75D2. Before embarking on the breaking of L75D2, you can ... But of course the suggested solution of calling the director and tell him that partner has made a misexplanation is IMO also forbidden by L75D2 (nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 21:05:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 21:05:35 +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 VAA28460 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 21:05:29 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-249.uunet.be [194.7.9.249]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09977 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35582CFB.1FE53A09@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:05:31 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: The De Wael School - a story X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me tell you a story. David Stevenson and I are each playing in a tournament which the other is directing. (Sorry to use your name in such a manner, David, and I hope you will soon be able to read this. Here's to your health). It is a pairs' tournament with Butler scoring. We are playing with a partner with whom we have played four times three months ago. At the time, we had agreed to play Albarran responses to strong 2Cl openings, but today our partner has arrived a little late and we did not get further than the openings at the one level. The second hand of the first round has this bidding : partner we 2Cl 3H 4NT 5Cl We have intended 3H to show 2 aces of the same colour, and 5Cl as showing zero Kings, but in the meantime partner has told opponents that 3H is long with hearts. Now LHO asks us about the meaning of 4NT. What shall we answer. 1) Herman De Wael. I reply : "asking for Aces". The story continues : Partner is now lacking two aces and decides to bid 5 Hearts. Actively ethical, I pass, and after the third pass I call the director (David). I tell him what has happened and David offers LHO a chance to change his final pass. He doesn't, and leads to 5 Hearts. A slight misdefence allows me 11 tricks and I mark +450 (quite a bad result really, since the room scores +1020 or +1520) David has to rule on four questions : a- the misinformation to opponents about 3H b- the misinformation to opponents about 4NT c- my use of UI d- my deliberate misinformation to opponents Let me hazzard a guess as to David's rulings : a- probably opponents are not harmed b- certainly opponents are not harmed (this hardly affects their bidding) c- I have tried to avoid using UI, and I hope David agrees d- he might give a procedural penalty, quoting L75C, and 72B2. I will appeal that penalty, stating that since there is obviously a disagreement, I did not know at the time whether or not my response was the correct one, according to the system. Since I answered correctly according to what partner was actually meaning, how can I be punished for doing this ? Now to the other story : 2) David Stevenson He replies : (I will let him fill this in, but unless he's suddenly converted, it is not what I responded) Whatever, the story continues : Partner is now aware (through whatever means) that there is something fishy. He suddenly remembers the agreement from three months ago and calls the director (me). He explains to opponents the true meaning of 3 Hearts and consequently of 5 clubs. He now has UI, and I explain to him he is not allowed to use this. As an actively ethical player (David would not play with anyone else) he stays away from slam, and bids 5NT. He easily makes 13 tricks. I now have to rule on five questions : a- the misinformation to opponents about 3H (during the one round of bidding) b- the misinformation to opponents about 4NT (probably no longer of application, as the correction occured in time for a change of call) c- David's use of UI d- Partner's use of UI e- David's blatant breaking of L75D2. Here are my rulings : a- probably opponents are not harmed b- probably not of application c- David has avoided using UI d- I am more creative than partner in finding an alternative call : 5H. I rule that partner has used to UI to choose 5NT over 5H, and award an AS about 5H. Since opponents did not get a chance to misdefend, I rule the score back to -50. e- I give a procedural penalty, of 50% of a top, quoting L75D2 and L72B2, and taking David's standing as director into account for the height of the penalty. David will no doubt appeal, but failing actual cards, would you not believe my ruling might be correct ? Would there not be also an agreement as to the penalty ? Now I know you will say that the stories are not the same. David's partner might have bid 5H, in which case there would be no AS to him. Agreed. But my partner might also have bid 5NT, and since there is no UI, there would be no reason to change +520 into -50 in my case. Agreed ? The fact is that having UI, it is sometimes not easy to find an action which is not only not based on it, but will also be ruled not being based on UI, and hence avoiding the "most unfavourable result that was at all probable" becomes very hard indeed. That is why a player should do his utmost to avoid giving UI to partner. I believe that in this case, the Laws not only authorize this, but actively oblige a player not to give UI. This is the best way I could find to describe why I tell players to act in this manner when they ask me the theoretical question : "what shall I do when I hear partner misexplaining my bid" My advice to players is : "When you hear partner misexplaining your bidding, you should continue bidding as if you did not hear the explanation, but you should explain the rest of the bidding according to the first (mis)explanation." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 12 23:43:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 23:43:46 +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 XAA28969 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 23:43:38 +1000 Received: from default (client1016.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.10.22]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA10014; Tue, 12 May 1998 14:44:13 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:36:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7da2$a50cdee0$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: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 May 1998 08:00 Subject: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 > >S- 9 S-764 >H- K542 H- AQJ3 >D- A982 D- KQ >C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 > >West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass > >(1) Break in tempo >>> ++++ [Opinion (with apologies to all the cats on BLML)/ When I see completed appeal forms for review in the UK I am frequently left wondering what additional evidence was heard in committee, what was found on the CC or in the System File. I excuse the paucity of news because the committee chairman would need to write a book, but I worry that the AC may not have obtained vital info. When he does write a book and still I am not told some essentials I usually kick the neighbour's cat. I presume the book unsurprisingly is written for an American readership who would naturally assume if not told what were the potential values for a single jump overcall in Spades; mostly I see American methods at international venues where most of their jumps seem to be generically weak. I also like to have a view of the quality of the players. I try not to jump to conclusions about other players methods or the arguments they might bring - it is not right to foist onto them my own opinions of appropriate action or those of top players without knowing their system agreements etc. But: 1. I assume the respondent presented the argument for the slow approach. 2. The Committee accepted it. However, if the Two Spades is capable of being made on a much more defensive hand, with less top cards, one supposes that an educated North would double to show the actual hand rather than bid 4S. Is North a novice? 3. If North would double to show the hand he has, South wanting to defend (and doubled if North has such a hand) could pass smoothly and wait for the double; so it may be the double should want to defend regardless of North's lack of defence - or, in Reno, defense. 4. But, of course, the player who does not know whether to defend or bid on is then in a dilemma; will give it some thought and not make the smooth decision which is available when (s)he knows what to do. The thought, when it becomes apparent, does convey fairly clear cut UI, inviting North to choose. The Director evidently found that there was a significant break of tempo and the AC did not over-rule him on this. 5. Or does the system file/CC establish that the double is not strictly penalties? And, if it is, why would North want to remove it? Do we have a strong North protecting a weak South? Or a pro-am situation with the pro judging (correctly) that the chances are better with the AC than with partner's double? 6. The bid of 4S should not be allowed. This is the kind of situation where, notwithstanding my general stance that it is the task of Directors, imposed by law, to make bridge judgements, this is a case where the Director should have recognised there was a sufficient margin of doubt to cause him to rule against the side that had created the problem and let them appeal. In that situation the footnote to Law 92A would be highly relevant if N/S were not novices. 7. The decision of Mr. LeBendig's committee is mystical. Since he is widely thought to know what he is doing does one presume he had a weak committee? As a Judge of the Supreme Court I would be attentive to the identity of South; is this a client playing with a pro, and on the AC is there any risk that there was a pro who might be inadvertently partial to the position of a potential or actual client?] ++++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 01:50:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 01:50:12 +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 BAA01942 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 01:50:05 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.69.2.120]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA4854 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 15:50:06 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 11:47:10 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd7dbd$396ede20$7802450c@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 Just a small point before I contribute my thoughts. This is case one from the DALLAS NABC. ******* < message snipped > >Dealer: South > > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 > >S- 9 S-764 >H- K542 H- AQJ3 >D- A982 D- KQ >C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 > >West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass > >(1) Break in tempo < Message snipped > North's bidding definitely suggests an intent to "walk" the hand. However, for bridge purposes that may not be particularly relevant. My reason is that North's intention is available to South. It is normal for the pre-empter to not bid again. Here, North took a second bid before South had the opportunity to double 4H. Without the break in tempo, North would have every reason to think that South has trump tricks (emphasize the plural). South knows that North has a strange hand, and so the double should be a warning to stop. However, the break suggests exactly the opposite. That is the reason I would not permit North to bid 4S. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 05:07:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:07:51 +1000 Received: from d2.ikos.com (d2.ikos.com [149.172.200.202]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02865 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:07:44 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA25274; Tue, 12 May 1998 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199805121907.MAA25274@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue May 12 09:26 PDT 1998 > > Just a small point before I contribute my thoughts. This is case one from > the DALLAS NABC. > > ******* > > < message snipped > > > >Dealer: South > > > > S- AKQT8532 > > H- 7 > > D- J76 > > C- 9 > > > >S- 9 S-764 > >H- K542 H- AQJ3 > >D- A982 D- KQ > >C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > > > S- J > > H- T986 > > D- T543 > > C- KJ82 > > > >West North East South (usual directions) > > P > > 1D 2S Dbl P > > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > > P 4S P P > > Dbl All pass > > > >(1) Break in tempo > > Jay wrote: > North's bidding definitely suggests an intent to "walk" the hand. However, > for bridge purposes that may not be particularly relevant. My reason is that > North's intention is available to South. It is normal for the pre-empter to > not bid again. Here, North took a second bid before South had the > opportunity to double 4H. > > Without the break in tempo, North would have every reason to think that > South has trump tricks (emphasize the plural). South knows that North has a > strange hand, and so the double should be a warning to stop. However, the > break suggests exactly the opposite. That is the reason I would not permit > North to bid 4S. With much respect for Bobby Wolff and the others who think the AC was wrong, I humbly disagree. The double is indeed a warning to stop, but not a demand. West has shown opening-hand values, and East has shown a good offensive hand by bidding on after his own high-level negative double. Furthermore, North's spades reveal that the opponents have no wasted values in spades; this is what South cannot know, and why pass is not a logical alternative. With all the bidding going on, South cannot have much defense unless an opponent (perhaps West?) psyched, so the double must be cooperative, looking for defensive values outside spades as well as to catch West with wasted spade values. Since North does not have the hand South's double must logically be hoping for, and since North's concealed spade length diminishes what little defensive values he holds, pulling to 4S is IMHO 100% clear. Is anyone claiming that the double is purely penalty, revealing a psych? A doubtful use. I think cooperative doubles for the passed hand are likely, either by general agreement or by general bridge knowledge. Do you really think that N-S had an agreement regarding 2S then 3S, other than the usual agreement not to bid like that? That seems unlikely, particularly since no such agreement was reported. So North's 3S bid can be understood to show something freakish, but surely does not deny defense, nor promise quite so many spades. In the spectrum of freak hands 3S might show, this hand is far from those which could pass the double, IMHO. As for the slowness of the double, even a strong passed hand might pause to consider who's psyching. I'm not 100% clear that the slow double suggests pulling. As someone else noted, isn't a break in tempo expected here? South must be allowed to consider what's going on. Would it help if N-S had a written agreement and scrupulous policy that a passed hand always slows the tempo when reentering the auction? Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 05:09:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:09:14 +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 FAA02879 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:09:08 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA29746 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 14:09:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.65) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029619; Tue May 12 14:08:36 1998 Received: by har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7DB7.B1BA36A0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 12 May 1998 15:07:35 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD7DB7.B1BA36A0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ACBL replies on fixed Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:07:33 -0400 Encoding: 85 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If the TD's conduct is "outrageous" as you word it, how can he ever improve it if the few non-brain-dead players allow such incompetent actions to pass unquestioned? This would seem to perpetuate bad rulings. While an appeal might not be the right way to go, would this be a case for a "director memo" (a concept whose day may have come)? TD's who consistently rule in a manner not in accord with the laws must be educated or removed. Only a very few have access to the advanced courses EBL offers or the brilliancies of this group. :-) Somehow, the good ones deserve a chance to improve, and the poor ones a chance to take up some other activity (before all of the decent players decide to do so). Does anyone have some constructive suggestions on how to deal with directors who don't have a clue? The problem is more widespread at the club level in the US (yes on the east coast also) than you might suspect, and probably a majority of the "bad" directors are ignorant and well-intentioned, not malevolent. (The situation is somewhat better at the regional level and above.) ---------- From: Jens & Bodil[SMTP:alesia@alesia.dk] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:49 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Marvin L. French wrote: (account of hand snipped. Marv's opponent pre-empted with 3D on something like Axx Ax Axxxxxx x). > I neither sought nor expected any redress for this disaster, since > it's the sort of thing one has to expect in stratified games. I'd say that everyone should expect an occasional undeserved bottom in pairs events everywhere, even in the finals of international championships. Bridge simply includes a certain amount of randomness in the results. > They > had their top, we had our zero. The usual outcome in a typical > Western U. S. club or sectional game would have been to give our side > avg+ while letting the opponents keep their top. I suppose "usual" and "typical" are exaggerations. I also suppose that I should not bite on this troll. But I can't resist. The TD is apparently adjusting the score. The TD must have found some irregularity where your opponents are the offending side. It is an unusual interpretation of L12 to allow the offending side to keep a score obtained through an irregularity while adjusting for the non-offenders. Scratch "unusual". Substitute "outrageous". > Everyone's happy, no > headache for the TD. Until he gets his name posted on BLML. > Question: Should I appeal that sort of ruling on > behalf of the other pairs in our field? I don't think you should ever appeal on behalf of the other pairs in your field. Like so many other strange goings-on, this ruling has just given (less than) half the field a present of one matchpoint (or one half, depending on your scoring methods), neatly taking the same amount away from as many other contestants. The entire concept of a "field" is that these things average out in the long run, and so by definition it is absurd to "protect the field". My advice is to appeal only when your purpose is to improve your score. To try to teach TDs how to conduct their business is close to not obeying L81C5 > Could one of those pairs > appeal the decision at our table, if they hear about it? No. Some of my fellow mathematicians may not like my saying so, but L92A is generally interpreted to exclude appeals from everyone else. The only other way it could get to a committee would be for the TD to refer it there using L83. In the theoretical (at least I hope so) case you have set up, the TD would be unlikely to do so. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 05:38:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:38:40 +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 FAA02991 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:38:32 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yZKtK-0000sN-00; Tue, 12 May 1998 20:39:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:23:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story In-Reply-To: <35582CFB.1FE53A09@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <35582CFB.1FE53A09@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >My advice to players is : > >"When you hear partner misexplaining your bidding, you should continue >bidding as if you did not hear the explanation, but you should explain >the rest of the bidding according to the first (mis)explanation." > Herman ... I know why you do it I understand why you do it I have sympathy with why you do it Unfortunately my interpretation of the laws says You must not do 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 Wed May 13 05:38:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:38:39 +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 FAA02990 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:38:32 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yZKtJ-0000sG-00; Tue, 12 May 1998 20:39:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:10:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: <199805120620.XAA29139@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199805120620.XAA29139@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Having bought the two casebooks for Dallas and Albuquerque NABC >appeals cases, I would like to share some of my thoughts on a few(?) >of the cases, and will be interested in BLMLers' comments. Even >though these are ACBL-land cases, many of them have wider >application. Rich Colker was the editor for both casebooks, and has >done his usual fine job. > >For those unfamiliar with ACBL casebooks, an expert panel examines >the appeals cases at an NABC, and comments on the decisions of both >the TDs and ACs. TDs and ACs are given a score by each panelist, >which are summed and averaged. The editor inserts comments about both >the case and the panelists' opinions. Regardless of what anyone says >to the contrary, when I see scores like 80.2 and 60.3 it is obvious >that the range is 0-100, even if the raw scores might be something >like 0, 1, 2, 3, which have been turned into percentages. Only the >most naive would think that the impressive-looking percentage scores >convey an accurate evaluation, and I am not going to report them. >Okay, here goes. This case is more tame than many that will follow, >but is important for the precedent that it might set. >Dealer: South > > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 > >S- 9 S-764 >H- K542 H- AQJ3 >D- A982 D- KQ >C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 > >West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass > >(1) Break in tempo > >Down 300, a good save, since E-W could make game. The TD ruled that a >pass for North was not a logical alternative, and E-W appealed. The >AC, chaired by Alan LeBendig, were of the unanimous opinion that it >was clear North was planning to slow-bid the hand and never intended >to defend at the four level. So, passing the double of 4H was not a >logical alternative. The AC did not say how they were able to read >North's mind. There was nothing in the AC write-up concerning any N-S >agreement about the 2S bid. > >I think that the proper disposition of the hand would be an assigned >score of +790 for E-W, the most favorable result that was likely >(note the squeeze position). > >Most of the commentators thought the AC decision was wrong (Bobby >Wolff said "unspeakable"), but a minority agreed with it. What does >BLML think? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > >From North's point of view, if 4H is off then 4S is a make. IMO pass is not a LA and I would have so ruled. 4S and result stands. If the AC overturns me that is their prerogative and I wouldn't feel strongly either way. > > > > -- 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 May 13 05:43:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:43:55 +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 FAA03021 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:43:49 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2009890; 12 May 98 19:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:17:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: <3556AD82.2FE8@lightspeed.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3556AD82.2FE8@lightspeed.net>, "John R. Mayne" writes snip >But, before I made a ruling, I'd want to talk to North. I want to hear >what he has to say. I could be persuaded that a North who bids this way >will not tolerate a double. It's difficult to assemble a set of North's >peers who would bid this way, so I think listening to this North is not >foolish. > this is the point ... you are faced with a decision when N has bid like a demented wombat. He has made it entirely clear he was on his way to 4S as slowly as possible, and whatever his partner does no other action than 4S is a LA for him. Partner just made life difficult by trancing. We're not being asked to judge a "scientific" North. we're being asked to put ourselves in the place of a creative artist in the middle of a piece of beautiful legerdemain. Nothing else makes sense. -- 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 May 13 05:56:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:56:00 +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 FAA03079 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:55:54 +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 PAA22882 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 15:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805121956.PAA27912@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01BD7DB7.B1BA36A0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> (message from Craig Senior on Tue, 12 May 1998 15:07:33 -0400) Subject: Re: ACBL replies on fixed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: >> Question: Should I appeal that sort of ruling on >> behalf of the other pairs in our field? > I don't think you should ever appeal on behalf of the other pairs in > your field. Like so many other strange goings-on, this ruling has > just given (less than) half the field a present of one matchpoint > (or one half, depending on your scoring methods), neatly taking the > same amount away from as many other contestants. The entire concept > of a "field" is that these things average out in the long run, and so > by definition it is absurd to "protect the field". > My advice is to appeal only when your purpose is to improve your > score. To try to teach TDs how to conduct their business is close > to not obeying L81C5 Are you supposed to appeal when your opponents have an unjustified gain? This is a better example of your duty to the field. That is, the TD makes a bad ruling giving your opponents a top. You wind up below average, and your opponents win the event by less than one board. Should you appeal, so that the proper pair will win if the appeal is upheld? The TD may now appeal on his own initiative. Should he do this in a situation like the one above if the appelants withdraw an appeal because it won't affect them? Likewise, should you appeal when you believe the ruling was correct for you but wrong for your opponents? -- 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 May 13 06:37:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 06:37:30 +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 GAA03172 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 06:37:21 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21449; 12 May 98 13:37 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 May 1998 12:07:51 PDT." <199805121907.MAA25274@d2.ikos.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:37:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805121337.aa21449@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > >Dealer: South > > > > > > S- AKQT8532 > > > H- 7 > > > D- J76 > > > C- 9 > > > > > >S- 9 S- 764 > > >H- K542 H- AQJ3 > > >D- A982 D- KQ > > >C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > > > > > S- J > > > H- T986 > > > D- T543 > > > C- KJ82 > > > > > > West North East South (usual directions) > > > P > > > 1D 2S Dbl P > > > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > > > P 4S P P > > > Dbl All pass > > > > > >(1) Break in tempo Nobody has said anything, but I assume 2S is a weak jump overcall. > Jay wrote: > > North's bidding definitely suggests an intent to "walk" the hand. However, > > for bridge purposes that may not be particularly relevant. My reason is that > > North's intention is available to South. It is normal for the pre-empter to > > not bid again. Here, North took a second bid before South had the > > opportunity to double 4H. > > > > Without the break in tempo, North would have every reason to think that > > South has trump tricks (emphasize the plural). South knows that North has a > > strange hand, and so the double should be a warning to stop. However, the > > break suggests exactly the opposite. That is the reason I would not permit > > North to bid 4S. Everett wrote: > With much respect for Bobby Wolff and the others who think the AC was wrong, > I humbly disagree. > > The double is indeed a warning to stop, but not a demand. > West has shown opening-hand values, > and East has shown a good offensive hand by bidding on after his own > high-level negative double. > > Furthermore, North's spades reveal that the opponents have no wasted > values in spades; this is what South cannot know, and why pass is not > a logical alternative. With all the bidding going on, South cannot > have much defense unless an opponent (perhaps West?) psyched, so > the double must be cooperative, looking for defensive values outside > spades as well as to catch West with wasted spade values. > Since North does not have the hand South's double must logically be > hoping for, and since North's concealed spade length diminishes > what little defensive values he holds, pulling to 4S is IMHO 100% clear. I don't know that I agree with this analysis. It's easy for me to imagine both opponents stretching given the interference. In particular, West has a difficult second call with a hand like xx AQx K6xxx Kxx, and I'm sure 3H would be the choice of many. (Unless I've been reading too much MSC...) Given that there's no more room for invitational bidding, East could be easily stretching to game on a hand that's only worth a good invitation. So not only might South have more values than the auction seems to suggest, he could easily show up with five trumps. Also, I'd look skeptically on this analysis if I were on an AC. With all due respect, it just sounds too much like an after-the-fact argument to justify North's figuring out exactly what kind of hand South had, which happened to coincide with the kind of hand North knew South had from South's hesitation. It's my impression that that's exactly the type of argument AC's are supposed to take a dim view of. (That by itself doesn't make pass a LA for North, of course.) > Is anyone claiming that the double is purely penalty, revealing a psych? > A doubtful use. I think cooperative doubles for the passed hand are likely, > either by general agreement or by general bridge knowledge. You might be right; still, I have a little trouble with the idea of cooperative doubles opposite a partner who has preempted. Perhaps I'm biased, though, because I have a partner who recently made two disastrous speculative doubles after I made an opening preempt---he was hoping I had a defensive card in some other suit and that maybe I could get a ruff somehwere---and I made the agreement with him that he's not allowed to double the opponents after my preempts unless he has them beaten all by himself. I'm not an expert bidder, but I do wonder whether general bridge knowledge would suggest cooperative doubles in this type of auction where North has made a preemptive bid. Naturally, if I were at the table, I'd want to find out what their actual agreements are about this sort of double. Also, if North really were "walking the dog", I'd need to find out what breed of dog it was and whether it's male or female, and of course I'd need to know how many cats North had MANGO PLEASE GET OFF THE KEYBOARD ... ahem ... sorry about that. BTW, if South's double were cooperative, just what kind of hand does he think North have, that he thinks North can pull to a save that isn't going for -500 or -800 or -1100? (We *are* at all white, right?) > Would it help if N-S had a written agreement and scrupulous policy > that a passed hand always slows the tempo when reentering the auction? Yes, if (as an AC member) I could be convinced that they did follow this policy consistently. I'm curious, by the way . . . is there anyone who'd actually seriously consider doubling with the South hand, and if so, why? I'm completely mystified by it, but then again I'm not an expert bidder. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 07:35:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:35:36 +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 HAA03344 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:35:30 +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 RAA06625 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 17:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01253; Tue, 12 May 1998 17:36:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:36:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805122136.RAA01253@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With much discussion about this case, I thought it might be useful to have the full report. Here it is from http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html It is actually case #8 in that compilation. My personal opinion is that the AC's stated reasoning is dubious. We cannot know what the player was planning, and it shouldn't matter. However, I'm not at all sure their decision was wrong. In another jurisdiction that follows the 25% rule, I think it would be fairly clear to rule as the committee did. With the stringent ACBL definition of LA, it seems quite a close decision. Subject: Tempo Event: North American Open Pairs, March 5, Second Session Board 27 NORTH None vul. [S] A K Q 10 8 5 3 2 Dealer South [H] 7 [D] J 7 6 [C] 9 WEST EAST [S] 9 [S] 7 6 4 [H] K 5 4 3 [H] A Q J 3 [D] A 9 8 2 SOUTH [D] K Q [C] A Q 10 6 [C] 7 5 4 3 [S] J [H] 10 9 8 6 [D] 10 5 4 3 [C] K J 8 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - - Pass 1[D] 2[S] Dbl Pass 3[H] 3[S] 4[H] Dbl Pass 4[S] Pass Pass Dbl All Pass The Facts: 4[S] doubled went down two, plus 300 for E/W. There was a break in tempo before South doubled 4[H]. The Director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative for North and allowed the result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. N/S claimed that South's pause before the double was 8 to 10 seconds and E/W thought the pause was 30 seconds. E/W thought pass was a logical alternative for North. The Committee Decision: The Committee went through several steps to decide this case. First was the length of the break in tempo. The Committee believed the actual break was somewhere between the two estimated times and decided there was a clear break in tempo before the double. Next was whether the slow double had suggested one action would be more successful than another. The Committee agreed that the speed of the double made it clear that South was uncertain about the decision to double. Finally, the Committee had to decide if pass was a logical alternative for North. A logical alternative is an action which some number of North's peers would seriously consider without the unauthorized information. The Committee unanimously decided that it was clear from North's initial actions that he was planning on bidding until he got doubled and never intended to defend at the four level. Had the auction continued to the five level things may have been viewed differently. The Committee agreed that passing 4[H] doubled was not a logical alternative and allowed the table result 4[S] doubled down one, plus 300 for E/W to stand. Chairperson: Alan Le Bendig Committee Members: Hugh Hillaker, Zeke Jabbour From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 08:01:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:01:24 +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 IAA03432 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:01:18 +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 SAA07026 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 18:01:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01282; Tue, 12 May 1998 18:01:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:01:51 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805122201.SAA01282@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Herman ... I know why you do it > I understand why you do it > I have sympathy with why you do it > Unfortunately my interpretation of the laws says > You must not do it. This seems the best statement so far of the established view. Until this thread arose, I would have called it the universal view. Now I am not so sure. Herman claims textual authority in the language of L75D2, and indeed the combination of "may not" and "in any manner" is quite powerful. In fact, "may not" is equal in strength to the "shall disclose" in L75C. Herman also has logical arguments for why his procedure sometimes causes less difficulty than the alternative. I think we would do well to consider his arguments on their merits and not on the basis of preconceived notions, no matter how time-honored. In the longer run, this seems to me just one of several issues relating to disclosure that the Laws don't adequately address. I expect we would all agree on the general principles, but their application in some specific circumstances is not at all clear. I've been trying to figure out how to formulate the problem in a general way but have had no success yet. I'll be sure to let BLML know if I succeed. In the meantime, how would you react to the following: North explains South's bid as X, and South immediately says "No, that's not it. My bid means Y." Of course both North and South have UI, and we more or less know how to deal with that, but would you consider a PP? (RTFLB, including the Preface!) If so, you must think something undesirable has happened. What is it? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 08:17:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:17:00 +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 IAA03473 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:16:53 +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 AAA29527 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 00:17:29 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:17:27 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3559c0c3.1211562@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <35582CFB.1FE53A09@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <35582CFB.1FE53A09@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 Tue, 12 May 1998 13:05:31 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Partner is now lacking two aces and decides to bid 5 Hearts. Actively >ethical, I pass, This does not really require _active_ ethics, just a knowledge of and a desire to follow the laws.. >David has to rule on four questions : > >a- the misinformation to opponents about 3H >b- the misinformation to opponents about 4NT >c- my use of UI >d- my deliberate misinformation to opponents > >Let me hazzard a guess as to David's rulings : > >a- probably opponents are not harmed >b- certainly opponents are not harmed (this hardly affects their >bidding) >c- I have tried to avoid using UI, and I hope David agrees >d- he might give a procedural penalty, quoting L75C, and 72B2. You have chosen an example where your MI (d) happens not to make any difference. Suppose your RHO doubled 5H holding several kings behind the hand he believes to have all the aces. In that case, your incorrect explanation would have backfired and we might need an adjusted score because of (d) - your opponent has a right to know that your 5C bid is not an indication of the number of aces you hold. In auctions that continue for several rounds following your incorrect explanation, such problems are much more likely to occur than in this example. >I will appeal that penalty, stating that since there is obviously a >disagreement, I did not know at the time whether or not my response was >the correct one, according to the system.=20 Your obligation is to give the opponents the same knowledge of your implicit and explicit agreements that you had yourself - tell them about the four times you played together three months ago and what you agreed then, and tell them that you have not discussed the matter since then. > Since I answered correctly >according to what partner was actually meaning, how can I be punished >for doing this ? Because the laws require you to answer according to your agreements. >He now has UI, and I explain to him he is not allowed to use this. >As an actively ethical player (David would not play with anyone else) he >stays away from slam, and bids 5NT. He easily makes 13 tricks. Why would he bid 5NT instead of 5H? He has to bid as if he lacks two aces, and if 5H was obvious in the previous case, so it is here. But of course it could happen. >e- I give a procedural penalty, of 50% of a top, quoting L75D2 and >L72B2, and taking David's standing as director into account for the >height of the penalty. L75D2 is a very general law about not giving information. L75C is a law describing a specific duty in detail. I believe that it is generally accepted, not only in bridge but also in real law, that a specific law takes precedence over the general one. In bridge in particular, I believe that it is generally accepted that L75C takes precedence over L75D2. Giving a PP for following a specific law which is in conflict with a general law is simply wrong. >David will no doubt appeal, but failing actual cards, would you not >believe my ruling might be correct ? No. >Would there not be also an agreement as to the penalty ? No. >Now I know you will say that the stories are not the same. David's >partner might have bid 5H, in which case there would be no AS to him. >Agreed. >But my partner might also have bid 5NT, and since there is no UI, there >would be no reason to change +520 into -50 in my case. >Agreed ? Yes. >The fact is that having UI, it is sometimes not easy to find an action >which is not only not based on it, but will also be ruled not being >based on UI, and hence avoiding the "most unfavourable result that was >at all probable" becomes very hard indeed. Yes. It is harder to play bridge if you do not know your bidding system. I do not consider that a problem. >That is why a player should do his utmost to avoid giving UI to partner. >I believe that in this case, the Laws not only authorize this, but >actively oblige a player not to give UI. You thus protect your partner and yourself from an adjusted score based on UI, while misinforming opponents and risking an adjusted score for MI instead. You take it upon yourself to judge whether a misexplanation or a true explanation will cause less trouble. Sometimes this will save some trouble, sometimes you will be mistaken and it will cause trouble instead. However, the laws as interpreted by what seems to be most of us say that you should not make this judgment - you should just follow L75C, which also has the advantage that opponents know that you are following L75C. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 13:37:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:37:48 +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 NAA04234 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:37:42 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb80.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.80]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA06414 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 23:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980512233751.0069793c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:37:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Multiple Choice Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reviewing the thread "High, Middle, Low" (which I unaccountably missed in the first place) and the related discussion in "suggested over another", I am still in a muddle about the problem of determining when one action might be "suggested over another" in the presence of multiple options. To abstract what seems to me the essence of the matter, we consider a player who has UI and faces a problem in which there are three possible actions (absent the UI, of course). Typically, these options will be Pass, Bid, or Double, but for now I would prefer to keep them abstract. We further suppose that the UI has the logical effect of making option A "demonstrably" less attractive, while offering little or no guidance between B and C. My interpretation of L16 is that action A is the only legal alternative in this setting. But there seems to be another viewpoint: that since the UI does not "demonstrably" suggest either B or C, these are both legitimate options. I realize that some, perhaps most, who argued for allowing various bids in the aforementioned threads will not agree that the above formulation captures the essential points of those cases. Indeed, Adam's main argument seemed to be based on a fundamental interrelatedness among the options in the original case. But this did appear as a theme common to a number of arguments in those threads, which Steve, at least, seems to feel developed into a rough consensus on this point. Whatever. Take it as a generic case. Do you think: a) Mike is right. Only option A is legal in this case. b) It depends on how the options are related to each other. Could go either way. c) L16 does not restrict the player's options in this case, especially after the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 17:22:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 17:22:06 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA04603 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 17:22:00 +1000 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 13 May 1998 09:22:02 +0200 Message-ID: <35595834.6EA1@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:22:12 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 References: <199805120620.XAA29139@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > Dealer: South > > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 > > S- 9 S-764 > H- K542 H- AQJ3 > D- A982 D- KQ > C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 > > West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass > > (1) Break in tempo > > Down 300, a good save, since E-W could make game. The TD ruled that a > pass for North was not a logical alternative, and E-W appealed. The > AC, chaired by Alan LeBendig, were of the unanimous opinion that it > was clear North was planning to slow-bid the hand and never intended > to defend at the four level. So, passing the double of 4H was not a > logical alternative. The AC did not say how they were able to read > North's mind. There was nothing in the AC write-up concerning any N-S > agreement about the 2S bid. > > I think that the proper disposition of the hand would be an assigned > score of +790 for E-W, the most favorable result that was likely > (note the squeeze position). > > Most of the commentators thought the AC decision was wrong (Bobby > Wolff said "unspeakable"), but a minority agreed with it. What does > BLML think? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) S is a passed hand, so I cannot think of a hand which gives a quick double (I sure there is no hand: S can have only 4 H dont forget that); N has a hand, which he shouldnt have for his bidding of 2S and 3S; So I would let the score stand. And I of course agree fully with the AC. -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 19:41:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 19:41:12 +1000 Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04841 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 19:41:05 +1000 Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id SWNOa25760 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 05:41:04 -0400 (EDT) From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 05:41:04 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 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 5/12/98 1:24:45 AM EST, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > Dealer: South > > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 > > S- 9 S-764 > H- K542 H- AQJ3 > D- A982 D- KQ > C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 > > West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass > > (1) Break in tempo > > Down 300, a good save, since E-W could make game. The TD ruled that a > pass for North was not a logical alternative, and E-W appealed. The > AC, chaired by Alan LeBendig, were of the unanimous opinion that it > was clear North was planning to slow-bid the hand and never intended > to defend at the four level. So, passing the double of 4H was not a > logical alternative. The AC did not say how they were able to read > North's mind. There was nothing in the AC write-up concerning any N-S > agreement about the 2S bid. There is no question that the write-up lacked some facts and should have been more complete. But Marvin seems to have imagined that the AC "read North's mind." There was no statement to that effect in the write-up. I'm glad I don't need to endeavor to read Marvin's mind! For starters, S was the dealer and neither side was vulnerable. 2S was pre- emptive. The card was marked as such and it was an established partnership. N-S were good players but not what I felt at the time would fall into the category of "expert". This was the National Finals of our North American Open Pairs. Three pairs from each of our 25 Districts go through several qualifying levels to get to this point. The level of play is high. After listening to N, the AC believed that N started down this road in the hopes of getting doubled at as low a level as possible. Anyone who is willing to make a "preemptive" bid with 8 tricks is clearly willing to take a risk on the outcome of the hand. If he was to be believed, his original reasoning was that anything below the 5 level would be fine with him. One of the commentators (Larry Cohen) pointed out that in an expert game, a player who bids 2S, 3S and 4S always wanted to be there in the first place. While we believed that this player was good, we didn't find him to be near Larry Cohen's level. At the same time, he was well aware of what he started and intended to finish. He and his partner had never had an auction like this before (have many?) and he knew this would lead to some confusion. One of the commentators pointed out that if you create a problem like this for your partner, you should be prepared to live with the consequences that result because of out of tempo action. I cannot disagree with that concept. > I think that the proper disposition of the hand would be an assigned > score of +790 for E-W, the most favorable result that was likely > (note the squeeze position). > > Most of the commentators thought the AC decision was wrong (Bobby > Wolff said "unspeakable"), but a minority agreed with it. What does > BLML think? It was clear to me that many commentators in the casebook were willing to condemn this decision based on what they felt was a "simple case" with only one possible decision. The fact finding ability of the AC was contemplated by only a few. ============================================ Earlier on BLML, Grattan wrote: 7. The decision of Mr. LeBendig's committee is mystical. Since he is widely thought to know what he is doing (perhaps another misconception) does one presume he had a weak committee? (The committee [with the exception of myself] did not serve regularly on ACs at the National Level. However, I do very much respect the judgement ability of these players and their bridge ability. I am referring to Hugh Hillaker and Zeke Jabbour). As a Judge of the Supreme Court I would be attentive to the identity of South; is this a client playing with a pro, and on the AC is there any risk that there was a pro who might be inadvertently partial to the position of a potential or actual client?] (There were no clients involved in this, Grattan.) While Grattan and others here feel the decision was wrong, at least a few (Grattan included) are willing to allow that they might feel differently if they were there to hear the evidence. I have always found that in reviewing any decision by an AC, I am rarely willing to condemn any decision in which there are clearly some missing facts and I know there was a necessity for some fact finding by the AC. It is clear to me that many of the correspondents here have never been involved in such a fact finding when a case like this appeared to be so "black and white". ========================================== John R. Mayne wrote: Therefore, my strong inclination is to rule against N-S. But, before I made a ruling, I'd want to talk to North. I want to hear what he has to say. I could be persuaded that a North who bids this way will not tolerate a double. It's difficult to assemble a set of North's peers who would bid this way, so I think listening to this North is not foolish. The AC did not say how they were able to read > North's mind. There was nothing in the AC write-up concerning any N-S > agreement about the 2S bid. The AC doesn't have to read his mind. It has to look at logical alternatives for this player's peers. That's complicated. Also, the implication here is that you can't get a feel for the veracity of North by talking to him. My guess is that a good committee can get to the truth in excess of 90% of the time. It's not psychic powers that committees need, it's fact-finding skill. (I like the way you expressed this, John. I'd be honored to serve on an AC with you.) ========================================== I am well aware of the expertise level of this select group (BLML) when it comes to dealing with the Laws and interpreting these Laws. What I am not aware of (with a few exceptions) is how many bridge players in this group are successful in competing at a level of bridge in which an "impossible" auction (such as the one we are dealing with) may occur at any point and not because of ignorance. And therein lies one of the most difficult jobs of a good AC. And the investigation is necessary before we rush to judgement on LA. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 20:08:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:08:37 +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 UAA04893 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:08:30 +1000 Received: from default (client12c2.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.194]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA24725; Wed, 13 May 1998 11:09:07 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: David Stevenson - Update 2 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:08:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7e57$0f793c60$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01BD7E5F.BBF30220" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BD7E5F.BBF30220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : =20 Spoke with him again last night. He is getting better - well, beginning to complain, anyway. Says I=20 underplayed his 6 a.m. Sunday rush to hospital by=20 ambulance, in Agony. So what? - I could not find=20 Agony on the map but now I hear it is in Charente-Maritime. =20 No longer hopes to get out today, Wednesday, thinks=20 (hopes?) Thursday. 'The surgeons' have referred him to=20 a Consultant Physician who has not turned up to see him=20 yet. The diabetes theory is gaining ground as is the=20 suggestion that he will have to give up all his vices, except maybe bridge. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BD7E5F.BBF30220 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18=20 8DJ           &nbs= p;    =20 :
           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;  =20  
Spoke with him again last night. He = is getting=20 better 
- well, beginning to complain, = anyway. Says I=20  
underplayed his 6 a.m. Sunday rush = to hospital=20 by
ambulance, in Agony.   So = what? - I=20 could not find
Agony on the map but now I hear it = is in=20 Charente-Maritime.   
 
No longer hopes to get out today, = Wednesday,=20 thinks
(hopes?) Thursday. 'The surgeons' = have referred=20 him to
a Consultant Physician who has not = turned up to=20 see him
yet.  The=20 diabetes theory is gaining ground as is the
suggestion that he will have to give = up all his=20 vices, except
maybe=20 bridge.           =          =20

 
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BD7E5F.BBF30220-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 21:03:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:03:23 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA05068 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:03:16 +1000 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 13 May 1998 13:02:51 +0200 Message-ID: <35598BF2.1ACA@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:02:58 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: Another Appealing Case References: <01bd7e57$0f793c60$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Last weekend I had the following case in a teams event (screens, N and E at one side): S Kxxx H 9 D KJxxxx C xx S Ax S QJ9xx H AKJ7xx H xx D AQx D xx C Axx C QJxx S xx H Q108xx D 10x C K10xx W N E S P P P 1C(1) 1NT(2)P 2D(3) P P 2S P 3NT(4)P P P 1C 16 or more ("Precision") 1NT any 2-suiter acc. to N and the CC (expl. by S as BAL with 15-18!!!!!!) 2D NAT (system: If partner has the minors, I want to play 2D not 2C); explained as a transfer by S (to W) 3NT immediately after the 3NT bid, S said that he made a silly (...) mistake. (no loud discussion by S or W) The play: H-Lead CA, Cx, D10 by S, ducked 2nd D.... 3NT -3 W complained that he got the wrong inf (1NT =15-18). He played on the assumption, that N has both minors. He wouldnt have done that with the correct explanation (he can play on spades instead and some sort of endplay will help him in fulfilling the contract). If W would have got the correct explanation he would have bid 2H. then there would be no H-lead What do you think -- Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 21:32:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:32:20 +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 VAA05166 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:32:13 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-57.uunet.be [194.7.13.57]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25944 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:32:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35597403.47BA240C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:20:51 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Multiple Choice X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980512233751.0069793c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > To abstract what seems to me the essence of the matter, we consider a > player who has UI and faces a problem in which there are three possible > actions (absent the UI, of course). Typically, these options will be Pass, > Bid, or Double, but for now I would prefer to keep them abstract. We > further suppose that the UI has the logical effect of making option A > "demonstrably" less attractive, while offering little or no guidance > between B and C. > > My interpretation of L16 is that action A is the only legal alternative in > this setting. But there seems to be another viewpoint: that since the UI > does not "demonstrably" suggest either B or C, these are both legitimate > options. > > I realize that some, perhaps most, who argued for allowing various bids in > the aforementioned threads will not agree that the above formulation > captures the essential points of those cases. Indeed, Adam's main argument > seemed to be based on a fundamental interrelatedness among the options in > the original case. But this did appear as a theme common to a number of > arguments in those threads, which Steve, at least, seems to feel developed > into a rough consensus on this point. > If the UI suggests option (B or C) over option A then that in my mind settles it. L16 tells the player he shall not do the action (B or C), which is suggested over A. The player should do A. > Whatever. Take it as a generic case. Do you think: > a) Mike is right. Only option A is legal in this case. YES > b) It depends on how the options are related to each other. Could go either > way. You have told us how the options are related. B and C are both suggested over A. > c) L16 does not restrict the player's options in this case, especially > after the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". > The change of that word has no effect on this problem. Actions B and C are demonstrably suggested over A, or they are not. If they are, the player should do A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 21:32:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:32:23 +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 VAA05167 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:32:16 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-57.uunet.be [194.7.13.57]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25948 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:32:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35597928.4EAD7240@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:42:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35582CFB.1FE53A09@village.uunet.be> <3559c0c3.1211562@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Tue, 12 May 1998 13:05:31 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >b- the misinformation to opponents about 4NT > > > >Let me hazzard a guess as to David's rulings : > > > >b- certainly opponents are not harmed (this hardly affects their > >bidding) > > You have chosen an example where your MI (d) happens not to make > any difference. > > Suppose your RHO doubled 5H holding several kings behind the hand > he believes to have all the aces. In that case, your incorrect > explanation would have backfired and we might need an adjusted > score because of (d) - your opponent has a right to know that > your 5C bid is not an indication of the number of aces you hold. > In auctions that continue for several rounds following your > incorrect explanation, such problems are much more likely to > occur than in this example. > I agree that in other examples my MI does cause damage, and I accept the AS that goes with that. > >I will appeal that penalty, stating that since there is obviously a > >disagreement, I did not know at the time whether or not my response was > >the correct one, according to the system. > > Your obligation is to give the opponents the same knowledge of > your implicit and explicit agreements that you had yourself - > tell them about the four times you played together three months > ago and what you agreed then, and tell them that you have not > discussed the matter since then. > As I have said again and again and again, that is in breach of L75D2. I am telling the story. You give the ruling. Please don't reiterate what has been said already. > > Since I answered correctly > >according to what partner was actually meaning, how can I be punished > >for doing this ? > > Because the laws require you to answer according to your > agreements. > And that is where we disagree. L75C has (IMO) the emphasis on ALL, not on AGREEMENT. L75C tells me how much I shall tell them, and that I shall remain unpunished if the explanation does not fit the hand, provided it fits the system. L75C does not say that I am in the wrong when describing more than the agreement, and telling the actual hand. > >He now has UI, and I explain to him he is not allowed to use this. > >As an actively ethical player (David would not play with anyone else) he > >stays away from slam, and bids 5NT. He easily makes 13 tricks. > > Why would he bid 5NT instead of 5H? He has to bid as if he lacks > two aces, and if 5H was obvious in the previous case, so it is > here. But of course it could happen. > I am telling the story, you give the ruling. David's partner has bid 5NT. > >e- I give a procedural penalty, of 50% of a top, quoting L75D2 and > >L72B2, and taking David's standing as director into account for the > >height of the penalty. > > L75D2 is a very general law about not giving information. L75C > is a law describing a specific duty in detail. Hooooooooooooooooh !!!!!! L75D2 is a very specific law : "..nor may he indicate in any manner" if that is not specific then what ????? L75C does not descrive a specific duty. L75C could say : A player shall say no more than his agreements. It doesn't say that. L75C states the minimum which must be said. I find that a very general law. Quite the reverse of what you write here. > I believe that it > is generally accepted, not only in bridge but also in real law, > that a specific law takes precedence over the general one. In > bridge in particular, I believe that it is generally accepted > that L75C takes precedence over L75D2. > Your first statement is true. It should mean L75D2 takes precedence over L75C. I believe the general bridge acceptance is wrong, however time honoured you may think it is. > Giving a PP for following a specific law which is in conflict > with a general law is simply wrong. > Giving a PP for breaking a specific law which is in conflict with some interpretation of a general law may be correct though. > >David will no doubt appeal, but failing actual cards, would you not > >believe my ruling might be correct ? > > No. > > >Would there not be also an agreement as to the penalty ? > > No. > > >Now I know you will say that the stories are not the same. David's > >partner might have bid 5H, in which case there would be no AS to him. > >Agreed. > >But my partner might also have bid 5NT, and since there is no UI, there > >would be no reason to change +520 into -50 in my case. > >Agreed ? > > Yes. > > >The fact is that having UI, it is sometimes not easy to find an action > >which is not only not based on it, but will also be ruled not being > >based on UI, and hence avoiding the "most unfavourable result that was > >at all probable" becomes very hard indeed. > > Yes. It is harder to play bridge if you do not know your bidding > system. I do not consider that a problem. > > >That is why a player should do his utmost to avoid giving UI to partner. > >I believe that in this case, the Laws not only authorize this, but > >actively oblige a player not to give UI. > > You thus protect your partner and yourself from an adjusted score > based on UI, while misinforming opponents and risking an adjusted > score for MI instead. > yes. > You take it upon yourself to judge whether a misexplanation or a > true explanation will cause less trouble. Sometimes this will > save some trouble, sometimes you will be mistaken and it will > cause trouble instead. > agreed. And sometimes I misinterpret partner's misinformation and do something terrible. OK. > However, the laws as interpreted by what seems to be most of us > say that you should not make this judgment - you should just > follow L75C, which also has the advantage that opponents know > that you are following L75C. And the Laws as interpreted by a growing number of us say that you must not make this judgment - you should just follow L75D2. Sorry to sound so strong. But I have told two stories and asked about your ruling. You do not agree that in David's case we should turn back +520 to -50 ? You do not agree that in my case there is no AS ? And yet you require me to act as David does ? Whyever, why oh why ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 21:32:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:32:32 +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 VAA05180 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:32:23 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-57.uunet.be [194.7.13.57]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25952 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:33:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <355984C2.4FBBEACD@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:32:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199805122201.SAA01282@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > Herman ... I know why you do it > > I understand why you do it > > I have sympathy with why you do it > > Unfortunately my interpretation of the laws says > > You must not do it. > > This seems the best statement so far of the established view. Until > this thread arose, I would have called it the universal view. Now I am > not so sure. > Thank you Steve, we'll make a convert out of you yet ! > Herman claims textual authority in the language of L75D2, and indeed > the combination of "may not" and "in any manner" is quite powerful. In > fact, "may not" is equal in strength to the "shall disclose" in L75C. In fact, you may find that "may not" is even stronger than "shall disclose". Preface : "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not". > Herman also has logical arguments for why his procedure sometimes > causes less difficulty than the alternative. I think we would do well > to consider his arguments on their merits and not on the basis of > preconceived notions, no matter how time-honored. > Indeed all I am trying to do is getting rid of preconceived notions. Many of you are under the impression that the right to correct information is the most important law in the book. The reason for your thinking so is obvious : something between 20% and 80% (depending on the type of tournament) of your rulings are about MI. Whereas you have never had to deal with a breach of L75D2 in your life. But isn't this proof of the opposite ? Isn't the most important Law the one which every player knows, namely that the Ace is higher than the King ? Every player knows that they should not correct partner's mistake, and they don't ! In fact, that is why a question such as this one is even possible : > In the meantime, how would you react to the following: North explains > South's bid as X, and South immediately says "No, that's not it. My > bid means Y." Of course both North and South have UI, and we more or > less know how to deal with that, but would you consider a PP? (RTFLB, > including the Preface!) If so, you must think something undesirable > has happened. What is it? You can give a PP, according to L90B7. The height of this PP would depend on the level of player : A beginner will be told never to do this again, and he won't. OTOH, DWS should be punished as harshly as possible : by taking away his whisky (I hope the doctor doesn't punish you like that, David). Jesper in another post calls L75D2 a general law, and L75C a specific one. He is completely wrong. L75D2 tells a player what he must do. He knows what to do and usually he follows this. L75C tells a player what he shall tell a certain minimum, not less. L75C in no way tells him to do anything positive, or negative. L75C specifically does not say that a player must refrain from telling anything else than the agreements : he is left free to do so. If a player tells his opponents what the meaning is of a certain call, and this is MORE than what has been agreed (and yet correctly describes the meaning of partner), then IMO he is not breaking L75C. As I said before : opponents don't want to know your agreements, they want to know what you in fact hold. L75C gets broken very often, usually by mistake. We all know the different ways to correct this breaking. L75D2 in every effect is more powerful than L75C. > In the longer run, this seems to me just one of several issues relating > to disclosure that the Laws don't adequately address. I expect we > would all agree on the general principles, but their application in > some specific circumstances is not at all clear. I've been trying to > figure out how to formulate the problem in a general way but have had > no success yet. I'll be sure to let BLML know if I succeed. > Please do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 13 22:49:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 22:49:41 +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 WAA05443 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 22:48:48 +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 NAA22769 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:48:49 +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 NAA27156 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:48:48 +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 NAA13720 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 13:48:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 13 May 98 13:48:46 BST Message-Id: <12910.9805131248@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have no experience of screens, but this does seem to be a curious incident. > From: Richard Bley > Last weekend I had the following case in a teams event > (screens, N and E at one side): > > S Kxxx > H 9 > D KJxxxx > C xx > S Ax S QJ9xx > H AKJ7xx H xx > D AQx D xx > C Axx C QJxx > S xx > H Q108xx > D 10x > C K10xx > > W N E S > P P P > 1C(1) 1NT(2)P 2D(3) > P P 2S P > 3NT(4)P P P > > 1C 16 or more ("Precision") > 1NT any 2-suiter acc. to N and the CC (expl. by S as BAL with 15-18!!!!!!) Didn't West query this explanation or look at the convention card? As West, I would much prefer to try and get the correct explanation now. > 2D NAT (system: If partner has the minors, I want to play 2D not 2C); > explained as a transfer by S (to W) West didn't ask whether North's pass suggested South had got the system wrong? Why did South wait till after 3NT to point out his error? > 3NT immediately after the 3NT bid, S said that he made a silly (...) > mistake. > (no loud discussion by S or W) Was the director called at this point? Did South actually correct his explanation? > The play: > H-Lead > CA, Cx, > D10 by S, ducked 2nd D.... 3NT -3 > > W complained that he got the wrong inf (1NT =15-18). He played on the > assumption, that N has both minors. He wouldnt have done that with the > correct explanation (he can play on spades instead and some sort of > endplay will help him in fulfilling the contract). Was this assumption based on a corrected explanation by South, or did he assume North had misbid with both minors? If West was given the correct explanation and then West assumed the North had the minors, then there was no damage in the play. West's false assumption does not entitle him to redress. If West was playing the hand still under the impression that North's 1NT had shown a strong NT then he is entitled to redress. > If W would have got the correct explanation he would have bid 2H. then > there would be no H-lead Why did North lead a heart? Had there been UI which suggested a heart lead? > > What do you think > > -- > Richard As a TD, I would try and get answers to some of the questions posed above. I would then look for a likely score favourable to EW based on West having a correct explanation of 1NT. Perhaps 1C-(1NT)-P-(2D)-2H-(P)-2S-(P)-3NT is possible, and 3NT might make on a non-heart lead: although this may be "likely". So I would rule 3NT making, 8 or 9. What would happen on appeal, would depend on having more information. 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 May 13 22:55:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 22:55:30 +1000 Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05476 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 22:55:24 +1000 Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id FGKOa03031; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:55:13 -0400 (EDT) From: KRAllison Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:55:13 EDT To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: David Stevenson - Update 2 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes of David Stevenson: << the suggestion that he will have to give up all his vices, except maybe bridge. >> I hope that cats are not considered a vice!! Actually, many cats are diabetic, so he should get much sympathy from that quarter. Karen, Stanley, Stella and Blanche From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 00:26:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 00:26:54 +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 AAA08251 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 00:26:48 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb156.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.156]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA01387 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 10:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980513102657.0072e730@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:26:57 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case In-Reply-To: <35598BF2.1ACA@uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <01bd7e57$0f793c60$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:02 PM 5/13/98 +0100, Richard Bley wrote: >Hi > >Last weekend I had the following case in a teams event >(screens, N and E at one side): > > S Kxxx > H 9 > D KJxxxx > C xx >S Ax S QJ9xx >H AKJ7xx H xx >D AQx D xx >C Axx C QJxx > S xx > H Q108xx > D 10x > C K10xx > >W N E S > P P P >1C(1) 1NT(2)P 2D(3) >P P 2S P >3NT(4)P P P > >1C 16 or more ("Precision") >1NT any 2-suiter acc. to N and the CC (expl. by S as BAL with >15-18!!!!!!) >2D NAT (system: If partner has the minors, I want to play 2D not 2C); >explained as a transfer by S (to W) >3NT immediately after the 3NT bid, S said that he made a silly (...) >mistake. >(no loud discussion by S or W) > >The play: >H-Lead >CA, Cx, >D10 by S, ducked 2nd D.... 3NT -3 > >W complained that he got the wrong inf (1NT =15-18). He played on the >assumption, that N has both minors. He wouldnt have done that with the >correct explanation (he can play on spades instead and some sort of >endplay will help him in fulfilling the contract). >If W would have got the correct explanation he would have bid 2H. then >there would be no H-lead > >What do you think > My only question is: In what kind of event would players this inept be playing with screens? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 01:36:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 01:36:06 +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 BAA08563 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 01:36:00 +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 LAA04881 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 11:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01766; Wed, 13 May 1998 11:36:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:36:32 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805131536.LAA01766@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Multiple Choice X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > We > further suppose that the UI has the logical effect of making option A > "demonstrably" less attractive, while offering little or no guidance > between B and C. > > My interpretation of L16 is that action A is the only legal alternative As you have posed the problem, I think there would be universal agreement. B is suggested over A, so B is illegal. C is also suggested over A, so C is illegal. That leaves A. The original problem, though, was somewhat different. It is specifically that we cannot tell (or whether we can tell) which option is suggested. Putting it in the terms above, A is suggested over either B or C, so A is illegal. But if the UI offers "little or no guidance between B and C," which one is legal? A specific example is the much discussed case: partner hesitates and passes. We do not know if he was planning to bid on or double, and actions ABC are double, pass, and bid. Double caters to any hand partner has, so it is (very likely) illegal. But in choosing between bid and pass, it may be hard to tell which one is suggested over the other. Some of us claim that if you cannot tell which one is suggested over the other, both are legal. Of course if you have an indication of whether the hesitator was contemplating a bid or a double, there is no problem. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 01:59:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 01:59:13 +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 BAA08685 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 01:59:05 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa01571; 13 May 98 8:59 PDT To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws , adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Multiple Choice In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 May 1998 12:20:51 PDT." <35597403.47BA240C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:59:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805130859.aa01571@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > > > > To abstract what seems to me the essence of the matter, we consider a > > player who has UI and faces a problem in which there are three possible > > actions (absent the UI, of course). Typically, these options will be Pass, > > Bid, or Double, but for now I would prefer to keep them abstract. We > > further suppose that the UI has the logical effect of making option A > > "demonstrably" less attractive, while offering little or no guidance > > between B and C. > > > > My interpretation of L16 is that action A is the only legal alternative in > > this setting. But there seems to be another viewpoint: that since the UI > > does not "demonstrably" suggest either B or C, these are both legitimate > > options. > > > > I realize that some, perhaps most, who argued for allowing various bids in > > the aforementioned threads will not agree that the above formulation > > captures the essential points of those cases. Indeed, Adam's main argument > > seemed to be based on a fundamental interrelatedness among the options in > > the original case. But this did appear as a theme common to a number of > > arguments in those threads, which Steve, at least, seems to feel developed > > into a rough consensus on this point. > > > > If the UI suggests option (B or C) over option A then that in my mind > settles it. L16 tells the player he shall not do the action (B or C), > which is suggested over A. The player should do A. My answer is essentially (b), but if the options are related to each other in this way, then I agree with Herman. I (and other BLML'ers) have argued in the past that the term "action" in L16A doesn't necessarily mean a specific call (when applied to an auction). Thus, if a hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding over passing, the Laws require you to pass; it doesn't matter that the hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest one particular bid over another particular bid. However, when I originally posted, the relation between three options was something like this: one interpretation of the UI made A > B > C, and another was C > B > A. (That is, if you think partner's hesitation meant he was thinking about defending, then A is demonstrably suggested over B and B is better than C, but if it meant he was thinking about bidding on, C would be demonstrably suggested over B and B would be better than A.) Some people on r.g.b seemed to think that, since A and C are the demonstrably suggested actions in these two possible interpretations, B would be the action required by the Laws. This is what I was disagreeing with. -- Adam > > Whatever. Take it as a generic case. Do you think: > > a) Mike is right. Only option A is legal in this case. > > YES > > > b) It depends on how the options are related to each other. Could go either > > way. > > You have told us how the options are related. B and C are both > suggested over A. > > > c) L16 does not restrict the player's options in this case, especially > > after the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". > > > > The change of that word has no effect on this problem. > Actions B and C are demonstrably suggested over A, or they are not. If > they are, the player should do A. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 02:19:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 02:19:09 +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 CAA08919 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 02:19:02 +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 SAA14024 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 18:19:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:19:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <355cc482.10263017@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <35582CFB.1FE53A09@village.uunet.be> <3559c0c3.1211562@pipmail.dknet.dk> <35597928.4EAD7240@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <35597928.4EAD7240@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, 13 May 1998 12:42:48 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >You do not agree that in David's case we should turn back +520 to -50 ? > >You do not agree that in my case there is no AS ? Yes, I agree that in this case your misexplanation has happened to avoid an adjusted score. >And yet you require me to act as David does ? > >Whyever, why oh why ? Because the laws, as most of us read them, do not allow you to give misinformation simply because you believe that you may avoid an adjustment by doing so. By the way, I just realized that I had not given enough thought to the end of your example auctions. Are the 5H/5N calls from opener clearly sign-offs in the system played by responder (Albarran responses, which I know nothing about)? If not, they might be conventional and lead to a longer auction where the risk of misleading opponents increase. What I'm trying to say is that, quite apart from its being illegal, I doubt that your way will avoid more adjustments than it creates. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 02:21:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 02:21:20 +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 CAA08934 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 02:21:11 +1000 Received: from default (client154b.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.75]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA20978 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 17:21:49 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: David Stevenson - Update 3. Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:36:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7e84$ec301980$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0023_01BD7E8D.4DF48180" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BD7E8D.4DF48180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : =20 Spoke at lunch time, Wednesday. His hopes of leaving hospital=20 Thursday are now strong. He has plans to shoot off several=20 vibrant messages the moment he gets back to his PC. His=20 chances of getting to the Welsh AGM are much improved.=20 He thanks all those who have sent messages.=20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BD7E8D.4DF48180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18=20 8DJ           &nbs= p;    =20 :
           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;  =20  
Spoke at lunch time, Wednesday. His = hopes of=20 leaving hospital 
Thursday are now strong. He has = plans to shoot=20 off several 
vibrant messages the moment he gets = back to his=20 PC. His 
chances of getting to the Welsh AGM = are much=20 improved. 
He thanks all those who have sent=20 messages. 

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

 
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01BD7E8D.4DF48180-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 03:52:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 03:52:04 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 DAA09294 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 03:51:56 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA07974 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805131752.KAA07974@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:49:12 -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 My apologies to all, I had Reno on my mind, and it was late. The "Reno" case #1 was from the Dallas NABC casebook; the Reno casebook isn't even out yet. Sorry, Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 04:05:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 04:05:05 +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 EAA09374 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 04:04:57 +1000 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 04:04:57 +1000 Received: (qmail 12714 invoked from network); 13 May 1998 18:05:35 -0000 Received: from pm02-d088.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.88) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 13 May 1998 18:05:35 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980513130502.38a797c6@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: Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:26 AM 5/13/98 -0400, you wrote: >At 01:02 PM 5/13/98 +0100, Richard Bley wrote: >>Hi >> >>Last weekend I had the following case in a teams event >>(screens, N and E at one side): >> >> S Kxxx >> H 9 >> D KJxxxx >> C xx >>S Ax S QJ9xx >>H AKJ7xx H xx >>D AQx D xx >>C Axx C QJxx >> S xx >> H Q108xx >> D 10x >> C K10xx >> Seems to me as West have got 14 cd's to start with and the deck 53 cards :) >>W N E S >> P P P >>1C(1) 1NT(2)P 2D(3) >>P P 2S P >>3NT(4)P P P >> W should hear some warning bells ringing too since North would have pass down a 15-18 NT hand the first time if Souths explaining is correct. Interesting question is what would a 2H bid show from West when bidding the "transfered suit" it is probably NOT a natural bid anymore. I personally think South waked up when North passed the Transfer bid I would like to know exactly what souths correction was not only saying i made a silly mistake. Where North forced to pass on 2Di when it hit one of the suits he had? >> >>The play: >>H-Lead >>CA, Cx, >>D10 by S, ducked 2nd D.... 3NT -3 > Robert From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 04:55:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 04:55:04 +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 EAA09617 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 04:54:57 +1000 Received: from default (cph50.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.50]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA21165 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:55:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805131855.UAA21165@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:56:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" asked: > My only question is: In what kind of event would players this inept be > playing with screens? The European Championships, for instance. Even the best players get into jams like these now and then. That is one of the facts of life that you learn from serving on the committee that hears appeals from the Danish first division, which features international medal holders and the odd Junior World Champion. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 04:55:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 04:55:04 +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 EAA09616 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 04:54:55 +1000 Received: from default (cph50.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.50]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA21162 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:55:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805131855.UAA21162@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:56:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: ACBL replies on fixed Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior > To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" > Subject: RE: ACBL replies on fixed > Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:07:33 -0400 > If the TD's conduct is "outrageous" as you word it, how can he ever improve > it if the few non-brain-dead players allow such incompetent actions to pass > unquestioned? This would seem to perpetuate bad rulings. While an appeal > might not be the right way to go, would this be a case for a "director > memo" (a concept whose day may have come)? TD's who consistently rule in a > manner not in accord with the laws must be educated or removed. Only a very > few have access to the advanced courses EBL offers or the brilliancies of > this group. :-) Somehow, the good ones deserve a chance to improve, and the > poor ones a chance to take up some other activity (before all of the decent > players decide to do so). Does anyone have some constructive suggestions on > how to deal with directors who don't have a clue? Provide courses. Certify directors based on exams and/or performance at role-playing tests. Have clubs, units, etc., announce the certification of the directors they use. Select the known horrible rulings (like the one we are discussing) as questions on the exams or as topics on the course. Have maybe three strata of certification. Find a way to make people want to be certified directors. Educate your players to demand certified directors at open clubs. All of this costs money, of course. The problem with the TD memo approach is that directors then must learn to perform by trial and error, where the error is only picked up sporadically, and the reaction to the error is overly dramatic. > The problem is more > widespread at the club level in the US (yes on the east coast also) than > you might suspect, and probably a majority of the "bad" directors are > ignorant and well-intentioned, not malevolent. (The situation is somewhat > better at the regional level and above.) In the DBF (Denmark) we do only about half of what I am suggesting above, but we do get around 0.2% of our membership through a basic TD course every year. Interestingly, there is a waiting list to get on that course. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 08:34:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 08:34:04 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 IAA10467 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 08:33:56 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09568 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 15:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805132234.PAA09568@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:32:16 -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 In regard to this case, in which E-W unsuccessfully appealed the result, John R. Mayne wrote: > > Form of scoring? Vulnerability? Did I miss it? > I must have accidentally erased the information that nobody was vulnerable. > > Dealer: South > > > > S- AKQT8532 > > H- 7 > > D- J76 > > C- 9 > > > > S- 9 S- 764 > > H- K542 H- AQJ3 > > D- A982 D- KQ > > C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > > > S- J > > H- T986 > > D- T543 > > C- KJ82 > > > > West North East South (usual directions) > > P > > 1D 2S Dbl P > > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > > P 4S P P > > Dbl All pass > > > > (1) Break in tempo John also wrote: >(snip) my strong inclination is to rule against N-S. > But, before I made a ruling, I'd want to talk to North. > I want to hear what he has to say. I could be persuaded > that a North who bids this way will not tolerate a > double. It's difficult to assemble a set of North's > peers who would bid this way, so I think listening to > this North is not foolish. > Although not covered in the write-up, North was evidently questioned about his bidding practices. It is not practical for ACs to listen without skepticism to anything North might say unless it is documented. In fact, ACs usually term such testimony as "self-serving," not a very polite term. > Assuming I roll it back to 4Hx, I'm too sleepy to analyze > the play. It looks a little complicated.... (Is Marv > suggesting that making 6 is likely? I don't see it that > way at 12:30 a.m.) What is the best (normal) lead? A heart? Whatever, East loses one spade, ruffs one spade, back to a diamond, club to the 10, pick up trumps, club to the queen, back to a diamond, cash any heart remaining, and by this time (whether South ruffed the second round of spades or not) South has been squeezed out of either a diamond or club trick. Four hearts, one ruff, three clubs, and three diamonds make 11 tricks, and the squeeze makes 12. If there is a defense against six, it's not obvious, and E-W are entitled to "the most favorable result that was likely." Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > > North's bidding definitely suggests an intent to "walk" the hand. > However, for bridge purposes that may not be particularly relevant. > My reason is that North's intention is available to South. It is > normal for the pre-empter to not bid again. Here, North took a > second bid before South had the opportunity to double 4H. > Without the break in tempo, North would have every reason to think > that South has trump tricks (emphasize the plural). South knows that > North has a strange hand, and so the double should be a warning > to stop. However, the break suggests exactly the opposite. That > is the reason I would not permit North to bid 4S. > Jay has it exactly right, and his opinion provides confidence that he will make a good editor for future casebooks. South should have a trump stack (QJ108?) that will be of no use to North in a 4S contract. Holding an AKQ suit, representing defense that South could not count on, North should be delighted to pass. Adam Beneschan wrote: > I'm curious, by the way . . . is there anyone who'd actually > seriously consider doubling with the South hand, and if so, why? > I'm completely mystified by it, but then again I'm not an expert > bidder. I'm baffled too, since Mr. LeBendig says N-S were playing weak jump overcalls. It looks like a "striped-tail ape double" aimed at keeping the opponents from bidding slam, but E-W gave no indication that they were going to bid this makeable slam. The double would certainly keep E-W from going to the five level, but surely South had no reason to believe the double would be pulled by North. It was surprising that the type of jump overcall played by N-S was not included in the AC write-up, although it tends to undermine the AC decision. Alan Le Bendig wrote: > There is no question that the write-up lacked some facts and > should have been more complete. But Marvin seems to have > imagined that the AC "read North's mind." There was no > statement to that effect in the write-up. No? Here is how the casebook presented the AC decision. I presume this came from the "write-up": "The Committee unanimously decided that it was clear from North's initial actions that he was planning on bidding until he got doubled and never intended to defend at the four level." That has the appearance of mind-reading. As editor Rich Colker commented: "Wow! What insight!" > I'm glad I don't need to endeavor to read Marvin's mind! I thought my mind was an open book. Steve Willner wrote: > My personal opinion is that the AC's stated reasoning is dubious. > We cannot know what the player was planning, and it shouldn't > matter. However, I'm not at all sure their decision was wrong. > In another jurisdiction that follows the 25% rule, I think it > would be fairly clear to rule as the committee did. With the > stringent ACBL definition of LA, it seems quite a close decision. The "25% rule," a guideline that was in force pre-1992, said you could not take an action suggested by UI if as many as one in four comparable players in an identical position would choose such an action. In 1992 the guideline was changed (by the National Laws Commission, not the ACBL) to define a "logical alternative as "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuuum." Here are Kaplan's words in an answer to a Jeff Goldsmith letter to *The Bridge World* (November 1995), concerning a similar case: "What the Commission tried to do with its new guideline was to redirect the committee's attention: away from the successful action, to the losing alternative. Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus, the score should be adjusted to that for four hearts... "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo, next time." My sole comment on this is that "comparable players" should include only those who have identical partnership agreements concerning the auction in question. If system demands a certain call, one should be able to make the call even if it is suggested by UI, because any other call is not an LA. Everett Boyer wrote: > As for the slowness of the double, even a strong passed hand might > pause to consider who's psyching. I'm not 100% clear that the slow > double suggests pulling. As someone else noted, isn't a break in > tempo expected here? South must be allowed to consider what's > going on. Yes, and if he had passed then North's 4S bid would have been okay, IMO. But not after a slow double, which unfortunately denies a trump stack for most players. This reminds me of the story Eddie Kantar tells, of doubling with ethical deliberation in a competitive auction, holding a trump stack. The opponent, who had a place to run, stood for the double and went down a bunch. He was irritated with Eddie, implying that the slow double was a coffeehouse to keep him from running. > Would it help if N-S had a written agreement and scrupulous policy > that a passed hand always slows the tempo when reentering the > auction? I dunno. Too bad we aren't required to make all calls at the same tempo. Anyone for isolation booths in a supervised LAN tournament? And Grattan Endicott wrote, after a good discussion of the case: > The decision of Mr. LeBendig's committee is mystical. > Since he is widely thought to know what he is doing does > one presume he had a weak committee? The decision was unanimuous, and is being defended by Mr. LeBendig. > As a Judge of > the Supreme Court I would be attentive to the identity > of South; is this a client playing with a pro, and on the AC > is there any risk that there was a pro who might be > inadvertently partial to the position of a potential or > actual client? N-S were Ed and John Zeluski, an unlikely pro-client combination, going by the names. I don't see any "pro" effect in this case. The AC was just doing its best. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 08:55:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 08:55:54 +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 IAA10542 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 08:55:50 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA12391 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 08:56:03 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:56:03 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: In tempo 3NT? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear BLMLers I would appreciate (welcome) your comments about the following situation. Last hand of a 20 board swiss match, South West Pacific Teams (Australia's premier event - table one). Teams 95 All Vul K74 Dlr North A854 10865 QJ107642 - 93 J10652 97 QJ1032 Q4 A72 AK83 AQ8 K6 KJ93 West North East South - Pass Pass 2NT Pass 3NT* All Pass Result: NS +600 At the conclusion of the auction North left the room to smoke and South explained to the opponents that the partnership agreement was that 3NT showed 5 spades and 4 hearts. He also confided that his partner may have forgotten, since they had only just made this agreement prior to the commencement of the match. At the end of play EW summoned the director and suggested that the 3NT bid had been out of tempo. They maintained that it was much quicker than North's normal very deliberate approach, especially if the conventional treatment was a new wrinkle in the partnership armory. They argued that a relatively rapid action for this particular player constituted unauthorised information to South and hence the assumption that North had forgotten the agreement became more likely to be correct. This hand is now four months old, but caused a lot of comment and discussion at the time. EW are representative internationals, South has won national titles. I was the director involved and I will post what I ruled and the subsequent appeals committee decision in a few days. What do you all think? Are EW trying it on, or do they have a case? Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 09:49:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 09:49:17 +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 JAA10702 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 09:49:10 +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 TAA14762 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 19:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA08439; Wed, 13 May 1998 19:49:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:49:48 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805132349.TAA08439@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Everett Boyer wrote: > > As someone else noted, isn't a break in > > tempo expected here? South must be allowed to consider what's > > going on. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Yes, and if he had passed then North's 4S bid would have been okay, > IMO. But not after a slow double, which unfortunately denies a trump > stack for most players. I've replied privately to Marv on the bridge judgment issue, where he and I simply differ, but the above is perhaps worth a public response. L16A refers to "unmistakeable hesitation, unwonted speed..." The interpretation I've always adopted is that in any auction (and for any player), there is a normal time to make one's call. For example, after a skip bid, the next call should come after an interval of 10 s. In an uncontested, constructive auction, a call should come after no more than a second or so. (No more than a millisecond for a few players!) A call that comes either more quickly or more slowly restricts partner's actions, but a call at the normal time does not. The normal time depends on the auction. What I understood Everett to be saying is that in this auction, the normal time is a hesitation of at least a few seconds, and anything less would be abnormal. I agree with that, and I hope I could wait a few seconds before doubling even if looking at H-QJT987. I would expect leaving in a quick double to be highly suspect. In another message about this case, which I didn't save, Al told us that the AC decided that the hesitation was quite a bit longer than a few seconds. Therefore I don't think this argument is an issue in this particular case. Jay: if you are reading this, could you make sure that future writeups of hesitation cases include the committee's judgment about how long the hesitation was? That is an essential point in the decision, and it ought to be stated. (In ordinary auctions, where no hesitation is expected, "longer than a couple of seconds" will do; whether it was 2 or 20 s won't matter. But in a case like this, the difference between 3-5 s and 20 s is enormous.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 09:59:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 09:59:51 +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 JAA10746 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 09:59:46 +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 UAA14860 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08455; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:00:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:00:24 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805140000.UAA08455@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Laurie Kelso > At the end of play EW summoned the director and suggested that the 3NT bid > had been out of tempo. They maintained that it was much quicker than > North's normal very deliberate approach, especially if the conventional > treatment was a new wrinkle in the partnership armory. This is exactly the point of the message I just sent. The TD has to make a factual determination of North's normal tempo in an auction that goes like this one and of the actual tempo this time. (I don't envy you!) If the bid was out of tempo, either too fast or too slow, apply L16A in the normal way. >From the facts stated, it looks as though EW have a case, but there's no substitute for having been there. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 10:04:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:04:08 +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 KAA10767 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:04:00 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yZlVn-0001Ih-00; Thu, 14 May 1998 01:04:40 +0100 Message-ID: <149E8EAT1iW1EwYQ@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 00:31:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: David Stevenson - Update 3. In-Reply-To: <01bd7e84$ec301980$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bd7e84$ec301980$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott writes > >gester@globalnet.co.uk >Grattan Endicott >Liverpool L18 8DJ : > >Spoke at lunch time, Wednesday. His hopes of leaving hospital >Thursday are now strong. He has plans to shoot off several >vibrant messages the moment he gets back to his PC. His >chances of getting to the Welsh AGM are much improved. >He thanks all those who have sent messages. > > But you have to admit it's been very peaceful, nay, even boring for the last few days. Welcome back David, I have laid in a stock of lemonade. > > -- 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 May 14 10:04:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:04:09 +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 KAA10769 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:04:00 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yZlVn-0001Il-00; Thu, 14 May 1998 01:04:40 +0100 Message-ID: <+YFG0KAx9iW1Ewau@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 00:40:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laurie Kelso writes > >Dear BLMLers > >I would appreciate (welcome) your comments about the following situation. > >Last hand of a 20 board swiss match, South West Pacific Teams (Australia's >premier event - table one). > >Teams 95 >All Vul K74 >Dlr North A854 > 10865 > QJ107642 - > 93 J10652 > 97 QJ1032 > Q4 A72 > AK83 > AQ8 > K6 > KJ93 > > > West North East South > - Pass Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT* All Pass > > Result: NS +600 > >At the conclusion of the auction North left the room to smoke and South >explained to the opponents that the partnership agreement was that 3NT >showed 5 spades and 4 hearts. He also confided that his partner may have >forgotten, since they had only just made this agreement prior to the >commencement of the match. > >At the end of play EW summoned the director and suggested that the 3NT bid >had been out of tempo. They maintained that it was much quicker than >North's normal very deliberate approach, especially if the conventional >treatment was a new wrinkle in the partnership armory. They argued that a >relatively rapid action for this particular player constituted >unauthorised information to South and hence the assumption that North had >forgotten the agreement became more likely to be correct. > >This hand is now four months old, but caused a lot of comment and >discussion at the time. EW are representative internationals, South has >won national titles. I was the director involved and I will post what I >ruled and the subsequent appeals committee decision in a few days. What >do you all think? Are EW trying it on, or do they have a case? > > >Laurie > > At this level I'd adjust to 4S and probably fine S a PP too, mitigated by his full disclosure of the method. However North would probably wake up at this point ... and reluctantly pass. Without too close an analysis it looks like S makes 3S, 2H, 2D and a C for down 2. If there had been screens S would have bid 4S most of the time, he protects his tenaces just as well and has the comfort of nine trumps. I'd take a deposit if they wanted to appeal, and would expect it to be retained. John > > > -- 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 May 14 10:20:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:20:36 +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 KAA10832 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:20:30 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021143; 14 May 98 0:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 01:18:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: <199805132349.TAA08439@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199805132349.TAA08439@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >Jay: if you are reading this, could you make sure that future writeups >of hesitation cases include the committee's judgment about how long the >hesitation was? That is an essential point in the decision, and it >ought to be stated. (In ordinary auctions, where no hesitation is >expected, "longer than a couple of seconds" will do; whether it was 2 >or 20 s won't matter. But in a case like this, the difference between >3-5 s and 20 s is enormous.) This leads to an interesting question. As far as I am concerned, *any* break in tempo is adequate for UI purposes. I'm personally sensitive to tempo changes of less than 1 second by my partner (who fortunately very seldom does break tempo) and these would be well below any perceived threshold by the opponents. I don't have a problem, I just tell oppo partner broke tempo and leave it at that. However the length of the hesitation is not IMO really relevant. A break in tempo suffices. Maybe I'm too draconian here - comments please. The most notable occasion was pard sitting over KJxxx in dummy with AQx won the Ace over the Jack getting declarer to go down in some contract the whole room made. On this occasion (playing a card) I guess he was less than 1/4 second outside tempo - but I *knew* what he'd done. Fortunately I had a clear defensive line and the UI about the Q was irrelevant. In this position one can't say anything till the hand is over anyway. Do any other regular partnerships have similar problems? -- 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 May 14 10:29:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:29:23 +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 KAA10852 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:29:14 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa28474; 13 May 98 17:29 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 May 1998 08:56:03 PDT." Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 17:29:19 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805131729.aa28474@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Dear BLMLers > > I would appreciate (welcome) your comments about the following situation. > > Last hand of a 20 board swiss match, South West Pacific Teams (Australia's > premier event - table one). > > Teams 95 > All Vul K74 > Dlr North A854 > 10865 > QJ107642 - > 93 J10652 > 97 QJ1032 > Q4 A72 > AK83 > AQ8 > K6 > KJ93 > > > West North East South > - Pass Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT* All Pass > > Result: NS +600 > > At the conclusion of the auction North left the room to smoke and South > explained to the opponents that the partnership agreement was that 3NT > showed 5 spades and 4 hearts. He also confided that his partner may have > forgotten, since they had only just made this agreement prior to the > commencement of the match. > > At the end of play EW summoned the director and suggested that the 3NT bid > had been out of tempo. They maintained that it was much quicker than > North's normal very deliberate approach, especially if the conventional > treatment was a new wrinkle in the partnership armory. They argued that a > relatively rapid action for this particular player constituted > unauthorised information to South and hence the assumption that North had > forgotten the agreement became more likely to be correct. > > This hand is now four months old, but caused a lot of comment and > discussion at the time. EW are representative internationals, South has > won national titles. I was the director involved and I will post what I > ruled and the subsequent appeals committee decision in a few days. What > do you all think? Are EW trying it on, or do they have a case? The question is, was there UI that suggested to South that North forgot his system. If so, South's pass is disallowed. But answering this question is tough, especially not being at the table. First of all, I've never heard anyone claim that a quick call conveys the UI that someone forgot the system. So it would be hard for me to rule that the quick 3NT is, by itself, evidence of UI, just because I've never heard of such a case before. But I could be persuaded otherwise. Then there's the fact that South didn't pull to 4S. Is this evidence that there was some sort of UI on the hand, even if we don't know precisely what that UI was? I don't know. It may depend on how you feel about the Rule of Coincidence. First of all, I need to know, was South required to alert North's 3NT in your part of the world; and if so, why didn't he alert? It's possible, I suppose, that South also forgot the system, but remembered it after the auction was over. If that's the case, no adjustment would be warranted. It's also possible that South thought it would be easier to take 9 tricks in notrump than 10 tricks in spades; maybe he thought there might be nine running tricks in the majors. This isn't unreasonable. It's not an action I would take; I'd be concerned that North has x or xx in diamonds and we don't have nine off the top. Anyway, to settle this question, I'd have to ask South why he chose the action he did, and see how much he squirms. Anyway, I think EW might have a case, but it's a rather weak one, since the available evidence doesn't seem quite enough to establish that there was UI. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 10:43:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:43:54 +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 KAA10887 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:43:48 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-064.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.69]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA08856 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 17:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3558F177.14FB@lightspeed.net> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:03:51 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is going to require some fact-finding, but this is one of the many Danny Kleinman fast-arrival situations. I suspect strongly that South read that North thought the auction was over, not only from the haste, but there may also have been smoking preparation. (I know many players on auctions like this who start fishing for their smokes early.) Obviously, if there was no UI South can do whatever he likes. However, I'd be inclined to believe E-W that the speed was a little different. That South passed is certainly odd, given the agreement. Without knowing more, I'd be strongly inclined to rule for E-W. As to what, I think South bids 4S, west, thrilled, can only pass, and North now begins cringing, eventually passing (I think 4S would legally wake North up, and he now can try to find a way to minimize the catastrophe. The other option (?) is for North to bid 4N, asking, and pass any response, probably leading to 5H, which is not a lovely contract either.) I'd rule 4S-3, undoubled. I would not fault a director who ruled as much as 4S-4, doubled, but I think a committee should exercise better judgment. --JRM Laurie Kelso wrote: > Dear BLMLers > > I would appreciate (welcome) your comments about the following situation. > > Last hand of a 20 board swiss match, South West Pacific Teams (Australia's > premier event - table one). > > Teams 95 > All Vul K74 > Dlr North A854 > 10865 > QJ107642 - > 93 J10652 > 97 QJ1032 > Q4 A72 > AK83 > AQ8 > K6 > KJ93 > > West North East South > - Pass Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT* All Pass > > Result: NS +600 > > At the conclusion of the auction North left the room to smoke and South > explained to the opponents that the partnership agreement was that 3NT > showed 5 spades and 4 hearts. He also confided that his partner may have > forgotten, since they had only just made this agreement prior to the > commencement of the match. > > At the end of play EW summoned the director and suggested that the 3NT bid > had been out of tempo. They maintained that it was much quicker than > North's normal very deliberate approach, especially if the conventional > treatment was a new wrinkle in the partnership armory. They argued that a > relatively rapid action for this particular player constituted > unauthorised information to South and hence the assumption that North had > forgotten the agreement became more likely to be correct. > > This hand is now four months old, but caused a lot of comment and > discussion at the time. EW are representative internationals, South has > won national titles. I was the director involved and I will post what I > ruled and the subsequent appeals committee decision in a few days. What > do you all think? Are EW trying it on, or do they have a case? > > Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 12:11:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:11:34 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA11166 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:11:12 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id VAA16569 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:11:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0TP0O031 Wed, 13 May 98 21:08:16 Message-ID: <9805132108.0TP0O03@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 13 May 98 21:08:16 Subject: RENO NABC APPEALS CAS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J >In article <3556AD82.2FE8@lightspeed.net>, "John R. Mayne" J > writes J >snip J >>But, before I made a ruling, I'd want to talk to North. I want to hear J >>what he has to say. I could be persuaded that a North who bids this way J >>will not tolerate a double. It's difficult to assemble a set of North's J >>peers who would bid this way, so I think listening to this North is not J >>foolish. In this case I do not agree. J >this is the point ... you are faced with a decision when N has bid like J >a demented wombat. He has made it entirely clear he was on his way to 4S J >as slowly as possible, and whatever his partner does no other action J >than 4S is a LA for him. Partner just made life difficult by trancing. I do not think this is true. J >We're not being asked to judge a "scientific" North. we're being asked J >to put ourselves in the place of a creative artist in the middle of a J >piece of beautiful legerdemain. Nothing else makes sense. Why should we put ourselves in North's position? South put him there, with his help by the way. This ruling bothered me enormously because the UI was so meaningful and the justification for allowing the score to stand is so weak. The best argument that has been presented that permits the pulling of the slow double is the one that if 4H fails, then 4S will make. On this basis I would insist that it is proper to pull the double. However, the facts do not support the argument because the spade bidder does not know the condition of partner's trumps and since partner could hold KQJT of trumps, 4H could go down while 4S does not make- disproving the premise of the argument. As John has analyzed, the auction is an example of 'a creative artist in the middle of a piece of beautiful legerdemain.' However, it can only be beautiful if partner is capable of cooperating and succeeds. In this case partner has failed and our spade bidder must endure the consequences. No matter how influential the argument that he never had the intention to permit the hand to play in anything less than 4S, once partner has blown it, he is subject to the opponents ability to make bidding and play mistakes. Once he supercedes that by bidding in possession of UI, he no longer allows the opponents blow it and they are entitled to their squeeze. The only information that doubler may not have their call was the break in tempo and that leaves the spade bidder's only reason to bid again to be his original plan- and the hesitation nixed it. Correct the contract to 4HX making six. But, there was something else that bothered me about the deal- it was the hand that doubled. It has next to no defense and it is opposite a partner that rates to have at most 2 tricks- so why double and get it wrapped around my neck. On this auction, I would never consider anything but an in tempo pass. But, if I were to double, it would always be in tempo since it is imperative that on this auction I give partner no unsolvable problems. So, why was the double not made in tempo? A] it is highly unusual for the person who made a preemptive overcall to make an unsolicited further bid. This fact should not be unnoticed by any one at the table. The spade bidder probably has an unusual hand- maybe extra length and/or extra strength. Because the opponents have arrived in game, it can be presumed that it is extra length in a solid spade holding. B] At this point, partner can probably work out that the 'dog is being walked'. But, not right away. It takes time to figure out what kind of shenanigans partner is working on- a break in tempo results. C] now that tempo is broken, he realizes that there are consequences. At this point a slow pass will stop any further bidding by partner. But, a double will cater to the possibility that partner does indeed have extra defense and if not, partner may pull. The advantage of a double over bidding 4S is that a double will entice the heart bidders to stay away from the five level and not goad them into a possible slam ifhe gives his delayed raise. Since the perpetrator could not work all this out in tempo, he must confine himself to giving his partner a problem with consequences. IMO, the only way for the perpetrator to salvage the hand is to bid 4S himself and let the heart bidders land where they may, but he did not. North gets my admiration for his guile, but he flunks the judgment test for picking his partner to experiment on. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 12:11:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:11:46 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA11173 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:11:37 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id VAA16576 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:12:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0TP2M032 Wed, 13 May 98 21:08:20 Message-ID: <9805132108.0TP2M03@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 13 May 98 21:08:20 Subject: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk May the news from David's doctors be good news. Hurry back, David. Btw, I think that if David's doctor has cats, he is surely a much better doctor. Regards, Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 12:20:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:20:40 +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 MAA11221 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:20:36 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA29289; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:20:08 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:20:08 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: Adam Beneschan cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: <9805131729.aa28474@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 May 1998, Adam Beneschan wrote: (Original posting of hand snipped) > The question is, was there UI that suggested to South that North > forgot his system. If so, South's pass is disallowed. > > But answering this question is tough, especially not being at the > table. > > First of all, I've never heard anyone claim that a quick call conveys > the UI that someone forgot the system. So it would be hard for me to > rule that the quick 3NT is, by itself, evidence of UI, just because > I've never heard of such a case before. But I could be persuaded > otherwise. > > Then there's the fact that South didn't pull to 4S. Is this evidence > that there was some sort of UI on the hand, even if we don't know > precisely what that UI was? I don't know. It may depend on how you > feel about the Rule of Coincidence. Personally I don't think the Law of coincidence has a place in deciding any issue. > First of all, I need to know, was > South required to alert North's 3NT in your part of the world; and if > so, why didn't he alert? 3NT does not require an alert in Australia (No call above the level of 3S is alerted). > It's possible, I suppose, that South also > forgot the system, but remembered it after the auction was over. If > that's the case, no adjustment would be warranted. He denied this at the time. > It's also possible > that South thought it would be easier to take 9 tricks in notrump than > 10 tricks in spades; maybe he thought there might be nine running > tricks in the majors. This isn't unreasonable. It's not an action I > would take; I'd be concerned that North has x or xx in diamonds and we > don't have nine off the top. Anyway, to settle this question, I'd > have to ask South why he chose the action he did, and see how much he > squirms. He said he thought partner may have forgotten the new agreement and he selected the most practical call (pass) to cover both eventualities, (ie. remembering or forgetting). > Anyway, I think EW might have a case, but it's a rather weak one, > since the available evidence doesn't seem quite enough to establish > that there was UI. > Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 13:15:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:32 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 NAA11333 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:25 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA12959; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805140315.UAA12959@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:13:20 -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 Steve Willner wrote: (snip) > What I understood Everett to be saying is that in this auction, the > normal time is a hesitation of at least a few seconds, and anything > less would be abnormal. I agree with that, and I hope I could wait > a few seconds before doubling even if looking at H-QJT987. I would > expect leaving in a quick double to be highly suspect. > > In another message about this case, which I didn't save, Al told us > that the AC decided that the hesitation was quite a bit longer than a > few seconds. Therefore I don't think this argument is an issue in this > particular case. > > Jay: if you are reading this, could you make sure that future writeups > of hesitation cases include the committee's judgment about how long the > hesitation was? That is an essential point in the decision, and it > ought to be stated. (In ordinary auctions, where no hesitation is > expected, "longer than a couple of seconds" will do; whether it was 2 > or 20 s won't matter. But in a case like this, the difference between > 3-5 s and 20 s is enormous.) ACs normally spend quite a bit of effort doing their best to determine the time involved in a tempo break, and reported in this case that "the Committee decided that there was a clear break in tempo before the double and believed that its actual length was somewhere between the two estimated times" (referring to the times estimated by N-S and E-W, which of course differed, the former estimating 8-10 seconds, the latter about 30 seconds). If an AC decides there was a "clear break in tempo," they probably know what they are doing and I would not second guess them. Since it apparently was not a matter of contention in this case, I didn't mention the time factor. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 13:30:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 13:30:17 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 NAA11365 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 13:30:10 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA14508 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 20:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805140329.UAA14508@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #1 Date: Wed, 13 May 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 I made a mistake in commenting on what Steve Willner wrote, which was: > My personal opinion is that the AC's stated reasoning is dubious. > We cannot know what the player was planning, and it shouldn't > matter. However, I'm not at all sure their decision was wrong. > In another jurisdiction that follows the 25% rule, I think it > would be fairly clear to rule as the committee did. With the > stringent ACBL definition of LA, it seems quite a close decision. What I wrote: "The '25% rule,' a guideline that was in force pre-1992, said you could not take an action suggested by UI if as many as one in four comparable players in an identical position would choose such an action." That should have been "if as many as one in four comparable players in an identical position would choose some alternative." Sorry Steve, et al. The rest of what I said was correct: "In 1992 the guideline was changed (by the National Laws Commission, not the ACBL) to define a "logical alternative" as "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuuum." Steve says the 25% rule is still used in "some jurisdictions," but since they must be outside ACBL-land, the "rule" has no bearing on NABC AC decisions. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 15:05:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:05:22 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA11519 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:05:04 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA26103 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 22:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805140505.WAA26103@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #2 Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 22:03:17 -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 Case #1 evoked much more comment than I expected. I was about to skip over it as too elementary for BLML to be concerned with, but I'm glad I didn't. The comments have been most interesting. Checking on the Dallas NABC appeals on the Swiss website, Federation Suisse de Bridge: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html I find that I cannot reconcile those records with the Dallas NABC casebook. Here's what I found: Casebook Case No. Swiss Case No. 1 8 2 3 3 5 4 4 5 6 6 11 7-8 Not found 9 1 10 9 11 7 12-14 Not found 15 10 16 Not found 17 2 18-21 Not found I don't know why the numbers are different, or why there are ten cases in the casebook that are not on the Swiss web site. I list these for those who want to read the entire AC write-up for cases, which I don't intend to quote. I also will avoid quoting the expert panel's comments in the casebooks, feeling that one ought to buy the books from the ACBL rather than get them second hand for free. These comments are usually rather good, and editor Rich Colker's comments are even better. This message is supposed to cover Case #2, but I'm going to refer anyone interested to the above Swiss web site, which covers it as Case #3. Someone else can put the case on BLML if they think it's worthwhile. It's a rather complicated case, after which the appellants had their $50 confiscated for no good reason. My opinion, shared by some expert panelists in the casebook, is that the AC should have let the NOs keep their deserved bad score instead of giving them the benefit of the score assigned to the OS. For some reason ACs are loath to do that sort of thing. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 18:52:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA12006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 18:52:58 +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 SAA11997 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 18:51:18 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yZtk0-0002W9-00; Thu, 14 May 1998 09:51:54 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 14 May 1998 09:50:20 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Multiple Choice Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:42:00 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: SNIP > My interpretation of L16 is that action A is the only legal > alternative in > this setting. ###### Agreed ######## > But there seems to be another viewpoint: that since the UI > does not "demonstrably" suggest either B or C, these are both > legitimate > options. > > ######## The UI suggests B over A therefore B is not allowed. The UI > suggests C over A therefore C is not allowed. Only A is left. > ########### > > SNIP > > Whatever. Take it as a generic case. Do you think: > a) Mike is right. Only option A is legal in this case.###### > Definitely yes ####### > b) It depends on how the options are related to each other. Could go > either > way.####### No ######## > c) L16 does not restrict the player's options in this case, especially > after the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". ####### IMO, > the change to Law 16 deals with 1H P 2H (slow) P 3H. Where 2H could > be struggling to bid 2H or almost good enough for 3H. Under the old > wording, 3H if succesful was always wrong which was hardly fair when > the UI does not tell opener which hand responder holds. ####### > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 21:13:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA12284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 21:13:25 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA12279 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 21:13:16 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h26.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id PAA02568; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:13:48 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <355B6C74.60BB@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:13:08 -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: Dallas NABC Appeals Case # 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_VIEW.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_VIEW.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Let us see the hand once more: Dealer: South S- AKQT8532 H- 7 D- J76 C- 9 S- 9 S- 764 H- K542 H- AQJ3 D- A982 D- KQ C- AQT6 C- 7543 S- J H- T986 D- T543 C- KJ82 West North East South (usual directions) P 1D 2S Dbl P 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) P 4S P P Dbl All pass (1) Break in tempo Sorry, but my personal opinion about this case is extremely harsh: I suspect a kind of implicit agreement of N-S pair. Especially if this pair was experienced one. No doubts Adam was right when asked about not N's bidding but S's - it is a most essential for this hand. In two Adam's posts it was underlined that the very Double from S was not serious... I agree with him absolutely - but my conclusions are differ - the experience N-S pair has an implicit agreement that after such kind of bidding (2 Sp with jump, then 3 Sp) partner's Double may be frivolous. And after such a Double partner rather should bid... And never mind break tempo at all... Might be - it took some time to S for reminding previous similar cases?... And such Double (especially in hard-to-determine concurrent bidding) usually stop opponents from their bidding... Everett Boyer wrote: > Do you really think that N-S had an agreement regarding 2S then 3S, > other than the usual agreement not to bid like that? I guess they had. And that's why I prefer to ask S for his reasons of his Double... And I prefer rather serious disciplinary hearing of N-S than simple AC's case. And as a most of BLML responders - I think 4 Spades bid was not permitted. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 22:35:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 22:35:37 +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 WAA12556 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 22:35:31 +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 FAA25549; Thu, 14 May 1998 05:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 05:35:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" Reply-To: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Robin Barker cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case In-Reply-To: <12910.9805131248@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 May 1998, Robin Barker wrote: > > S Kxxx > > H 9 > > D KJxxxx > > C xx > > S Ax S QJ9xx > > H AKJ7xx H xx > > D AQx D xx > > C Axx C QJxx > > S xx > > H Q108xx > > D 10x > > C K10xx > > > > W N E S > > P P P > > 1C(1) 1NT(2)P 2D(3) > > P P 2S P > > 3NT(4)P P P > > > > 1C 16 or more ("Precision") > > 1NT any 2-suiter acc. to N and the CC (expl. by S as BAL with 15-18!!!!!!) > > 2D NAT (system: If partner has the minors, I want to play 2D not 2C); > > explained as a transfer by S (to W) > > The play: > > H-Lead > > CA, Cx, > > D10 by S, ducked 2nd D.... 3NT -3 > > > > W complained that he got the wrong inf (1NT =15-18). He played on the > > assumption, that N has both minors. He wouldnt have done that with the > > correct explanation (he can play on spades instead and some sort of > > endplay will help him in fulfilling the contract). > If West was playing the hand still under the impression that North's 1NT > had shown a strong NT then he is entitled to redress. How could declarer, looking at 28 points in his side's two hands, [and maybe seeing South play the HQ at trick one] still believe North had a strong NT? After South told him that he, South apparently, had made a mistake, did not West ask for a clarification of that remark? I think West knew it wasn't a strong NT overcall when he bid 3NT, and that if he drew the inference that North had minors, he did so at his own peril, not from what South had told him. He could have asked South what he meant by his "mistake" remark and found out the agreement was a two-suiter [which South could/should/did {maybe} tell him] and even then if West decided that meant minors, well too bad! rbo From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 14 22:55:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 22:55:05 +1000 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA12629 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 22:54:59 +1000 Received: from mike (ip40.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.40]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA30711 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 08:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980514085512.00730d8c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:55:12 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Multiple Choice In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:42 PM 5/13/98 +0100, David M wrote: >> c) L16 does not restrict the player's options in this case, especially >> after the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". ####### IMO, >> the change to Law 16 deals with 1H P 2H (slow) P 3H. Where 2H could >> be struggling to bid 2H or almost good enough for 3H. Under the old >> wording, 3H if succesful was always wrong which was hardly fair when >> the UI does not tell opener which hand responder holds. ####### >> > According to Kaplan, that interpretation predated the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". That is, it has always been true that if the UI was effectively neutral between two alternatives (might be slightly too strong or slightly too weak), it imposed no restriction. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 00:31:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 00:31:55 +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 AAA15178 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 00:31:40 +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 PAA22681; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:31:46 +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 PAA01323; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:31:45 +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 PAA24011; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:31:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 14 May 98 15:31:44 BST Message-Id: <13129.9805141431@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bbo@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" > > > If West was playing the hand still under the impression that North's 1NT > > had shown a strong NT then he is entitled to redress. > > How could declarer, looking at 28 points in his side's two hands, [and > maybe seeing South play the HQ at trick one] still believe North had > a strong NT? After South told him that he, South apparently, had made a > mistake, did not West ask for a clarification of that remark? I carefully worded the sentence you criticise, I said "that North's 1NT had shown a strong NT" not "that North had a strong NT". There is a difference. If North's 1NT had shown a strong NT then North has psyched/misbid and West will have to work out what hand is most likely for North. If North's 1NT had shown something else (e.g. a two suiter) then North may well have his bid. For example: You play 4S on the auction 1S-(1NT)-4S, your and dummy's hands contain 30 points. If 1NT shown 15-17 balanced, overcaller has psyched/misbid and you will play the hand on this basis. If 1NT shows the minors, you will probably play the hand on the basis that overcaller has the minors. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 02:56:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 02:56:27 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA15780 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 02:56:21 +1000 Received: from default (client86c4.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.196]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA01735; Thu, 14 May 1998 17:56:55 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:57:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7f59$576cb1c0$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: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 May 1998 21:16 Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 \x/ \x/ \x/ >> S- AKQT8532 >> H- 7 >> D- J76 >> C- 9 >> >>S- 9 S-764 >>H- K542 H- AQJ3 >>D- A982 D- KQ >>C- AQT6 C- 7543 >> >> S- J >> H- T986 >> D- T543 >> C- KJ82 >> >>West North East South (usual directions) >> P >> 1D 2S Dbl P >> 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) >> P 4S P P >> Dbl All pass >> >>(1) Break in tempo >> \x/ \x/ \x/ >> >>From North's point of view, if 4H is off then 4S is a make. IMO pass is >not a LA and I would have so ruled. 4S and result stands. If the AC >overturns me that is their prerogative and I wouldn't feel strongly >either way>> #### As I have said quite forcefully I believe that Double is a logical alternative and that to choose 4S smacks of a strong North 'protecting' a weak South. Also I think a Director can foresee that any North action but Pass will meet with a *lot* of strong criticism in which case a Director's desirable action is to rule against N/S and put the onus of appealing on them; is that not the way we teach it in the UK?#### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 03:44:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 03:44:50 +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 DAA15909 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 03:44:44 +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 NAA16044 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 13:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805141745.NAA07305@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9805132108.0TP0O03@bbs.hal-pc.org> (r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org) Subject: Re: RENO NABC APPEALS CAS Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick writes: > But, if I were to double, it would always be in tempo since it is > imperative that on this auction I give partner no unsolvable problems. > So, why was the double not made in tempo? > A] it is highly unusual for the person who made a preemptive overcall > to make an unsolicited further bid. This fact should not be unnoticed > by any one at the table. The spade bidder probably has an unusual > hand- maybe extra length and/or extra strength. Because the opponents > have arrived in game, it can be presumed that it is extra length in a > solid spade holding. > B] At this point, partner can probably work out that the 'dog is being > walked'. But, not right away. It takes time to figure out what kind of > shenanigans partner is working on- a break in tempo results. I think some allowance for a slow bid should be allowed after an unexpected auction, even if there is no skip bid. This gives a player time to work out what the auction means and then consider his bid. (In the actual appeals case, the tempo break was apparently too long for this to matter.) -- 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 May 15 04:00:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:32 +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 EAA15960 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:25 +1000 Received: from default (client128c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.140]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA13288; Thu, 14 May 1998 19:01:04 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:01:10 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7f62$46a54240$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 : That's OK Marv; we had thought it unlikely it was played in Reno as well as Dallas. -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws Date: 13 May 1998 19:37 Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 >My apologies to all, I had Reno on my mind, and it was late. The >"Reno" case #1 was from the Dallas NABC casebook; the Reno casebook >isn't even out yet. > >Sorry, > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 04:00:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:28 +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 EAA15954 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:21 +1000 Received: from default (client128c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.140]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA13265; Thu, 14 May 1998 19:00:59 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:55:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7f61$799b0640$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: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 May 1998 01:53 Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 >In article <199805132349.TAA08439@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > \x/ \x/ >>Jay: if you are reading this, could you make sure that future writeups >>of hesitation cases include the committee's judgment about how long the >>hesitation was \x/ \x/ >>>This leads to an interesting question. As far as I am concerned, *any* >break in tempo is adequate for UI purposes? >> ++++ [ I would say "any breach of tempo that is capable of conveying information" and I am relaxed about the Director's judgement because I think it is for him to judge and that the AC should only not accept his judgement - provided he understands this - when he is patently wrong.++++ Grattan ++++] On the other hand, it is worthwhile noting that C changed the word 'reasonably' to 'demonstrably' in Law 16 because it was represented by the drafting committee that in the ACBL at least it was becoming almost automatic - certainly far too frequent - that when there was an infraction the judgement would go against the OS. (Some ACBL personality on the drafting committee might care to adjust the measure of my language since I am reflecting a Kaplan conversation with me). It was *not* the C intention to change the standard it desired to set but rather to recover the standard it had intended by 'reasonably'. ++ G ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 04:00:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:36 +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 EAA15967 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:00:30 +1000 Received: from default (client128c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.140]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA13234; Thu, 14 May 1998 19:00:54 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:16:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7f5c$1302a0a0$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: 14 May 1998 01:14 Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 >> Everett Boyer wrote: >> > As someone else noted, isn't a break in >> > tempo expected here? South must be allowed to consider what's >> > going on. > > >L16A refers to "unmistakeable hesitation, unwonted speed..." The >interpretation I've always adopted is that in any auction (and for any >player), there is a normal time to make one's call. For example, after >a skip bid, the next call should come after an interval of 10 s. In an >uncontested, constructive auction, a call should come after no more >than a second or so #### This is something the Director should take into account when deciding that there is a meaningful hesitation. The AC needs positive evidence on which to over-rule the Director who decides there was such a breach of tempo. In talking cases here we should always assume there was a breach of significant length if the AC passes no comment on the Director's decision of fact. Some things have to be taken as data. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 04:01:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:01:07 +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 EAA15996 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:01:00 +1000 Received: from default (client128c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.140]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA13276; Thu, 14 May 1998 19:01:02 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: David Stevenson Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:56:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd7f61$a9457a60$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 : Do you mean the way street cats have fleas? -----Original Message----- From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 May 1998 04:02 Subject: David Stevenson > > May the news from David's doctors be good news. Hurry back, David. > > Btw, I think that if David's doctor has cats, he is surely a much >better doctor. > > Regards, > > > > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >__ > >___ >* UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 04:45:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:45:53 +1000 Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA16189 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:45:46 +1000 Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id FAMQa14222; Thu, 14 May 1998 14:45:32 -0400 (EDT) From: KRAllison Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:45:32 EDT To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, john@probst.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes: << Some ACBL personality on the drafting committee might care to adjust the measure of my language since I am reflecting a Kaplan conversation with me >> Edgar told you virtually what was discussed in the Committee and I see no need to adjust your explanation of it whatsoever. The words explaining the complaint to the drafting committee were something like "if it hesitates, kill it" to explain what committees had come to be doing. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 04:49:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:49:21 +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 EAA16216 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 04:49:13 +1000 Received: from csa.bu.edu (metcalf@CSA.BU.EDU [128.197.12.3]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id OAA29078; Thu, 14 May 1998 14:49:50 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: (from metcalf@localhost) by csa.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-C-01/27/97-fc1)) id OAA20701; Thu, 14 May 1998 14:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805141849.OAA20701@csa.bu.edu> Subject: Re: suggested over another To: msd@mindspring.com (Michael S. Dennis) Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980509003215.00725c58@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at May 9, 98 00:32:15 am 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 Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >>If you believe that the Laws support the appeal by your opponents, do you >>have some legal or ethical obligation to fight anyway? We often make much >>of contestants' obligation to play to their maximum advantage. Does this >>extend to an obligation to pursue an appeal or to resist an appeal, even >>when you believe the Laws to support the position of the opponents? >> >>Mike Dennis _ IMHO, bridge appeals are not analogous to legal trials, where a lawyer for a defendant whom she thinks is guilty must still try her best to defend her client. A legal trial is an adversarial proceeding. A bridge appeal should be (and in my club is explained as such to all participants) a cooperative fact-finding endeavor, where the objective is the truth and proper equity under the laws of the game [insert inspirational music here]. If you feel that an appeal by your opponents has merit, or that you have information or a point that supports their point of view, I think you have an obligation to share that with the committee. The obligation to "play to ones maximum advantage" applies ONLY to the playing of the game - bids and plays. It does not, for example, extend to various legal but perhaps shady forms of gamesmanship. Nor does it extend to the committee room. David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 05:01:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 05:01:14 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 FAA16250 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 05:01:09 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA04140; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805141901.MAA04140@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #2 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 11:58:42 -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 Yvan Calame of Federation Suisse de Bridge (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html) --an excellent website--wrote me as follows: > > Hi Marv, you wrote: > > >I don't know why the numbers are different, or why > >there are ten cases in the casebook that are > >not on the Swiss web site. > > The cases on our site are those that were published in the > NABC bulletins, available on the ACBL site. > The numbers are those used in the bulletins. > I should have realized that. Evidently there were many cases that didn't get into the bulletins. The text for the bulletin's write-ups is on the ACBL website, under Tournaments, Dallas NABC, buried in the bulletins. The Swiss presentation is more accessible for reading. Cases 18-21 in the casebook were from the International Team Trials in June 1997, so of course could not be reported in the Dallas NABC (March 1997) bulletins. That leaves six cases (casebook numbers 7, 8, 11-14) which were decided at Dallas NABC but evidently not reported in the bulletins. Does anyone know where these are published, if anywhere? If nowhere, I'll (in due time) publish the case write-ups myself on BLML. Same for 18-21. Chyah: Couldn't you people do this? Jay: Wouldn't it be helpful for casebook appeals case numbers to agree with those used in the NABC bulletins? Can't the bulletins publish *all* NABC cases? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 06:36:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 06:36:08 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 GAA16312 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 06:36:02 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA07586 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 12:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805141930.MAA07586@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #3 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:28:49 -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 This case, provided in its entirety on the website of the Federation Suisse de Bridge (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html), and on the ACBL website (as Case #5 in both places), concerns the following deal: Vulnerability: E-W Dealer: South S- Q H- 765 D- K87653 C- QJ10 S- A853 S- KJT7 H- KJ842 H- QT93 D- Q9 D- AT C- 62 C- K97 S- 9642 H- A D- J42 C- A8543 West North East South (usual directions) P P P(1) 1C(2) P 1H P 2H Dbl P 3D P P 3H 4D P P Dbl (1) Break in tempo (2) Alerted; could be short E-W broke diamonds, so the contract made with an overtrick. Feeling that South had a logical alternative to doubling, the TD adjusted the score artificially to avg+ for E-W and avg- for N-S. The AC, after reasonable deliberations, agreed with the TD's ruling, including the artificial scores. Why not assign a score? Because it was "virtually impossible to determine a most likely outcome." Let's not debate about the legality of the double, since the TD/AC decision about that seems reasonable. It's the scoring that concerns me. Given that South passes instead of doubling, a doubtful call after the slow pass, North would probably reopen with 3D, West would bid 3H, and we'll assume that South would not "hang" partner by raising to four, so 3H down one is a reasonable "most favorable result that was likely" for E-W. Why should this be so difficult to determine? Another route to 3H is a game try by West, unlikely considering the pass over the double. Or, if the AC thinks it likely that both West and North might have passed 2H, then assign that score. It is even conceivable that N-S should get -110 and E-W -50 per L12C2, if 2H making two for E-W is "at all probable" but not "likely." Just don't duck responsibility by illegally adjusting the score artificially. The tendency to resort to artificial scores when assigned scores are possible remains popular with TDs and ACs. They seem to think they have to know exactly what would have resulted in the absence of an infraction, but that's not what L12C2 means by the words "likely" and "probable." ACs usually comprise an odd number of members, so they can just vote on a most favorable result likely for the NOs if agreement can't be reached, taking the middle score if there is no majority opinion. TDs can use the same procedure when conferring with their peers. It's not rocket science. Now, suppose 3H down one is a poor result for E-W because the rest of the field bids like me (P=1S=3S=P, probably making four). Too bad! For them, it's the most favorable result that was likely. Just because a pair wins an appeal does not entitle them to a good score, nor does an unfavorable ruling mean that an OS must get a bad score. L12C says nothing of the sort, so unnecessary avg+/avg- adjusted scores are not only illegal, but often inappropriate. (Note the = signs to indicate an uncontested auction, a Danny Kleinman suggestion) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 07:24:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 07:24:03 +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 HAA16528 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 07:23:52 +1000 Received: by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010344; 14 May 98 21:19 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026544; 14 May 98 19:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 20:04:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <199805082209.SAA28631@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >About ten days ago, I posed the following: > >> 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? > >There were five replies, all sent to BLML. Three people thought the >hesitation suggested bidding 5D, and two couldn't tell. My last >question was a trick, of course; I'm pleased nobody fell for it. > >Perhaps I should have told everyone that this hand came up over twenty >years ago, when no respectable player would preempt and then bid >again. (Nowadays it seems routine.) I was at the other table, where >we bid and made 4S with no trouble. I had filled out the entry slip >last, hence was acting as team captain. > >At the table where the above auction occurred, our erratic teammate had >little defense and bid 5D. (He probably should have bid it on the >previous round.) That turned out to be a useful sacrifice, something >like -300 (or maybe -100) instead of -420, and that turned out to swing >some fraction of the match (W/L scoring with fractions). The player >who hesitated held J-eighth of diamonds and some defense but not enough >to beat 4S. He was in fact considering 5D and took awhile to convince >himself that bidding again really was a bad idea even if partner had >diamond support, which wasn't guaranteed with this particular partner. > >The opponents called the TD, who ruled "result stands" (without >explanation, AFIAK), and the opponents appealed. It was my duty as >captain to present our side's case, but the player who hesitated said >that since the TD had ruled in our favor, no explanation was needed. I >accepted this argument, and the AC duly ruled against us, adjusting the >score to 4S making. > >At the time, I thought the 5D bidder had to believe that the hesitation >was based on a defensive hand thinking of double. It wouldn't have >occurred to me that this player was considering 5D, and I still don't >know what took him so long to pass. This argument was never presented >to the AC, and I don't know how they would have reacted to it. I'm not >even sure what version of the Laws was in force. I think the hand came >up at Bridge Week in 1975, and the new Laws came into force in the US >on July 30 of that year. Could Bridge Week (a summer tournament in Los >Angeles) have been in August? And even after the comments from the >list (thanks to all!), I still don't know what the right ruling should >have been (had the AC heard the case for both sides). The AC did see >the hesitator's hand at the start of the hearing and may have been >influenced by that. > >So... how many mistakes do you count altogether in this sorry episode, Counting not being my forte [how many syllables ?] I shall pass on this one. >and which one was the worst? :-) That's easy: "the player who hesitated said that since the TD had ruled in our favor [?], no explanation was needed." Note this article written 7th May: unfortunately I have been in hospital ever since [now recovering] so not posted for a week! -- 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 May 15 08:36:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 08:36:12 +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 IAA16802 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 08:36:00 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (C5300-1-44.nt.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.47]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA02606 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 01:34:41 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 01:34:41 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199805142234.BAA02606@alpha.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.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: In tempo 3NT? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 PM 14/5/98 +1000, you wrote: > >On Wed, 13 May 1998, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >(Original posting of hand snipped) More snipped > >> > >> It's possible, I suppose, that South also >> forgot the system, but remembered it after the auction was over. If >> that's the case, no adjustment would be warranted. > >He denied this at the time. > >> It's also possible >> that South thought it would be easier to take 9 tricks in notrump than >> 10 tricks in spades; maybe he thought there might be nine running >> tricks in the majors. This isn't unreasonable. It's not an action I >> would take; I'd be concerned that North has x or xx in diamonds and we >> don't have nine off the top. Anyway, to settle this question, I'd >> have to ask South why he chose the action he did, and see how much he >> squirms. > >He said he thought partner may have forgotten the new agreement and he >selected the most practical call (pass) to cover both eventualities, (ie. >remembering or forgetting). > >Laurie Good players do not assume as a matter of course that partner has forgotten a convention. The whole point of playing a convention is to benefit from its advantages and not to make two-way bids that might take forgetfullness into account. IMHO the only time one makes "practical calls" to cover partner forgetting is when there is some indication that he may have forgotten, such as squirming, gazing at the roof, or as in this case an usually quick bid out of tempo with his normal bidding. I would rule UI, 4S down 2 or 3 (I haven't analysed too closely.) I would expect an AC to accept that the 4S might (legally) wake up North, and therefore accept an alternative NS contract that they could show they may get to (without UI) after 2NT - 3NT - 4S, Eitan From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 09:16:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 09:16:25 +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 JAA16927 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 09:16:21 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA12907 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 09:16:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:16:34 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: <01bd7f61$799b0640$LocalHost@default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick writes: > So, why was the double not made in tempo? > A] it is highly unusual for the person who made a preemptive overcall > to make an unsolicited further bid. This fact should not be unnoticed > by any one at the table. The spade bidder probably has an unusual > hand- maybe extra length and/or extra strength. Because the opponents > have arrived in game, it can be presumed that it is extra length in a > solid spade holding. > B] At this point, partner can probably work out that the 'dog is being > walked'. But, not right away. It takes time to figure out what kind of > shenanigans partner is working on- a break in tempo results. I think that South's double shows that this particular South was unable to diagnose either of these A] or B] scenarios. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 10:16:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:16:27 +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 KAA17179 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:16:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029346; 15 May 98 0:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:01:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980509084139.38eff1a8@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >Haven't some people suggested that the hesitation suggested defense and >thus suggested pass over 5D? Does this make both pass and 5D illegal? You >may have guessed, I don't think the 5D bid was illegal. If the player had >instead chose to pass _because of the hesitation_ wouldn't that be illegal? > Anyway, when a player has selected a call that could have been suggested >by the UI, I don't think this should be called illegal. The call is >certainly subject to review by a director and and AC, but illegal? If it >is considered illegal, won't there be situations where a player cannot make >any call because all would be considered illegal? In a UI situation partner's choice of calls becomes restricted by the Laws of the game, and thus to make one of the calls not permitted is illegal. There are no situations where there is no legal call because of UI. Of course, it is often perfectly *ethical* to make an illegal call: if the player believes the call to be legal, or is not sure, then it is not unethical to make it. It matters not in such a case that a TD/AC later decides it was an illegal call. An illegal call is one not permitted by one of the Laws of the game, for example L73C. -- 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 May 15 10:19:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:19:24 +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 KAA17208 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:19:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029344; 15 May 98 0:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:25:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: David Stevenson - Update 3. In-Reply-To: <149E8EAT1iW1EwYQ@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: >But you have to admit it's been very peaceful, nay, even boring for the >last few days. Welcome back David, I have laid in a stock of lemonade. SSSnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!! -- 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 May 15 10:26:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:26:13 +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 KAA17249 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:26:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2029345; 15 May 98 0:14 GMT Message-ID: <6TKp2oB703W1Ewqv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 00:24:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case In-Reply-To: <35598BF2.1ACA@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Last weekend I had the following case in a teams event >(screens, N and E at one side): > > S Kxxx > H 9 > D KJxxxx > C xx >S Ax S QJ9xx >H AKJ7x H xx [6th heart deleted] >D AQx D xx >C Axx C QJxx > S xx > H Q108xx > D 10x > C K10xx > >W N E S > P P P >1C(1) 1NT(2)P 2D(3) >P P 2S P >3NT(4)P P P > >1C 16 or more ("Precision") >1NT any 2-suiter acc. to N and the CC (expl. by S as BAL with >15-18!!!!!!) >2D NAT (system: If partner has the minors, I want to play 2D not 2C); >explained as a transfer by S (to W) >3NT immediately after the 3NT bid, S said that he made a silly (...) >mistake. >(no loud discussion by S or W) > >The play: >H-Lead >CA, Cx, >D10 by S, ducked 2nd D.... 3NT -3 > >W complained that he got the wrong inf (1NT =15-18). He played on the >assumption, that N has both minors. Hmmmmmm! If he assumed it was the minors because he assumed that there was MI then he gets no sympathy whatever. If there is MI then there is a nice friendly TD to sort it out for him. > He wouldnt have done that with the >correct explanation (he can play on spades instead and some sort of >endplay will help him in fulfilling the contract). So, he butchered it. Tuff. >If W would have got the correct explanation he would have bid 2H. then >there would be no H-lead Verra interesting. Wonder why North led his singleton in a suit his pd did not have? I can think of some explanations. However this point is valid. West's error was egregious {NAm} and wild {Eur}: he believed there to be an infraction of Law and decided it was better to guess than call the TD. He keeps his score. However, I see a case for a split score. South gave MI, and assuming that 3NT can be made on a reasonable line, and is more likely without the MI, then I adjust for N/S. >What do you think N/S -600 if vul, -400 if not E/W -300 if vul, -150 if not Nice one. -- 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 May 15 10:28:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:28:09 +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 KAA17264 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 10:28:01 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029343; 15 May 98 0:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:49:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <35555C9F.599AFDCD@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [s] >I think that all the examples provided have shown that it is indeed >better for the offending side to act in this manner. I suppose most of >you would agree on that score. Not 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 Fri May 15 12:22:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:22:58 +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 MAA17490 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:22:50 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp73.ac.net [205.138.54.175]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA10234 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 22:23:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <355BA74D.438@ac.net> Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:24:13 -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: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #2 References: <199805140505.WAA26103@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > I find that I cannot reconcile those records with the > Dallas NABC casebook. > > Here's what I found: > I don't know why the numbers are different, or why > there are ten cases in the casebook that are > not on the Swiss web site. The numbers are different because they are the numbers used when the cases were posted in the NABC Daily Bulletin which just starts at 1 and ends when it ends. We plan to put about 10 cases in each Daily Bulletin and if you think about what is required to make that happen you will understand why it is only 10. I was never done with the cases until a few weeks after the tournament. Here's what has to happen: 1- Chair writes report (day or two) 2- Chair delivers report to who is in charge of getting cases in daily bulletin (that was me for dallas and albuquerque) 3- get write-up back to chair who usually reviews it with his committee (takes a day) 4- case has to be to daily bulletin editor at 8 pm the night before it is published. So, if you have a Friday appeal, the earliest it could get into the daily Bulletin is Monday. Any cases heard Thursday or later probably won't make it. After the tournament, the cases are completely renumbered and presented in the Case Book by topic, not chronology. The reason for that is (and it has happened) is someone will say "... wasn't there a tempo case like this in Miami..." so now you know where in the book to look instead of having to dig through all the cases to find what you want. I have all the cross reference numbers if you think you have need for them. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 12:32:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:32:58 +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 MAA17527 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:32:52 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp73.ac.net [205.138.54.175]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA11028 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 22:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <355BA9A6.5C13@ac.net> Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:34:14 -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: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #2 References: <199805141901.MAA04140@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > Cases 18-21 in the casebook were from the International Team Trials > in June 1997, so of course could not be reported in the Dallas NABC > (March 1997) bulletins. > > That leaves six cases (casebook numbers 7, 8, 11-14) which were > decided at Dallas NABC but evidently not reported in the bulletins. > Does anyone know where these are published, if anywhere? If nowhere, > I'll (in due time) publish the case write-ups myself on BLML. Same > for 18-21. > > Chyah: Couldn't you people do this? I have offered to do this, after all, I have all the files, but have not met with enthusiastic support. Management is not too hot on this idea. They want to sell books. > > Jay: Wouldn't it be helpful for casebook appeals case numbers to > agree with those used in the NABC bulletins? Can't the bulletins > publish *all* NABC cases? > As explained before, we would rather have an archive that is useful when we want to search other case books for similar cases. If they all stay in their proper sections, we have a better reference library. We try to put about 10 intersting cases in the Daily Bulletin each tournament. It is not practical to put all the cases in, and besides, there are people who want more in their Daily Bulletin than appeals. There were 42 in Reno and it is impossible to get quality write-ups done that fast. There are many people involved. Besides, this is not Jay's shot to call - the parameters have been defined by the Board of Directors and Alan Le Bendig is the one who calls these shots. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 12:47:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:47:00 +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 MAA17554 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:46:50 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008152; 15 May 98 2:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 03:39:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: David Stevenson - Update 4 In-Reply-To: <01bd7e57$0f793c60$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Spoke with him again last night. He is getting better >- well, beginning to complain, anyway. Says I >underplayed his 6 a.m. Sunday rush to hospital by >ambulance, in Agony. So what? - I could not find >Agony on the map but now I hear it is in Charente-Maritime. It is a plot by wicked Americans to get BLML to themselves. I met Richard Lighton, by agreement, at a Service area off a motorway near Liverpool, UK. Seemed a nice bloke! We chatted about this and that for six hours, having a bite to eat, few cups of tea, and so on. I have known Richard's brother Rodney for many years - maybe twenty. Rodney lives in Manchester, and Richard lived over here until he popped over to the States for a year about 23 years ago - and never came back! You are wondering what the point of all this is, aren't you? Well, in the middle of discussing Steve and Grattan and Herman and Vitold and Dany - and the Yankees and the Red Sox and so on - he let slip that he was American, and had been for 11 years! You see it all, of course: an American who can pass for an Englishman shares a meal with me - and twelve hours later I am taken in terrible agony by ambulance to hospital! Depositions are yet to be taken from Steve and Wally and Jon and Alan, but *we* *know*, don't we? Well, folks, it failed, better luck next time. Actually, there is another viable theory. When told I was going to recover my wife was heard to mutter something about she'd put more in next time, but I have ignored that. I really enjoyed our chat, Richard, and I would love to see you again, but I'll skip the food next time! Thanks to Grattan for providing a channel of communication, and to the number of well-wishers, and especially a really brill virtual card from Nancy. When the cats were told I was coming home they muttered something about less room in bed. It's great to feel wanted! Did I mention that I am now on the wagon for a time? -- 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 May 15 12:47:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:47:10 +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 MAA17561 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:47:02 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yaAX7-000598-00; Fri, 15 May 1998 02:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 02:39:38 +0100 To: christian.farwig@ac.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , christian.farwig@ac.com writes >>>Dealer: South > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 >S- 9 S- 764 >H- K542 H- AQJ3 >D- A982 D- KQ >C- AQT6 C- 7543 > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 >West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass >(1) Break in tempo<< > >How do you suppose to beat 4 hearts with a passed partner?! Even if you >beat it, 4 S will be cold most times. >I guess both did right - the TD protected the innocent and the AC made the >right bridge decision. >Just my 2c worth. > >Christian > Labeo: Presumably Dealer is not to pass initially on S- x. H- Q J T 9 D- x.x.x.x. C- A.K.x.x. ? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 12:50:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:50:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA17584 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:50:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008151; 15 May 98 2:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 03:22:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980510182901.006dbbd4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >David wrote: >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>++++ On a personal view I go along with this, but where partner has >>>explained the auction in a way that fits the player's actual holding the >>>player making the correction needs to be secure in the certainty >>>that the Director will accept his version of the meaning as the correct >>>one; since they have *demonstrated* a partnership disagreement the >>>prima facie evidence is that an understanding is lacking and the >>>partnership will need to overcome the possible view that they do not >>>have a true understanding to announce. ACs should be sceptical and >>>ask what the evidence is for the 'corrected' meaning - and if there is >>>nothing more than a player's bald assertion the innocent opponents >>>are entitled to the margin of doubt. ++++ Grattan +. >> What you are saying is that if you cannot demonstrate the meaning of >>the call then there is every chance you will be ruled against even >>though you know you have given a correct explanation. Fair enough. But >>the suggestion that has been put on this thread is that you should not >>describe the correct methods at all at such a time. What say you? >If the correct legal view for the TD and AC is that the fact that a player >disagrees with his partner's explanation of the meaning of a bid >constitutes a prima facie presumption that partnership understanding is >lacking, absent hard evidence to the contrary, then shouldn't this be the >correct view for the player as well? > >That would mean that if my partner offers an explanation that I don't think >is right, but I don't have hard evidence to back up my prospective >alternate explanation, I should tell the opponents, at the appropriate >time, not what I believe the agreed meaning to be, but rather that we have >no agreement, since that is, in fact, the legally appropriate prima facie >assumption. > >In other words, if I offer what I believe to be the correct information, a >committee will later decide that I in fact have no agreement and that my >explanation constituted misinformation, so I must say that I have no >agreement, to avoid giving misinformation. More than anything else it was reading this article which Grattan sneakily sent me through snail mail that decided me I had been too long in hospital! Let me take this one step at a time. >If the correct legal view for the TD and AC is that the fact that a >player disagrees with his partner's explanation of the meaning of a bid >constitutes a prima facie presumption that partnership understanding is >lacking, absent hard evidence to the contrary, .... What do you mean by hard evidence? I would guess system files, CCs and so on. Most people expect it to be written. But that is quite wrong. Let us consider a scenario. Down at the local club, George and Hilda bid as follows: Stroppy George Stroppy Hilda opp #1 opp #2 1NT 2C P 2H AP George is 5/5 in clubs and hearts, with no honours in clubs: Hilda has 3 clubs to the AK and four small hearts: in fact she is 3=4=3=3. The contract is perfect with nine top tricks and Hilda duly chalks up 110. Now So#2 gets annoyed and calls the pigs - er, sorry - requests the presence of the Tournament Director. They didn't alert 2C, he complains, in a voice that makes a shy young lady upset her soft drink six tables away. Hilda apologises, saying she did not know that you had to alert club bids that showed clubs. Why did you bid 2H? asks So#1, and Henry, two tables away, ostentatiously removes the battery from his hearing aid. Hilda is pleased to get an easy one. That nice Mr Goren says you must always bid a major if you have, she quavers. Not if you have five clubs as well, adds George helpfully, Mr Goren bids clubs _first_. The TD stops ogling Pauline's legs at the next table [regretfully] and asks George and Hilda for their CC. We don't have one, they say, proudly. We've never been asked for one before, says George. What's your defence to 1NT asks the TD. Stayman, says Hilda. No, it isn't, says George, you transfer with five. I didn't have five, says Hilda. I didn't open 1NT, says George. What do you do when your opponents bid 1NT says the TD, beginning to lose control! Bid my longest suit says Hilda. Which I did, says George, nodding sagely. What about Aspro[1], says the TD. Never take it, they both say wisely. [1] Aspro is a headache cure in England, also a variant of Astro. Ok, says the TD, no misinformation. Was he right? The Law book says "... the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary". It does not say 'hard' evidence. What is implicit in this statement is that the evidence should be 'adequate'. What is 'adequate' evidence? It is evidence that is sufficiently compelling to convince the arbiter, be he TD, AC or even NA. In the given case, the TD knew his players, and it is quite obvious that they merely bid naturally according to their lights, even if stupidly in some other people's estimation. He was convinced - as you would be - despite no CC. The evidence was 'adequate' - but not 'hard'! So what evidence is 'adequate' at various levels? In general, it is the job of the people who assess the evidence to decide whether it is 'adequate'. Of course, the SO may provide guidance: it may even regulate. If the DBF says that MI is to be presumed in the absence of a CC written in Danish, then the fact that there are two excellent CCs in English, and all the players at the table plus the TD speak excellent English, is not 'adequate' - but I would strongly advise against such a regulation! My impression is that Flt A in the ACBL probably requires clear written evidence to be 'adequate'. However, what of Flt B? Lesser games? Sometimes this list and RGB seem to suggest that in NAmerica the Laws apply only to the major games. When we discuss the Laws of the game we are doing so for the good of the game of bridge, and to get a clearer idea of those Laws for everyone, not just a small microcosm at the top. Of course, it is not unreasonable to also discuss the differences of interpretation and application across the spectrum. In Dec 97, TBW said in their editorial: "Of course, the rules and their enforcement should be uniform across all levels of competition, except for the substitution of education for penalties in the case of novices." Regrettably, this is the silliest thing that I can remember in a TBW Editorial, and I have been taking it for about 33 years, and suggests they are out of touch with much of the game. We must not make that mistake on BLML. >... then shouldn't this be the correct view for the player as well? Let's get this straight: you are asked a question about whether you have an agreement: you have an agreement: you say no. You are seriously suggesting this as ethical method of playing the game? It is time you got the bananas out of your ears and the sticks out of your hair. Ethical players don't worry about what the ruling is going to be: if they are asked whether they have an agreement, and they have an agreement, they say so. Anyway, how often do _you_ know what the ruling is going to be? Eric put the question as though he can foretell TD and AC decisions. Good: he can tell me who is going to win the Derby and the Melbourne Cup, and we can all get rich backing horses. No, Eric, in bridge you tell your oppos your agreements. That is the great bastion of the basis of agreements: so do it, and leave unethical players to worry about consequences. >That would mean that if my partner offers an explanation that I don't think >is right, but I don't have hard evidence to back up my prospective >alternate explanation, I should tell the opponents, at the appropriate >time, not what I believe the agreed meaning to be, but rather that we have >no agreement, since that is, in fact, the legally appropriate prima facie >assumption. *coff* 'legally appropriate prima facie assumption'? LAPFA? Sounds like a type of tea. C'mon Eric, let's get real, forget the legalese, and start playing bridge. Leave LAPFAs to the BLs. >In other words, if I offer what I believe to be the correct >information, a committee will later decide that I in fact have no >agreement and that my explanation constituted misinformation, .... A committee **will**? How do you know? Anyway, what does this airy-fairy event in the future have to do with anything? I play an ethical game against top English players, and assume they will do the same. If David Burn, to take as an example someone who is on the list, says he has no agreement, then [a] I know he has no agreement and [b] I am not going to test that in front of a TD: why should I? Do you think David should lie to me because of some litmus test that is never going to be made? >... so I must say that I have no agreement, to avoid giving >misinformation. No. Tell the truth, and let the BLs have their fun. The more truth- tellers and ethical players there are, the better bridge will be: let us not encourage the liars and the BLs. ----- Did I mention that I was back? -- 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 May 15 20:15:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA18536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 20:15:34 +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 UAA18530 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 20:15:27 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA20053 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 06:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 06:16:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: David Stevenson - Update 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 15 May 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >Spoke with him again last night. He is getting better > >- well, beginning to complain, anyway. Says I > >underplayed his 6 a.m. Sunday rush to hospital by > >ambulance, in Agony. So what? - I could not find > >Agony on the map but now I hear it is in Charente-Maritime. > > It is a plot by wicked Americans to get BLML to themselves. > > I met Richard Lighton, by agreement, at a Service area off a motorway > near Liverpool, UK. Seemed a nice bloke! We chatted about this and > that for six hours, having a bite to eat, few cups of tea, and so on. I > have known Richard's brother Rodney for many years - maybe twenty. > Rodney lives in Manchester, and Richard lived over here until he popped > over to the States for a year about 23 years ago - and never came back! > > You are wondering what the point of all this is, aren't you? Well, in > the middle of discussing Steve and Grattan and Herman and Vitold and > Dany - and the Yankees and the Red Sox and so on - he let slip that he > was American, and had been for 11 years! > > You see it all, of course: an American who can pass for an Englishman > shares a meal with me - and twelve hours later I am taken in terrible > agony by ambulance to hospital! Depositions are yet to be taken from > Steve and Wally and Jon and Alan, but *we* *know*, don't we? > > Well, folks, it failed, better luck next time. I deny it! I wasn't there when I did it, and the diabetes I was recently diagnosed with is NOT, repeat NOT a communicable disease! > > I really enjoyed our chat, Richard, and I would love to see you again, > but I'll skip the food next time! > I enjoyed it too, but check your car _very_ carefully before you drive off next time. > -- Richard Lighton | Cricket--a game which the English, not being a spiritual (lighton@idt.net) | people, have invented in order to give themselves some Wood-Ridge NJ | conception of eternity. USA | --Baron Mancroft From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 21:38:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 21:38:22 +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 VAA18763 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 21:38:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2020685; 15 May 98 11:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:29:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) In-Reply-To: <199805122136.RAA01253@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >"The Committee unanimously decided that it was clear from >North's initial actions that he was planning on bidding >until he got doubled and never intended to defend at >the four level." > >That has the appearance of mind-reading. An AC or TD talks to the players, asks questions, hears the answers, considers, consults and concludes. The conclusion is often their best opinion of what went on. That is not mind-reading: it is the normal way of things, and there is no need for this sort of comment. > As editor Rich >Colker commented: "Wow! What insight!" This comment seems out of line. ------------- Grattan Endicott wrote: >#### As I have said quite forcefully I believe that Double is a >logical alternative and that to choose 4S smacks of a strong >North 'protecting' a weak South. Also I think a Director can >foresee that any North action but Pass will meet with a *lot* of >strong criticism in which case a Director's desirable action is to rule >against N/S and put the onus of appealing on them; is that not the >way we teach it in the UK?#### Grattan #### No! If a TD believes he is right then he rules that way. The fact that he knows he is going to be criticised is not an adequate reason to change his ruling. ------------- Vitold wrote: >Sorry, but my personal opinion about this case is extremely >harsh: I suspect a kind of implicit agreement of N-S pair. >Especially if this pair was experienced one. > >No doubts Adam was right when asked about not N's bidding >but S's - it is a most essential for this hand. In two Adam's posts >it was underlined that the very Double from S was not serious... I don't suspect anything, and I am not going to give an opinion on the case, since BLML has insufficient facts to give a ruling. But I would _ask_ South why he doubled: it does look strange. ------------- Steve Willner wrote: >My personal opinion is that the AC's stated reasoning is dubious. We >cannot know what the player was planning, We have evidence from what players say, and we assign weight to such evidence, possibly not much if it is "self-serving", but it is always worth something. We cannot *know*, but directing decisions are based on conclusions from the evidence not absolute knowledge. > and it shouldn't matter. Why not? LAs are considered by comparing what other players would do in the same situation. Part of that situation may have been that he bid 2S deliberately intending to bid spades at the lowest level until doubled. If so then you consider what other players **who had such a game plan** would have done over 4H*. -- 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 May 15 21:47:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 21:47:41 +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 VAA18825 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 21:47:35 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2020679; 15 May 98 11:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:30:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story In-Reply-To: <35597928.4EAD7240@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >As I have said again and again and again, that is in breach of L75D2. How on earth have you the gall to write both these sentences in the same article, Herman? Are you the only one allowed to re-iterate? :) >Please don't reiterate what has been said already. -- 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 May 15 22:17:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:17:36 +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 WAA18987 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:17:29 +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 OAA12373 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:18:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <355C299E.5E4095E8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:40:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (having read other posters answers, I realise my response holds nothing new - you may skip this posting if you are in a hurry) Laurie Kelso wrote: > > Dear BLMLers > > I would appreciate (welcome) your comments about the following situation. > Are EW trying it on, or do they have a case? Both of course. They are trying something, but they might just have a case. Nothing wrong with that. Do note that souths actions are strange. If 3NT is supposed to be showing 5 spades, then why doesn't he bid 4Sp ? If there is no UI, there is no problem. Now if EW find some UI (after they too have noticed the strange goings-on), then they are certainly entitled to call the director, who should rule. What did south answer to the question : "why not 4Sp ?, why pass ? how did you know partner had forgotten ?" Barring good answers to these, the score goes back to 4Sp minus whatever! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 22:17:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:17:42 +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 WAA18993 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:17:34 +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 OAA12381 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:18:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <355C2E09.5FEF341E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:59:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35582CFB.1FE53A09@village.uunet.be> <3559c0c3.1211562@pipmail.dknet.dk> <35597928.4EAD7240@village.uunet.be> <355cc482.10263017@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, 13 May 1998 12:42:48 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >You do not agree that in David's case we should turn back +520 to -50 ? > > > >You do not agree that in my case there is no AS ? > > Yes, I agree that in this case your misexplanation has happened > to avoid an adjusted score. > > >And yet you require me to act as David does ? > > > >Whyever, why oh why ? > > Because the laws, as most of us read them, do not allow you to > give misinformation simply because you believe that you may avoid > an adjustment by doing so. > I agree with this statement. But I strongly oppose that this is the reason why I expain the way I do. I explain this way because it is the only way I can fulfil my obligations on the part of L75D2. Please remember that this is in answer to the question of a player for advice in not too unfrequent situations, without an actual case. I do not expect this advice to avoid adjustments on MI. I put this advice (and not the other one) because it is the easiest way of following as many as possible of the Laws of the Game. > By the way, I just realized that I had not given enough thought > to the end of your example auctions. Are the 5H/5N calls from > opener clearly sign-offs in the system played by responder > (Albarran responses, which I know nothing about)? If not, they > might be conventional and lead to a longer auction where the risk > of misleading opponents increase. > I was indeed presented with the problem if 5H could be a sign-off. I decided it could have been (partner holding very strong hearts where two aces and one king might be enough for six. I decided L16 urged me to stop. If 5NT would be a continuation then I think you might change the story to get the auction to 5Sp-5NT or some such. Doesn't really matter. > What I'm trying to say is that, quite apart from its being > illegal, I doubt that your way will avoid more adjustments than > it creates. As said, that is not the reason why it is the advice I intend to keep on giving to my players. Please read L75D2 again and say why it can be wrong to tell players they should at all times follow this rule : "Whatever you do, don't let your partner remark that he has made an explanation that does not suit your hand ! If this results in you giving misinformation to opponents, then you may be subjected to additional score adjustments, but you can always blame your partner's original mistake for these". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 22:44:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:44:22 +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 WAA19206 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:44:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020681; 15 May 98 11:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:03:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story In-Reply-To: <35597928.4EAD7240@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >You do not agree that in David's case we should turn back +520 to -50 ? > >You do not agree that in my case there is no AS ? > >And yet you require me to act as David does ? > >Whyever, why oh why ? The fact that your misapplication of the Laws _may_ have helped in the situation you cite does not mean that they should be assumed to help in the general case nor that they are good for the game. If you read books about systems there are always beautiful example hands which work superbly. When you actually play them all the problems appear. Similarly you have produced a clean example: it is not convincing to me that its effect is going to be the general one. You want me to give a counter-example? You open 2NT, partner bids 3C, normal Stayman, alerted under EBU regs, you have a 5-card heart suit so you bid it - but partner alerts. Oppos ask, and pd says "Shows five hearts". You *know* his explanation is wrong because you have *always* refused to play 5-card Stayman at any time with any player - and your pd does play with several others. You say nothing, because L75D2 requires you to say nothing. Now an oppo turns to you and says "So 3C was ...?"? I shall re-iterate. L75D2 refers to an explanation of 3H, *not* of 3C. L75C requires you to say 4-card Stayman. Nothing said on this mailing list has convinced me that there is any conflict. Still, having been to the HdW school, you say 5-card Stayman, "because it is to the oppo's benefit". "Ahhhh", they say, and pass. Partner now bids 3NT, you pass, and oppos lead a spade. Naturally dummy has four spades, it is the wrong lead, and the oppos take their near-bottom well. I thought it worth a gamble, says one. Have you got the point? If you hold 3=2=3=5 you will [may?] respond 3C 5-card Stayman to find a 5-3 spade fit. But if you are playing 4-card Stayman the given sequence shows four spades. "He didn't know it showed four spades" I can hear you wail. So what? The oppos had the right to know there were four spades _by your agreement_ and they were thus damaged. And what were they damaged by? You lying to them. How do you feel now? There are other examples, of course. The clearest one is where a wrong explanation is given, not corrected, and does not affect things one iota. Phew, you think, and forget the matter. Five boards later a similar position comes up, and the oppos do not bother to ask because they "know" the answer. Explain that one when it costs them! There has been a suggestion that people like me have pre-conceived notions, and should reconsider them. Well, apart from the obvious comment of making the suggestion back, I have taken the trouble to re- read and re-consider the Laws. L75D2 says nothing about explaining any call other than the one under question, and any suggestion that it does is ludicrous: if you think that kindly point the words out. However, I have a deeply held conviction, that nothing is going to shake, and that is that *anything* that suggests players should lie to each other is [a] wrong and [b] bad for the game. I have read the arguments, re-considered, and I still believe this to be the case. -- 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 May 15 22:45:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:45:45 +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 WAA19225 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 22:45:35 +1000 Received: from mercury by hermes.dur.ac.uk id (8.8.8/ for dur.ac.uk) with SMTP; Fri, 15 May 1998 13:46:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from deneb by mercury id ; Fri, 15 May 1998 13:46:05 +0100 Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:46:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: How to punish a psych(e) (Was Re: Self Explanations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suppose you are Vun v Non-Vun, and you hear an auction like: P (1H) x (2D) P (2S) ? Holding something like: AKJxxxx Kx A AQJ (Ok, so this is a little contrived- the principle is the main thing I think better examples of the same principle could be constructed) And you are playing with a rather unimaginative partner. It is pretty likely that RHO has psyched, based on D support, and maybe a subminimum opening, and there is now a risk that you partner will not work this out, and have problems interpretting the auction if it continues: x (P) P (3D) 3/4S How can you deal with this ? ASK LHO what 2S shows, and you will be told that it is natural. Then, later, if things go wrong, and when RHO shows up with a S singleton, you can claim misinformation, and becuause there is no documentation of this auction, and the agreed meaning of this 2S bid, oppo don't have a leg to stand on. Of course, if you have been misinformed, and opponents have an undisclosed agreement about the 2S bid, they gat their wrists slapped, and the score maybe adjusted. There is almost a general principle lurking here. If opponents psych in a non-documented auction, and you suspect it, by asking about the bid, you can generate a misunderstanding/misexplanation situation, where, through lack of documentation, the psycher will be accused of misexplanation (and hence usually get a bad result). I'm not very happy with this tactic, but it seems it should work. Can someone suggest why it wouldn't or how to overcome it ? cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 23:18:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:18:27 +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 XAA19338 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:18:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020683; 15 May 98 11:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:21:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: >Last hand of a 20 board swiss match, South West Pacific Teams (Australia's >premier event - table one). > >Teams 95 >All Vul K74 >Dlr North A854 > 10865 > QJ107642 - > 93 J10652 > 97 QJ1032 > Q4 A72 > AK83 > AQ8 > K6 > KJ93 > > > West North East South > - Pass Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT* All Pass > > Result: NS +600 > >At the conclusion of the auction North left the room to smoke and South >explained to the opponents that the partnership agreement was that 3NT >showed 5 spades and 4 hearts. He also confided that his partner may have >forgotten, since they had only just made this agreement prior to the >commencement of the match. > >At the end of play EW summoned the director and suggested that the 3NT bid >had been out of tempo. They maintained that it was much quicker than >North's normal very deliberate approach, especially if the conventional >treatment was a new wrinkle in the partnership armory. They argued that a >relatively rapid action for this particular player constituted >unauthorised information to South and hence the assumption that North had >forgotten the agreement became more likely to be correct. > >This hand is now four months old, but caused a lot of comment and >discussion at the time. EW are representative internationals, South has >won national titles. I was the director involved and I will post what I >ruled and the subsequent appeals committee decision in a few days. What >do you all think? Are EW trying it on, or do they have a case? I assume that the 3NT bid was quick. In that case, it is clearly UI. when pd has shown five spades and I have four then bidding 4S over 3NT is clearly an LA. Is pass suggested over 4S by the quick 3NT? Yes, players who play fancy 3NT responses always think, and South knew the possibility of forgetting: he said so. There is no question but that the pass of 3NT is illegal, and I shall be surprised if many disagree. There are two other problems. [a] What do we adjust to? [b] Why did he pass 3NT? With or without UI, North will remember his agreement once pd bids over 3NT, and probably pass whatever and pray. So I adjust to a simple 4S-4. I ask him why he passed 3NT. However, he has agreed to play this and then not bid 4S: his pd gave him UI, and a quick 3NT is clearly a statement of forgetting. Australia's premier event, table one? I'll fine South 2 VPs [ex 20, or the equivalent] for deliberate use of UI unless his answer is very convincing. It's good to be back! -- 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 May 15 23:30:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:30:31 +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 XAA19395 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:30:21 +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 JAA28888 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 09:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA14849; Fri, 15 May 1998 09:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805151330.JAA14849@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: I was surprised... Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bracketed knockouts,(A bracket). Superchart in effect. The auction: N E S W 1C(1) 2C(2) 2H(3) P 3C(4) P 3H(5) P 3NT P P P 1) polish club 2) alerted, explained as michaels (was actually natural clubs) correct explanation; East thought IC was artificial, West, who knew better, thought it wasn't. 3) meant as natural, but North explained it as forcing C raise 4) no interest in slam 5) rebid of suit, but alerted as concentration of values, looking for 3nt. result: 3NT, off 3, -300 NS The director was called, and a request for a ruling was made. The director took the board away to consult, and came back with the decision: shuffle and play it again! :-) I find this very odd...there was a legal result, but rather than try for a ruling, the powers-that-be decide to avoid the whole issue? Is this common, or even legal? Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 23:31:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:31:51 +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 XAA19417 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:31:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020684; 15 May 98 11:38 GMT Message-ID: <01lKPTACkBX1EwAl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:29:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: <9805131729.aa28474@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >It's possible, I suppose, that South also >forgot the system, but remembered it after the auction was over. If >that's the case, no adjustment would be warranted. That's not what the Law says! You may *not* choose amongst LAs .... Well, playing in a 5-4 major fit rather than NT is considered an LA in most of the world! > It's also possible >that South thought it would be easier to take 9 tricks in notrump than >10 tricks in spades; maybe he thought there might be nine running >tricks in the majors. This isn't unreasonable. It may not be unreasonable [I think it is daft myself] but it is irrelevant to the problem. You may not choose amongst LAs ... -- 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 May 15 23:34:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:34:43 +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 XAA19441 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:34:36 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA27330 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 13:35:03 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515093600.006e2548@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:36:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980511180210.007296e8@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:02 PM 5/11/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >But certainly some _might_ choose to play this way. The point remains, the >hesitation over 4S suggests an unusual degree of interest in some action >other than defending 4S undoubled. *** The hesitator's partner cannot be >allowed a successful guess as to which action to take *** (i.e., double or >sacrifice), if Pass is, as you have said, a LA. > >This is an important point, because the general theme is quite common. In a >competitive auction, one player hesitates before passing the opponents' >bid. It may not be clear what the hesitator has in mind, but it is clear >that he is considering either bidding again or doubling. Can his partner >legally exploit such a pause in deciding whether to pass the bidding out? I >certainly hope not. The heart of the debate here is the sentence I have highlighted above; you either agree with it or you don't. I don't. Let's consider a series of cases. (1) For simplicity, assume BAM scoring. I believe the contract at the other table will be 4S; I judge, without UI, that it is 50% to make, and that I have a cheap save at 5D. I can pass, for a push, or I can either double or bid 5D, either of which will win the board 50% of the time and lose it 50% of the time. My expected score for any action is therefore .5, and I'm on a complete guess. (2) This time, partner huddles. From the huddle, I know that either partner expects 4S to go down, but decided not to double in case I had a clear save, or expects 4S to make, but decided not to save in case I had a clear double. With my middling hand, I know that whichever partner expects will come about. The UI tells me that if double or save, the win or loss will become not a 50-50 proposition, but either a sure win or a sure loss. But if it's equally likely that partner was thinking of doubling or saving, it's now just 50-50, in either case, whether I've already won the board or lost it once I either double or save. My a priori statistical expectation for either action is the same .5 it was in case (1) -- equal to my expectation for passing -- and I've gained nothing from the UI. Clearly, if the UI has not changed the expected score for any possible action, in cannot have "demonstrably suggested" any one action over any other. Why should my expectation for some set of LAs be arbitrarily changed to .25 just because I have UI which doesn't affect the a priori expectation for any of them? On what basis would Mike require me to pass? (3) Suppose now that, from my hand or the preceding auction or whatever, I can tell that partner is somewhat more likely to be considering, say, saving (the position is obviously symmetrical), with probability 60%. Now my expected table score is .6 if I save, .5 if I pass, and .4 if I double. But if I save and I'm right, my score will be adjusted (as Mike would have it) to 4S making, so my expected score after the possible adjustment is .3. So I will pass, pushing the board (and Mike will be happy). But wait! Without the UI, the expected score for both pass and double was .5. With the UI, pass is .5, and double is .4. Doesn't the UI, then, "demonstrably suggest" pass over double? If I pass and they make, shouldn't my score be adjusted to 4SX making (alternatively put, if I'm trying to be actively ethical, shouldn't I double)? That would make the expectation for passing .2. Also, if I save and 4S would have made, my score will be adjusted to 4SX making, so the expectation for saving (the best action at the table) is 0. Whereas if I "bend over backwards" and double, my expectation remains at .4. This is the result we want: The counter-suggested action gives me the best expectation after a possible adjustment, and the most strongly suggested action gives me the worst. If, however, we accept Mike's position (that I "cannot be allowed a successful guess" and so should pass), then if I double my expectation (after my prospective win is adjusted to 4S passed out) is .2, vs. .3 for saving and .5 for passing. My best available action is one which has been suggested by the UI over my worst available action. Even saving, which would produce the best expected table result -- and which we all agree should not be allowed to stand if successful -- remains better than doubling, which would produce the worst expected table result. Isn't this the opposite of the result we want? The math agrees with common sense. Either the UI doesn't change the expectation for either saving or doubling relative to passing, in which case I should be free to choose any of my LAs, or it makes one more attractive while perforce making the other less attractive. If I choose the action that has been made more attractive, I am committing an infraction and should have my score adjusted, but if I choose the opposite action I am doing what the laws require, and must not be penalized just because it turned out to be the winning action despite being least favorable a priori. If the lawmakers intended that in the presence of UI I not be allowed to choose the winning action, even if that action was counter-suggested by the UI, they would have said so (and would have been quickly replaced by new lawmakers). 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 May 15 23:37:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:37:03 +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 XAA19469 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:36:56 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-227.uunet.be [194.7.13.227]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA15914 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 15:37:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <355C38CA.3880E6EA@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:44:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story 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: > > >As I have said again and again and again, that is in breach of L75D2. > > How on earth have you the gall to write both these sentences in the > same article, Herman? Are you the only one allowed to re-iterate? :) > > >Please don't reiterate what has been said already. > Touche Pussycat ! Sorry all. Let's agree to disagree. Time to go for a walk myself. Naah, too hot. 28 degrees (that's the one our American friends can turn around : 82)! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 15 23:53:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:53:39 +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 XAA19561 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 23:53:33 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA27721 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 13:54:04 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515095501.006e22d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:55:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Reno NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: <199805120620.XAA29139@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM 5/11/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Dealer: South > > S- AKQT8532 > H- 7 > D- J76 > C- 9 > >S- 9 S-764 >H- K542 H- AQJ3 >D- A982 D- KQ >C- AQT6 C- 7543 > > S- J > H- T986 > D- T543 > C- KJ82 > >West North East South (usual directions) > P > 1D 2S Dbl P > 3H 3S 4H Dbl(1) > P 4S P P > Dbl All pass > >(1) Break in tempo > >Down 300, a good save, since E-W could make game. The TD ruled that a >pass for North was not a logical alternative, and E-W appealed. The >AC, chaired by Alan LeBendig, were of the unanimous opinion that it >was clear North was planning to slow-bid the hand and never intended >to defend at the four level. So, passing the double of 4H was not a >logical alternative. The AC did not say how they were able to read >North's mind. There was nothing in the AC write-up concerning any N-S >agreement about the 2S bid. > >I think that the proper disposition of the hand would be an assigned >score of +790 for E-W, the most favorable result that was likely >(note the squeeze position). > >Most of the commentators thought the AC decision was wrong (Bobby >Wolff said "unspeakable"), but a minority agreed with it. What does >BLML think? I think that it's impossible (for me, for BLML, even for the commentators in the book) to determine the correct ruling without some knowledge of what a typical 2S bid would look like in this partnership, so my instinct is to assume that the AC, who were there and could talk to the players involved, made the correct decision, whatever it was. It's too bad that the book doesn't tell us what they asked or what they learned. If forced to take sides, I would probably guess from N's hand and S's double of 4H that 2S was intermediate, showing an offensively oriented hand with about 8 playing tricks and a good 6-card or longer suit (he's got that, all right, and it would make S's double look not quite so ridiculous). If that's true, then pass isn't an LA, and the AC's decision was 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 Sat May 16 00:21:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:21:13 +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 AAA21927 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:21:06 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-36.uunet.be [194.7.13.36]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA17961 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 16:21:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <355C4F20.4F9626DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 16:20:16 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story 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 fact that your misapplication of the Laws _may_ have helped in > the situation you cite does not mean that they should be assumed to help > in the general case nor that they are good for the game. > I agree - I give an example showing where it is better and hope this convinces you. There must be many other examples and I urge everyone to try and come up with some. David starts the ball rolling with this one : > > You open 2NT, partner bids 3C, normal Stayman, alerted under EBU regs, > you have a 5-card heart suit so you bid it - but partner alerts. Oppos > ask, and pd says "Shows five hearts". You *know* his explanation is > wrong because you have *always* refused to play 5-card Stayman at any > time with any player - and your pd does play with several others. > > You say nothing, because L75D2 requires you to say nothing. Now an > oppo turns to you and says "So 3C was ...?"? I shall re-iterate. L75D2 > refers to an explanation of 3H, *not* of 3C. L75C requires you to say > 4-card Stayman. Nothing said on this mailing list has convinced me that > there is any conflict. Still, having been to the HdW school, you say > 5-card Stayman, "because it is to the oppo's benefit". "Ahhhh", they > say, and pass. > Correct. > Partner now bids 3NT, you pass, STOP. I explain everything. > and oppos lead a spade. Why should they - they have now been correctly informed, haven't they ? > Naturally > dummy has four spades, it is the wrong lead, and the oppos take their > near-bottom well. I thought it worth a gamble, says one. > > Have you got the point? If you hold 3=2=3=5 you will [may?] respond > 3C 5-card Stayman to find a 5-3 spade fit. But if you are playing > 4-card Stayman the given sequence shows four spades. "He didn't know it > showed four spades" I can hear you wail. So what? The oppos had the > right to know there were four spades _by your agreement_ and they were > thus damaged. And what were they damaged by? You lying to them. How > do you feel now? > Since I have explained everything to them - at a correct time - they should not feel damaged by anything in the play. Please find an example where one of them considers bidding. I will agree that in such a case it is likely that there may be damage. However, I suspect the damage (of the second misexplanation) will in general be minimal then to the damage already occcuring from the first misexplanation. However, this is just a generalisation. But since we are giving general advice to players, we are allowed to find counter-examples, can't we ? > There are other examples, of course. The clearest one is where a > wrong explanation is given, not corrected, and does not affect things > one iota. Phew, you think, and forget the matter. Five boards later a > similar position comes up, and the oppos do not bother to ask because > they "know" the answer. Explain that one when it costs them! I am nowhere advocating lying to opponents and covering up. I will always correct the wrong explanation. And certainly when it is given knowing (or thought) to be wrong at the time. > > There has been a suggestion that people like me have pre-conceived > notions, and should reconsider them. Well, apart from the obvious > comment of making the suggestion back, I have taken the trouble to re- > read and re-consider the Laws. L75D2 says nothing about explaining any > call other than the one under question, and any suggestion that it does > is ludicrous: if you think that kindly point the words out. > how about : INDICATE in ANY MANNER can this be more inclusive ? > However, I have a deeply held conviction, that nothing is going to > shake, and that is that *anything* that suggests players should lie to > each other is [a] wrong and [b] bad for the game. I have read the > arguments, re-considered, and I still believe this to be the case. > Consider this : how does the player answering the second question know if he is lying or not ? He must be uncertain of his system, since partner has just explained something else. Sometimes a player is unsure if a bid has meaning A or B. He can answer: I think it is A but it might be B; I think it is A; It is A; If it turns out to be B, do you direct in any other manner about the misinformation ? Are you more lenient towards the first one ? Surely not. Do you award penalties to the third one ? I hope not. Do you call this person an unethical lier ? Certainly not. In our examples we have always assumed the player to be "certain" his partner had it wrong. No-one is ever certain. If the player is 99% certain he has made the initial mistake, then he shall answer "asking for Aces". If he is 70% certain his partner was correct he should do the same. If he is 70% he is right, would you punish him for answering what he thinks is the 30% option. And even if he thinks he is 99% certain that what he says is not the system, do you call him an unethical lier ? Where would you draw the line, David ? 50% - 70% - 90% ? Why not simply allow him to answer according to what he knows to be his partner's perception of the system ? After all, isn't that the true meaning of the call - what partner intended ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 00:42:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:42:57 +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 AAA22049 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:42:50 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA28887 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:43:22 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515104419.006ecf9c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:44:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case In-Reply-To: <35598BF2.1ACA@uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <01bd7e57$0f793c60$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:02 PM 5/13/98 +0100, bley wrote: >Last weekend I had the following case in a teams event >(screens, N and E at one side): > > S Kxxx > H 9 > D KJxxxx > C xx >S Ax S QJ9xx >H AKJ7xx H xx >D AQx D xx >C Axx C QJxx > S xx > H Q108xx > D 10x > C K10xx > >W N E S > P P P >1C(1) 1NT(2)P 2D(3) >P P 2S P >3NT(4)P P P > >1C 16 or more ("Precision") >1NT any 2-suiter acc. to N and the CC (expl. by S as BAL with >15-18!!!!!!) >2D NAT (system: If partner has the minors, I want to play 2D not 2C); >explained as a transfer by S (to W) >3NT immediately after the 3NT bid, S said that he made a silly (...) >mistake. >(no loud discussion by S or W) > >The play: >H-Lead >CA, Cx, >D10 by S, ducked 2nd D.... 3NT -3 > >W complained that he got the wrong inf (1NT =15-18). He played on the >assumption, that N has both minors. He wouldnt have done that with the >correct explanation (he can play on spades instead and some sort of >endplay will help him in fulfilling the contract). >If W would have got the correct explanation he would have bid 2H. then >there would be no H-lead > >What do you think Although I'm less inclined than most to make such rulings, I think this is clearly a case where West should have been expected to "protect himself". You don't need to be an expert to realize just how unlikely it is that the opponents really have an agreement that 1NT by a hand that passed originally shows 16-18 balanced. West should know that he has not been given a correct explanation, and should pursue the matter further. What was West thinking?... (a) If he knew that the explanation was wrong but chose to accept it anyhow in anticipation of saving his potential bad score in committee, I have no sympathy; he acted on what he knew to be misinformation at the time, and therefore was not misled, and thus not damaged, by it. (b) If he know that the explanation was wrong but chose, rather than seeking clarification, to mis-assume that 1NT was for the minors, he is acting on his own assumption at his own risk. The opponents didn't tell him it was for the minors; he misled himself. (c) If he genuinely thought that the explanation was correct, and that North really held 16-18 balanced, then he is seeking protection for having forgotten the auction. The laws offer no protection for forgetting the auction, notwithstanding the fact that South obviously did so as well. Result stands. 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 May 16 00:54:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:54:25 +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 AAA22102 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:54:19 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA29082 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:54:50 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515105548.006ed458@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:55:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: <199805132234.PAA09568@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:32 PM 5/13/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >The "25% rule," a guideline that was in force pre-1992, said you >could not take an action suggested by UI if as many as one in four >comparable players in an identical position would choose such an >action. In 1992 the guideline was changed (by the National Laws >Commission, not the ACBL) to define a "logical alternative as "an >action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a >vacuuum." Just FTR, the National Laws Commission *is* the ACBL. 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 May 16 01:25:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 01:25:46 +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 BAA22250 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 01:25:39 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA29766 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 15:26:09 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515112707.006d4628@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:27:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:56 AM 5/14/98 +1000, Laurie wrote: >Last hand of a 20 board swiss match, South West Pacific Teams (Australia's >premier event - table one). > >Teams 95 >All Vul K74 >Dlr North A854 > 10865 > QJ107642 - > 93 J10652 > 97 QJ1032 > Q4 A72 > AK83 > AQ8 > K6 > KJ93 > > > West North East South > - Pass Pass 2NT > Pass 3NT* All Pass > > Result: NS +600 > >At the conclusion of the auction North left the room to smoke and South >explained to the opponents that the partnership agreement was that 3NT >showed 5 spades and 4 hearts. He also confided that his partner may have >forgotten, since they had only just made this agreement prior to the >commencement of the match. > >At the end of play EW summoned the director and suggested that the 3NT bid >had been out of tempo. They maintained that it was much quicker than >North's normal very deliberate approach, especially if the conventional >treatment was a new wrinkle in the partnership armory. They argued that a >relatively rapid action for this particular player constituted >unauthorised information to South and hence the assumption that North had >forgotten the agreement became more likely to be correct. > >This hand is now four months old, but caused a lot of comment and >discussion at the time. EW are representative internationals, South has >won national titles. I was the director involved and I will post what I >ruled and the subsequent appeals committee decision in a few days. What >do you all think? Are EW trying it on, or do they have a case? They have a case. I don't know whether, after hearing it, I'd decide in their favor or not, but on the facts given I would surely be opposed to finding their protest frivolous. 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 May 16 01:58:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 01:58:26 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA22387 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 01:58:19 +1000 Received: from default (client1275.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.117]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA30534; Fri, 15 May 1998 16:58:57 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 16:59:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd801a$63c064a0$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 : +++ Interrupted during my last communication to J M-D P I managed to despatch a fractured statement. My argument was to be that *without South's double* the normal action by an able North would be to double; 4S in that position would be unilateral and suggest protection of a weak player by a strong. So double by South ought to say 'no matter what, I do not want to hear 4S from you' and North with a top quality suit has no reason to run away from it. ++Grattan++ -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 14 May 1998 01:53 Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 >In article <199805132349.TAA08439@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >>Jay: if you are reading this, could you make sure that future writeups >>of hesitation cases include the committee's judgment about how long the >>hesitation was? That is an essential point in the decision, and it >>ought to be stated. (In ordinary auctions, where no hesitation is >>expected, "longer than a couple of seconds" will do; whether it was 2 >>or 20 s won't matter. But in a case like this, the difference between >>3-5 s and 20 s is enormous.) > >This leads to an interesting question. As far as I am concerned, *any* >break in tempo is adequate for UI purposes. I'm personally sensitive to >tempo changes of less than 1 second by my partner (who fortunately very >seldom does break tempo) and these would be well below any perceived >threshold by the opponents. I don't have a problem, I just tell oppo >partner broke tempo and leave it at that. However the length of the >hesitation is not IMO really relevant. A break in tempo suffices. Maybe >I'm too draconian here - comments please. > >The most notable occasion was pard sitting over KJxxx in dummy with AQx >won the Ace over the Jack getting declarer to go down in some contract >the whole room made. On this occasion (playing a card) I guess he was >less than 1/4 second outside tempo - but I *knew* what he'd done. >Fortunately I had a clear defensive line and the UI about the Q was >irrelevant. In this position one can't say anything till the hand is >over anyway. Do any other regular partnerships have similar problems? > > >-- >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 May 16 02:11:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 02:11:26 +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 CAA22580 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 02:11:19 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA00810 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 16:11:50 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515121248.006e5cc0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:12:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 In-Reply-To: References: <199805132349.TAA08439@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:18 AM 5/14/98 +0100, John wrote: >This leads to an interesting question. As far as I am concerned, *any* >break in tempo is adequate for UI purposes. I'm personally sensitive to >tempo changes of less than 1 second by my partner (who fortunately very >seldom does break tempo) and these would be well below any perceived >threshold by the opponents. I don't have a problem, I just tell oppo >partner broke tempo and leave it at that. However the length of the >hesitation is not IMO really relevant. A break in tempo suffices. Maybe >I'm too draconian here - comments please. > >The most notable occasion was pard sitting over KJxxx in dummy with AQx >won the Ace over the Jack getting declarer to go down in some contract >the whole room made. On this occasion (playing a card) I guess he was >less than 1/4 second outside tempo - but I *knew* what he'd done. >Fortunately I had a clear defensive line and the UI about the Q was >irrelevant. In this position one can't say anything till the hand is >over anyway. Do any other regular partnerships have similar problems? This is why trying to adjudicate alleged breaks in tempo is so difficult and frustrating. Once we agree, as it seems clear we must, that "normal tempo" is different from one player to another (or one situation to another even for the same player), we should recognize that the variance in the time taken to act is just as variable as the mean. What may consitute a tempo break for player A may not for player B, even though both take the same amount of time on average. John's partner must be Superman. If we take "I *knew*" to mean 99% statistical confidence, then the standard deviation of his time to act would be no more than about .08 of a second, which is close to unbelievable. That tempo would clearly appear to a casual observer (not to mention to a TD or AC trying to adjudicate an alleged tempo break) to be absolutely uniform. Perhaps this is getting silly, but... If this guy realizes that his tempo is so close to absolutely uniform that John (or, presumably, any other regular partner) can detect UI-communicating tempo breaks that would never be perceived by an opponent or TD, shouldn't he (being "actively ethical") take whatever steps are necessary to avoid passing UI in this manner? But, for him, wouldn't that mean going out of his way to *increase* the variance in his tempo so that these effectively imperceptible variations are no longer meaningful? And doesn't that directly contravene L73D1? 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 May 16 02:19:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 02:19:48 +1000 Received: from krypton.tip.nl (krypton.tip.nl [195.18.64.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22623 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 02:19:42 +1000 Received: from marian by krypton.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0yaNGZ-0014HzC; Fri, 15 May 1998 18:23:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980515181748.00882ae0@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t701321@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 18:17:48 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: I was surprised... In-Reply-To: <199805151330.JAA14849@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:30 AM 15-05-98 -0400, you wrote: >Bracketed knockouts,(A bracket). Superchart in effect. >The auction: > N E S W > 1C(1) 2C(2) 2H(3) P > 3C(4) P 3H(5) P > 3NT P P P > >1) polish club >2) alerted, explained as michaels (was actually natural clubs) > correct explanation; East thought IC was artificial, West, > who knew better, thought it wasn't. >3) meant as natural, but North explained it as forcing C raise >4) no interest in slam >5) rebid of suit, but alerted as concentration of values, looking > for 3nt. > >result: 3NT, off 3, -300 NS >The director was called, and a request for a ruling was made. >The director took the board away to consult, and came back >with the decision: shuffle and play it again! :-) >I find this very odd...there was a legal result, but rather than >try for a ruling, the powers-that-be decide to avoid the whole >issue? Is this common, or even legal? > Tony (aka ac342) > > > >*** I hope this wont and never will be common. In practice i think it is illegal too. Perhaps you should complain to the SO AND your NCBO. I hope this TD will never be able to rule again on official tournaments. regards, anton witzen Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 04:15:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:15:09 +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 EAA23013 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:15:01 +1000 Received: from netstation ([12.68.96.174]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA12792 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 18:15:11 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980515141233.00b16100@bridgeworld.com> X-Sender: tbw@bridgeworld.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:12:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: The Bridge World Subject: Draft of Bridge World Editorial Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 15 May 98. Below, a draft of a proposed Editorial for The Bridge World. Comments and constructive criticism through e-mail (no attachments please) may be sent to JeffLaws1@bridgeworld.com Jeff Rubens The Bridge World ^^^ Make of our hands, one hand; Make of our hearts, one heart. "One Hand, One Heart" --West Side Story Simpler is Better Throughout the history of contract bridge (and, to a lesser extent, even before that) two great questions have occupied the thoughts of bridge theoreticians: What should the Laws be? and What methods are superior? In both areas, those who have striven to improve the game have a good record. The Laws have surrounded a concept that produces one of the world's most fascinating activities with equity-preserving adjustments, and their global standardization has made bridge truly universal. Methods have continually evolved in the direction of improved technique while maintaining sufficient uniformity to enable players coming from different geographical areas or following different philosophies to sit at the same table. A prime motivation behind many of the beneficial adjustments to both Laws and methods has been the desire to do things better. When a specific instance demonstrates a rule of the game or a partnership agreement to be inadequate, it is natural to seek an improvement. Here, an important distinction should be drawn. To propose or adopt a new bidding or defense agreement requires only a belief that it might or will lead to improved results. In contrast, to propose or adopt a change in the Laws requires not only the conviction that the new will be superior to the old but also the judgment that the amount of improvement is worth the disruption. Rules take on an inertia of familiarity. The longer any particular Law has held sway, the greater the vested interest of all bridge players in its preservation, and the more important any contemplated change must be for ruling authority wisely to grant its elevation. Because of the importance of preserving the game as players have come to know it, some possible rule changes that clearly would have been sensible at earlier stages of the development of bridge are doubtful at this late date. For example, The Bridge World continually receives from thoughtful readers the eminently sensible suggestion that the duplicate-bridge bonus for a vulnerable part-score should be raised from 50 to 100. This would make for a better game and also bring duplicate closer to the rubber-bridge model. Indeed, if it were, say, 1938, when contract bridge was only about a dozen years old, and we were discussing how bridge should be in 1939, we would endorse that idea. However, if asked to vote whether bridge should be that way in 1999, we'd vote "no," not because the change wouldn't be an improvement but because the amount of gain would not justify wiping out the accumulated experience of legions of matchpoint players who are used to attaching specific values to particular numbers in the part-score range. Serious thinkers who spend a great deal of time pondering the Laws are well aware of the importance of avoiding such disruption. We have introduced that aspect of Laws adjustment at great length to emphasize that when a leading theorist proposes a significant change in the rules that suggestion is not being made lightly, and not without a very large gain in view. In that context, we invite you to evaluate the following proposal, from one of the world's leading player-writer-teachers. Adjust the Rubber Bonus TO THE EDITOR: It is important for beginners to appreciate the value of bidding and making games. To score these only at the end of the rubber often makes the reward of 500 or 700 distant from the actual achievement, a pedagogical weakness. Therefore, in my beginners' classes, we score game bonuses at once: game 1, 350 bonus; game 2, 350 bonus; game 3: 500 bonus. All full-rubber eventual outcomes are identical to rubber-bridge scoring, but the benefit of bidding games is seen instantly. Thus, instead of being a wispy theoretical concept, the value of game is a tangible asset. This enhances the instructor's ability not only to quantify the aims of constructive bidding but also to discuss sacrifices. At the end of the beginners' course, I explain that once players have become experienced they tend not to bother with the 350 for games 1 and 2 but to wait until the rubber is over to add 700 or 500, to save themselves a little arithmetic. Unfortunately, under the present Laws, the bonus for a game in an unfinished rubber is not 350 but 300. I have to explain that to students as an anomaly. If that bonus were 350, half of the 700 for winning a two-game rubber, that would correspond to the superior method of teaching direct bonuses for games bid and made. But there is a better way altogether. It is a defect in the current set-up that when students move out of class, or out of rubber bridge into duplicate, they must learn a new set of numbers, numbers that do not match their experience if they have been brought up on the 700 and 500 bonuses. It would be much easier for teachers, players, beginners, and the promotion of the game if the two sets of scoring numbers were more closely aligned. A dramatic improvement in this area would be achieved if the bonus for winning a rubber by two games to none were effectively 800 instead of 700. Then, all game bonuses could be scored immediately. Beginners could be taught: nonvulnerable game = 300, vulnerable game = 500; period. Far superior instruction methods. No fussing with a special bonus in an unfinished rubber. No change in the transition to duplicate. Except for tradition and engrained habit, the 100-point addition to two-game rubbers is not an enormous change. The benefits to teachers and to the enhancement of the game itself will far more than justify the temporary disruption it will cause. RON KLINGER Northbridge, Australia Another powerful reason for making that change is four-deal bridge. The newer variant has gained worldwide popularity; in America, it has virtually supplanted old-fashioned rubber games. With its many advantages and only tradition on the other side, four-deal bridge will at some point, perhaps soon, become the de facto global standard. Klinger's suggestion will ease the transition, and will make unimportant which version a player happened to learn first. Flashback The Bridge World has long been in favor of rule simplifications that do not damage the essential structure of the game. Our prime reason is that bridge is a diffiuclt game to start to play and to enjoy. Anything that harmlessly makes those early steps less steep, anything that even makes them appear more gentle, could be a major force for promoting bridge and for attracting new players. Here's how the Editor put the case in the October, 1933, issue--yes, you read that right; we've been banging this particular drum for more than 65 years: "Another important reason for the possibility that we are witnessing the beginning of the decline of bridge is the excessive complication of the scoring [which requires a special lesson]. . . . Our scoring is extremely complicated. This is due, no doubt, to the intricacies of the game, but it seems to me that the lawmakers might have mingled discretion, common sense and simplicity with their erudition and love of complicated mathematical problems. . . . Of what use in the intelligence of a lawmaker to the poor dub at the bridge table? The man lost in a wood, even though the wood be a tiny one, knows nothing of the green fields or the straight road that may lie just beyond. "There are two or three million eager recruits in America yearning to taste the widely advertised fruit of bridge, but after taking one bite many of them find it bitter and most indigestible. So back they go to rummy, hearts or a little fight with [their mate]. The history of all card games shows that a game with very complicated scoring cannot long survive. . . . The next time the scoring is revised, it must be simple or goodbye to bridge so far as the masses are concerned." If you are the sort who dismisses anything that happened earlier than the day before yesterday as ancient history, think on this: No one, before or since, has ever been able to promote bridge to even a small fraction of the degree achieved by Ely Culbertson. His 1933 plea, based on the psychololgy of a potential new bridge player, is as relevant today as it was then. Klinger's proposal, excellent in its own right, is exactly the sort of move that E.C. would have approved. We add our endorsement, and predict that the benefits will enormously outweigh the initial nuisance. Eliminate Honor Bonuses We have long thought that honor bonuses should be scrapped. For one thing, these bonuses add a great deal of complexity to the scoring table plus a little bloating to the rule book in exchange for a very limited gain in the direction of making the game more interesting by adding a dimension. Additionally, awarding points for honors is a poor rule, a throwback to the days when many card games were more like lotteries than intellectual endeavors, a way to rub more deeply in the mud the noses of those who had the misfortune to have been dealt the inferior cards. Doing away with honor bonuses is one of those sensible suggestions that we felt it was inappropriate to offer because the amount of gain might not counterbalance the negative aspects of overturning decades of tradition. However, if Klinger's suggestion to score all game bonuses immediately is adopted, the simultaneous elimination of honor bonuses becomes enhanced to a point at which it is a big net winner, negatives included: (1) It will make the game better. (2) It will further the simplification of instruction that Klinger and other teachers crave--another thing you don't have to know to get started playing bridge; another thing a student won't look foolish not knowing when playing outside class; another thing that isn't different between rubber and duplicate; another paragraph that doesn't add to the ostensible complexity of bridge from the perspective of its scoring table. (3) It will counter a potential theoretical objection to Klinger's scoring change: Adding 100 points to the rubber bonus of roughly half the rubbers somewhat increases scoring; removing the occasional 100 or 150 points scored for honors pulls back somewhat in the opposite direction. (4) It will move rubber and duplicate bridge close enough together to enable a major change in the appearance of bridge as presented to newcomers. Make of Our Games . . . The need to describe duplicate bridge, beyond its mechanics, in such detail to a rubber-bridge player, and the publication of separate law books, one for rubber and one for duplicate, create a powerful impression that bridge is essentially two different games. To be sure, there must be some nonuniformities based on different logistic arrangements, such as variations engendered by the presence or absence of an independent director. Still, we should strive mightily to make the differences between rubber and duplicate as small as we can, negligible wherever possible. And whatever differences there must be should be sublimated in a context that makes it appear that there is one game, with only minor stress placed on variations that accompany different physical arrangements. There must be only one set of Laws. Yes, this will mean some substantial ironing, to smooth the differences between the two legal codes wherever possible and to agree on language and format where there must be bumps. The lawgivers should not mind this additional task, because it will be a one-time expenditure of effort; afterwards, the overall Laws workload should be at most slightly more than half its former size. Having done our best to reduce the differences between rubber and duplicate, we should then take pains to foster the impression that they are minor; that, in the manner of ground rules that vary a bit from stadium to stadium, they will not often have a significant impact on the actual course of a session; that there is very little one needs to know about them in order to play under any format. If we want our favorite activity to achieve the level of popularity and respect we know it deserves, we should all work to make it appear that there are not two different games; rather, there is just bridge, the one and only, the greatest game ever. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 04:27:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:27:34 +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 EAA23085 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:27:27 +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 OAA02326 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15834; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:28:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:28:12 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805151828.OAA15834@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > for him, wouldn't that mean going out of his way to *increase* the variance > in his tempo so that these effectively imperceptible variations are no > longer meaningful? And doesn't that directly contravene L73D1? I read L73D1 as recommending that the probability distribution of delay times be independent of one's hand and also that the variance of the delay times be reasonably small. The former is all that is necessary to avoid transmitting information. The latter avoids the appearance of impropriety and also avoids annoying the other people at the table. So, yes, John's partner should either put in more variance, or perhaps better, act a little more slowly every time so the "odd" plays are made in the same tempo as the normal plays. Even at best, though, regular partners will mostly be able to read each other's tempo better than will their opponents. I don't know any technical solution except to play behind screens. The real-life solution is to play in games where people abide by their ethical responsibilities. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 04:36:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:36:47 +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 EAA23120 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:36:41 +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 LAA29909 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 15 May 1998 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA07830; Fri, 15 May 1998 11:40:01 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:40:01 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199805151840.LAA07830@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Draft of Bridge World Editorial Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Rubens wrote of Ron Klinger's suggestion: > A dramatic improvement > in this area would be achieved if the bonus for winning a rubber by > two games to none were effectively 800 instead of 700. Then, all game > bonuses could be scored immediately. Beginners could be taught: nonvulnerable > game = 300, vulnerable game = 500; period. Far superior instruction > methods. No fussing with a special bonus in an unfinished rubber. > No change in the transition to duplicate. This is a great idea. It'll simplify teaching. It'll make the rubber->duplicate transition simpler. It'll make the game somewhat more intuitive to the beginner. It'll make teaching scoring and scoring in general easier. The downside is that it might make sacrificing at favorably vulnerability at rubber bridge more attractive. I don't play enough rubber to know if this is an issue. Does anyone here? --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 May 16 04:56:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:56:30 +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 EAA23192 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 04:56:22 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa16470; 15 May 98 11:56 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 May 1998 11:29:22 PDT." <01lKPTACkBX1EwAl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:56:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805151156.aa16470@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >It's possible, I suppose, that South also > >forgot the system, but remembered it after the auction was over. If > >that's the case, no adjustment would be warranted. > > That's not what the Law says! You may *not* choose amongst LAs .... > Well, playing in a 5-4 major fit rather than NT is considered an LA in > most of the world! > > > It's also possible > >that South thought it would be easier to take 9 tricks in notrump than > >10 tricks in spades; maybe he thought there might be nine running > >tricks in the majors. This isn't unreasonable. > > It may not be unreasonable [I think it is daft myself] but it is > irrelevant to the problem. You may not choose amongst LAs ... Of course, you're right, if we're already agreed going in that there was UI. But that wasn't my point. I was trying to address the following question: Suppose we're not yet certain that there was UI; can we use South's strange pass as evidence that there *must* have been some use of UI? I think it's possible to argue this way, since South's pass is *so* odd, but I was trying to provide counterarguments, i.e. to show how South might have passed even if using screens. (Others have brought up the possibility that South could be catering to partner's possible forgetfulness.) So far, the majority of BLML seems to think that North's quick bid is UI that suggests North forgot the system, but I'm having trouble swallowing this. N-S said they discussed this convention before the session, i.e. 3NT shows 5=4 in the majors. So suppose North had actually picked up a hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts, and then heard South open 2NT; looking at North'shand pattern, isn't it conceivable that a light bulb might go on, and North would remember, "Oh, yes, we discussed this exact situation before the session! I know exactly what to do!!!" and bid 3NT quickly, happy that he actually remembered a convention. This is why it's not at all clear to me that a quick 3NT bid suggests that North forgot the system. Frankly, I don't think that *any* variations in tempo can clearly suggest that a player forgot his system. There are other mannerisms that would suggest a misbid (once, for example, partner doubled a 2C opening, I alerted, and partner made an "Oops" face), but I just don't see how tempo by itself could suggest this. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 06:46:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 06:46:04 +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 GAA23526 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 06:45:57 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-082.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.87]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA03350 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 13:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <355B5CB9.7EA@lightspeed.net> Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:06:01 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? References: <9805151156.aa16470@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > >It's possible, I suppose, that South also > > >forgot the system, but remembered it after the auction was over. If > > >that's the case, no adjustment would be warranted. > > > > That's not what the Law says! You may *not* choose amongst LAs .... > > Well, playing in a 5-4 major fit rather than NT is considered an LA in > > most of the world! > > > > > It's also possible > > >that South thought it would be easier to take 9 tricks in notrump than > > >10 tricks in spades; maybe he thought there might be nine running > > >tricks in the majors. This isn't unreasonable. > > > > It may not be unreasonable [I think it is daft myself] but it is > > irrelevant to the problem. You may not choose amongst LAs ... > > Of course, you're right, if we're already agreed going in that there > was UI. But that wasn't my point. I was trying to address the > following question: Suppose we're not yet certain that there was UI; > can we use South's strange pass as evidence that there *must* have > been some use of UI? I think it's possible to argue this way, since > South's pass is *so* odd, but I was trying to provide > counterarguments, i.e. to show how South might have passed even if > using screens. (Others have brought up the possibility that South > could be catering to partner's possible forgetfulness.) > > So far, the majority of BLML seems to think that North's quick bid is > UI that suggests North forgot the system, but I'm having trouble > swallowing this. N-S said they discussed this convention before the > session, i.e. 3NT shows 5=4 in the majors. So suppose North had > actually picked up a hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts, and then heard > South open 2NT; looking at North'shand pattern, isn't it conceivable > that a light bulb might go on, and North would remember, "Oh, yes, we > discussed this exact situation before the session! I know exactly > what to do!!!" and bid 3NT quickly, happy that he actually remembered > a convention. This is why it's not at all clear to me that a quick > 3NT bid suggests that North forgot the system. Frankly, I don't think > that *any* variations in tempo can clearly suggest that a player > forgot his system. There are other mannerisms that would suggest a > misbid (once, for example, partner doubled a 2C opening, I alerted, > and partner made an "Oops" face), but I just don't see how tempo by > itself could suggest this. > > -- Adam Nah, I'm not buying Adam's argument. There are many situations in which fast bidding shows something different than slow bidding. Also, there are many situations where familiar partnerships can read each other. Haven't we all seen the fast 4NT be Blackwood and the slow 4NT be something else? How about the fast bid setting the contract and the slow one being a cue-bid? Or the fast 3NT setting the contract and the slow 3NT asking "Are you really 6-5, or have you misbid?" I've seen them all. Tempo is often a factor in complicated auctions. A new system, or a fancy relay system over 2NT (which I played with my late partner), often requires some thought. Yes, 3NT shows 5-4 in spades and hearts, but do I have the right values? If I have 12 points, is 3NT forcing? Should I have more? Should I have less? What about this void? What if he bids 4D over 3NT, what will that mean? Will my idiot partner remember this? Do I remember this? Then: "3NT." When I played the relay, both of us thought pretty quickly, and there was no perceptible tempo variation (at least, not by my partner), but I think that's very rare. Additionally, we didn't have any truly complicated hands come up; I assume that we would have broken tempo to consider follow-ups if they did. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 06:55:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 06:55:39 +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 GAA23560 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 06:55:32 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA05784 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 20:56:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515165702.006dccf8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 16:57:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980510182901.006dbbd4@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:22 AM 5/15/98 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>David wrote: >>>Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>>>++++ On a personal view I go along with this, but where partner has >>>>explained the auction in a way that fits the player's actual holding the >>>>player making the correction needs to be secure in the certainty >>>>that the Director will accept his version of the meaning as the correct >>>>one; since they have *demonstrated* a partnership disagreement the >>>>prima facie evidence is that an understanding is lacking and the >>>>partnership will need to overcome the possible view that they do not >>>>have a true understanding to announce. ACs should be sceptical and >>>>ask what the evidence is for the 'corrected' meaning - and if there is >>>>nothing more than a player's bald assertion the innocent opponents >>>>are entitled to the margin of doubt. ++++ Grattan +. > >>> What you are saying is that if you cannot demonstrate the meaning of >>>the call then there is every chance you will be ruled against even >>>though you know you have given a correct explanation. Fair enough. But >>>the suggestion that has been put on this thread is that you should not >>>describe the correct methods at all at such a time. What say you? > > Let me take this one step at a time. > >>If the correct legal view for the TD and AC is that the fact that a >>player disagrees with his partner's explanation of the meaning of a bid >>constitutes a prima facie presumption that partnership understanding is >>lacking, absent hard evidence to the contrary, .... > > What do you mean by hard evidence? I would guess system files, CCs >and so on. Most people expect it to be written. But that is quite >wrong. Let us consider a scenario. [scenario snipped] > The Law book says "... the Director is to presume Mistaken >Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the >contrary". It does not say 'hard' evidence. What is implicit in this >statement is that the evidence should be 'adequate'. What is 'adequate' >evidence? It is evidence that is sufficiently compelling to convince >the arbiter, be he TD, AC or even NA. > > In the given case, the TD knew his players, and it is quite obvious >that they merely bid naturally according to their lights, even if >stupidly in some other people's estimation. He was convinced - as you >would be - despite no CC. The evidence was 'adequate' - but not 'hard'! > > So what evidence is 'adequate' at various levels? In general, it is >the job of the people who assess the evidence to decide whether it is >'adequate'. Of course, the SO may provide guidance: it may even >regulate. If the DBF says that MI is to be presumed in the absence of a >CC written in Danish, then the fact that there are two excellent CCs in >English, and all the players at the table plus the TD speak excellent >English, is not 'adequate' - but I would strongly advise against such a >regulation! I intended "hard evidence" to mean whatever Grattan meant by evidence "the player making the correction needs to be secure in the certainty that the Director will accept his version of the meaning as the correct one". David is quite right that this may require a very fine judgment call, but that doesn't affect whether or not it is one that the player should attempt to make. >>... then shouldn't this be the correct view for the player as well? > > Let's get this straight: you are asked a question about whether you >have an agreement: you have an agreement: you say no. You are seriously >suggesting this as ethical method of playing the game? Not at all. I am suggesting, though, that *if* the TD and AC must rule on the basis that, given that I have "nothing more than a bald assertion" to support my opinion as to what our agreement is, I have no agreement, then I have no agreement, that is the truth as the rules define it, and I should tell my opponents the truth. I am simply saying that my conclusion follows from Grattan's premise; in actuality, I accept neither. > It is time you got the bananas out of your ears and the sticks out of >your hair. Ethical players don't worry about what the ruling is going >to be: if they are asked whether they have an agreement, and they have >an agreement, they say so. But if a TD and an AC will decide, on the same *facts* available to the player, that he has no agreement, then he has no agreement. He may have *thought* he had an agreement when he made his call, but partner's action has now established that he does not. In real life, of course, I don't tell the opponents that I have no agreement; I agree with David that that would be ethically questionable at best, downright unethical at worst. But I don't tell them that I do have an agreement either; as far as I know that may be an outright lie. I say, "At the time I made the call I thought our agreement was..." (that's the truth) and let the authorities sort it out. > Anyway, how often do _you_ know what the ruling is going to be? Eric >put the question as though he can foretell TD and AC decisions. Good: >he can tell me who is going to win the Derby and the Melbourne Cup, and >we can all get rich backing horses. I can at least foretell that if Grattan is the TD, and if I have nothing other than my own unsupported assertion to back up my understanding of my agreement, he will rule that I "do not have a true understanding". If I tell my opponents that I do, then one of us (either Grattan or me) must be wrong. > No, Eric, in bridge you tell your oppos your agreements. That is the >great bastion of the basis of agreements: so do it, and leave unethical >players to worry about consequences. To be ethical, I tell the opponents what I thought my agreements were at the time (before partner's explanation demonstrated otherwise), but I am not so bold (no matter what I think reality to be) as to assert that I must be right and partner, the TD, the AC and Grattan all must be wrong because they disagree with me. >>That would mean that if my partner offers an explanation that I don't think >>is right, but I don't have hard evidence to back up my prospective >>alternate explanation, I should tell the opponents, at the appropriate >>time, not what I believe the agreed meaning to be, but rather that we have >>no agreement, since that is, in fact, the legally appropriate prima facie >>assumption. > > *coff* 'legally appropriate prima facie assumption'? LAPFA? Sounds >like a type of tea. C'mon Eric, let's get real, forget the legalese, >and start playing bridge. Leave LAPFAs to the BLs. > >>In other words, if I offer what I believe to be the correct >>information, a committee will later decide that I in fact have no >>agreement and that my explanation constituted misinformation, .... > > A committee **will**? How do you know? Anyway, what does this >airy-fairy event in the future have to do with anything? > > I play an ethical game against top English players, and assume they >will do the same. If David Burn, to take as an example someone who is >on the list, says he has no agreement, then [a] I know he has no >agreement and [b] I am not going to test that in front of a TD: why >should I? Do you think David should lie to me because of some litmus >test that is never going to be made? I did start that passage with "That would mean...". What I said was that if this (or anything) is an LAPFA for a TD or an AC, then it would be one for me as well. I don't believe it is either. >>... so I must say that I have no agreement, to avoid giving >>misinformation. > > No. Tell the truth, and let the BLs have their fun. The more truth- >tellers and ethical players there are, the better bridge will be: let us >not encourage the liars and the BLs. But to say that I have such-and-such agreement would not be the truth. I see the truth as, I had thought I had that agreement, but, given what has transpired, I now no longer think that I was right; I believe that the opponents are entitled to know this. But if I accept Grattan's argument, then the truth is that I had thought that I had that agreement, but, given what has transpired, I now *know* that I was wrong. And my opponents are not entitled to the knowledge that I acted earlier based on some imagined agreement that I now know that I do not have. The best I can do for my opponents is to offer them my alternative explanation alongside my partner's, making it clear that the truth could be any of (1) I am right, (2) partner is right, or (3) neither of us is right. To assert that I *know* which of these three possible "truths" is the "true truth" would be misleading. Assuming, of course, that the regulators haven't made it clear in advance that "the truth" in these cases is always (3). 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 May 16 07:13:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:13:19 +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 HAA23596 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:13:13 +1000 Received: from mike (ip143.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.143]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA26061 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 17:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980515171322.0073a210@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:13:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980515093600.006e2548@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980511180210.007296e8@pop.mindspring.com> <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The auction has proceded: LHO P RHO You 1C 3D 3S 4D 4S P P ? While you are contemplating your choices, partner blurts out "For Pete's sake, you can't pass here!" Not surprisingly, pass was one of the options you were considering. Of course your side will be slapped with a hefty PP for partner's outburst, but does his comment impose any L16 restrictions on your decision? Not according to the Landau/Willner/Beneschan approach to L16 enforcement, as I understand it. Since partner's comment is neutral as between doubling and saving ("high and low"), we are free to choose any of the options, even to the point of ruling out Pass on the basis of partner's recommendation. On second thought, why should there be a PP at all, if partner's comment is so harmless? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 07:23:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:23:14 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23626 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:23:04 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-21.access.net.il [192.116.198.21]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA05065; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:21:44 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <355CB2BF.5CE482B1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:25:19 +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: David Stevenson - Update 4 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome back to the club David .......... Now there are less "free rooms" on the the list too , but they were missing , during the last week ...... Anyway , just believe Rich Lighton and check your car everyday twice a day ; and don't believe his denial - diabetes is a communicable disease , especially for bridge players , sure for TDs , and 101% for BLML members .......... And one more advice .. be careful when open the e-mail box !!!! Cheers and best regards Dany , Shobo and the whole gang David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >Spoke with him again last night. He is getting better > >- well, beginning to complain, anyway. Says I > >underplayed his 6 a.m. Sunday rush to hospital by > >ambulance, in Agony. So what? - I could not find > >Agony on the map but now I hear it is in Charente-Maritime. > > It is a plot by wicked Americans to get BLML to themselves. > > I met Richard Lighton, by agreement, at a Service area off a motorway > near Liverpool, UK. Seemed a nice bloke! We chatted about this and > that for six hours, having a bite to eat, few cups of tea, and so on. I > have known Richard's brother Rodney for many years - maybe twenty. > Rodney lives in Manchester, and Richard lived over here until he popped > over to the States for a year about 23 years ago - and never came back! > > You are wondering what the point of all this is, aren't you? Well, in > the middle of discussing Steve and Grattan and Herman and Vitold and > Dany - and the Yankees and the Red Sox and so on - he let slip that he > was American, and had been for 11 years! > > You see it all, of course: an American who can pass for an Englishman > shares a meal with me - and twelve hours later I am taken in terrible > agony by ambulance to hospital! Depositions are yet to be taken from > Steve and Wally and Jon and Alan, but *we* *know*, don't we? > > Well, folks, it failed, better luck next time. Actually, there is > another viable theory. When told I was going to recover my wife was > heard to mutter something about she'd put more in next time, but I have > ignored that. > > I really enjoyed our chat, Richard, and I would love to see you again, > but I'll skip the food next time! > > Thanks to Grattan for providing a channel of communication, and to the > number of well-wishers, and especially a really brill virtual card from > Nancy. > > When the cats were told I was coming home they muttered something > about less room in bed. It's great to feel wanted! > > Did I mention that I am now on the wagon for a time? > > -- > 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 May 16 07:39:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:39:22 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23666 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:39:15 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-21.access.net.il [192.116.198.21]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA08260; Sat, 16 May 1998 00:38:39 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <355CB6BF.A8DC3D03@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:42:23 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I was surprised... References: <199805151330.JAA14849@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read your message and I understand it happened at the "Alien Moon Club" .. As much as I know about this club , the universe physics laws are very advanced , so it is possible to shuffle TDs too . I also understood that you meant the TD came to your table and and asked to be shuffled himself........ >From this point on , I beg the Harvard and Princeton colleagues to help us with the last developments in the General Unified Field Theory of NON-SENSE , in order to explain that TD what are the rules of "earth club" bridge ....... Scientifically Dany A. L. Edwards wrote: > > Bracketed knockouts,(A bracket). Superchart in effect. > The auction: > N E S W > 1C(1) 2C(2) 2H(3) P > 3C(4) P 3H(5) P > 3NT P P P > > 1) polish club > 2) alerted, explained as michaels (was actually natural clubs) > correct explanation; East thought IC was artificial, West, > who knew better, thought it wasn't. > 3) meant as natural, but North explained it as forcing C raise > 4) no interest in slam > 5) rebid of suit, but alerted as concentration of values, looking > for 3nt. > > result: 3NT, off 3, -300 NS > The director was called, and a request for a ruling was made. > The director took the board away to consult, and came back > with the decision: shuffle and play it again! :-) > I find this very odd...there was a legal result, but rather than > try for a ruling, the powers-that-be decide to avoid the whole > issue? Is this common, or even legal? > Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 09:53:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 09:53:21 +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 JAA24214 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 09:53:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2000467; 15 May 98 23:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:20:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: <9805151156.aa16470@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >So far, the majority of BLML seems to think that North's quick bid is >UI that suggests North forgot the system, but I'm having trouble >swallowing this. N-S said they discussed this convention before the >session, i.e. 3NT shows 5=4 in the majors. So suppose North had >actually picked up a hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts, and then heard >South open 2NT; looking at North'shand pattern, isn't it conceivable >that a light bulb might go on, and North would remember, "Oh, yes, we >discussed this exact situation before the session! I know exactly >what to do!!!" and bid 3NT quickly, happy that he actually remembered >a convention. Look, Adam, I have played against this convention a number of times. Trust me: a quick 3NT *never* has the requirements. That's my experience talking, not any logic. -- 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 May 16 10:08:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 10:08:18 +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 KAA24270 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 10:08:11 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07480; 15 May 98 17:08 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: suggested over another In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 May 1998 17:13:22 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19980515171322.0073a210@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:08:22 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805151708.aa07480@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The auction has proceded: > LHO P RHO You > 1C 3D 3S 4D > 4S P P ? > > While you are contemplating your choices, partner blurts out "For Pete's > sake, you can't pass here!" Not surprisingly, pass was one of the options > you were considering. Of course your side will be slapped with a hefty PP > for partner's outburst, but does his comment impose any L16 restrictions on > your decision? > > Not according to the Landau/Willner/Beneschan approach to L16 enforcement, > as I understand it. Since partner's comment is neutral as between doubling > and saving ("high and low"), we are free to choose any of the options, even > to the point of ruling out Pass on the basis of partner's recommendation. I don't think this is right. Had partner *hesitated* before passing, and **IF** I could be convinced that the hesitation could equally suggest that partner was thinking about doubling as he was thinking about sacrificing, then we have a case where one interpretation of the hesitation makes double > pass > 5D, and another makes 5D > pass > double, so none of the above is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation. (This is a bad example, because on this auction the chance that partner was thinking about doubling is pretty remote.) The comment, however, suggests all other actions over passing, so it's not the same situation at all. So you have to pass. (Unless, of course, you think partner is making this comment to try to force you to pass ethically, in which case you have to do something different and hope you can convince the AC of your reasoning.) > On second thought, why should there be a PP at all, if partner's comment is > so harmless? Because it's a flagrant violation of the rules of the game? Come on. Nowhere is it written that violations shouldn't be punished if they don't affect the outcome. If partner is on lead against 4S, and I say, "Lead a diamond, please," I expect a very heavy PP even if the hands are such that 4S makes 11 tricks no matter what anyone does. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 10:28:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 10:28:55 +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 KAA24312 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 10:28:49 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yaUqv-0001MU-00; Sat, 16 May 1998 01:29:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 01:20:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > However, I have a deeply held conviction, that nothing is going to >shake, and that is that *anything* that suggests players should lie to >each other is [a] wrong and [b] bad for the game. I have read the >arguments, re-considered, and I still believe this to be the case. > Me too, and if possible even more strongly. We can share the lemonade 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 Sat May 16 11:36:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 11:36:30 +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 LAA24473 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 11:36:24 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008150; 16 May 98 1:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 02:00:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French wrote: > > Why not? LAs are considered by comparing what other players would do >in the same situation. Part of that situation may have been that he bid >2S deliberately intending to bid spades at the lowest level until >doubled. If so then you consider what other players **who had such a >game plan** would have done over 4H*. > > this is precisely the point I made about demented wombats and "an artist in the middle of a piece of legerdemain", that is the start point. It's no good arguing "well if I wuz going there I wouldn't have started from here". You *are* here. If you don't play sliding pre-empts (I got +610 out of one last week) you aren't appreciating the position IMO. -- 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 May 16 11:37:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 11:37:41 +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 LAA24487 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 11:37:35 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1027560; 16 May 98 1:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 02:05:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: I was surprised... In-Reply-To: <199805151330.JAA14849@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199805151330.JAA14849@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca>, "A. L. Edwards" writes >Bracketed knockouts,(A bracket). Superchart in effect. >The auction: > N E S W > 1C(1) 2C(2) 2H(3) P > 3C(4) P 3H(5) P > 3NT P P P > >1) polish club >2) alerted, explained as michaels (was actually natural clubs) > correct explanation; East thought IC was artificial, West, > who knew better, thought it wasn't. No MI >3) meant as natural, but North explained it as forcing C raise MI - albeit irrelevant >4) no interest in slam thank goodness for that >5) rebid of suit, but alerted as concentration of values, looking > for 3nt. > >result: 3NT, off 3, -300 NS Could they have got it more off? I'd adjust to that >The director was called, and a request for a ruling was made. >The director took the board away to consult, and came back >with the decision: shuffle and play it again! :-) >I find this very odd...there was a legal result, but rather than >try for a ruling, the powers-that-be decide to avoid the whole >issue? Is this common, or even legal? > Tony (aka ac342) > Get another Director please. There's a very good teetotal one in the North of England I'm told. -- 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 May 16 19:24:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 19:24:05 +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 TAA25210 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 19:23:58 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yadCj-00044y-00; Sat, 16 May 1998 09:24:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 08:02:18 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: David Stevenson - Update 4 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Spoke with him again last night. He is getting better >>- well, beginning to complain, anyway. Says I >>underplayed his 6 a.m. Sunday rush to hospital by >>ambulance, in Agony. So what? - I could not find >>Agony on the map but now I hear it is in Charente-Maritime. > > It is a plot by wicked Americans to get BLML to themselves. > ....................cut....................................... > Did I mention that I am now on the wagon for a time? > Labeo: This comes under 'Railways', doesn't it? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 16 19:26:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 19:26:57 +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 TAA25225 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 19:26:51 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002495; 16 May 98 9:24 GMT Message-ID: <57v1LJA2tTX1EwBp@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 08:08:38 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The De Wael School - a story In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>You do not agree that in David's case we should turn back +520 to -50 ? >> >>You do not agree that in my case there is no AS ? >> >>And yet you require me to act as David does ? >> >>Whyever, why oh why ? > .................................cut.............................. > > However, I have a deeply held conviction, that nothing is going to >shake, and that is that *anything* that suggests players should lie to >each other is [a] wrong and [b] bad for the game. I have read the >arguments, re-considered, and I still believe this to be the case. > Labeo: A conviction I share. Sadly I think anyone who does not believe in it does not belong in bridge. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 02:26:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 02:26:47 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28467 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 02:26:37 +1000 Received: from modem16.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.16] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yajnq-0001ni-00; Sat, 16 May 1998 17:27:19 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Notification of second channel opened. Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 12:38:27 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ++++ this site at home: workplace site still gester etc ++++ (I am flexible about bridge law; the axe, rope, chair, gun or poison are all fine and my cat has nine tails.) From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 10:01:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 10:01:29 +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 KAA29281 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 10:01:23 +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 UAA13861 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 20:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 20:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805170002.UAA14424@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Dummy inquires about defender's revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A defender has failed to follow suit, and dummy (who has not forfeited her rights) asks the defender where he has revoked. This is forbidden by Law 42B1 and Law 61B. What is the penalty? My assumption: no fixed penalty, UI to declarer, and if there was a revoke, normal penalty-card rules apply when it is corrected. The actual dummy wound up costing declarer two tricks, after defender corrected a revoke which would otherwise have been established. -- 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 Sun May 17 14:23:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 14:23:01 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 OAA29829 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 14:22:54 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA29337; Sat, 16 May 1998 21:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805170423.VAA29337@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 21:20:56 -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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > Why not? LAs are considered by comparing what other players would do > >in the same situation. Part of that situation may have been that he bid > >2S deliberately intending to bid spades at the lowest level until > >doubled. If so then you consider what other players **who had such a > >game plan** would have done over 4H*. Hey, be careful! I didn't write that, David did. > this is precisely the point I made about demented wombats and "an artist > in the middle of a piece of legerdemain", that is the start point. It's > no good arguing "well if I wuz going there I wouldn't have started from > here". You *are* here. If you don't play sliding pre-empts (I got +610 > out of one last week) you aren't appreciating the position IMO. > All discussion of ACBL NABC Appeals cases should allow for the fact that the Laws Commission of the ACBL (Formerly known as the National Laws Commission of the ACBL, but I guess that's an obsolete name now) interprets some laws for ACBL-land in ways that other SOs may not agree with. One instance is the interpretation of "most favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" in L12C2 (defined as 1 chance in 3 and 1 chance in 6, respectively). Another is the interpretation of "logical alternative" in L16A, which the Laws Commission defined as "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum," which seemed to need further interpretation. Jeff Goldsmith wrote the *Bridge World* about this, and his letter prompted Kaplan to write an editorial (December, 1995). Kaplan gave the example of S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJxx. LHO opens 4H, partner breaks tempo noticeably (25 seconds), passes, and RHO passes. You are vulnerable, opponents not. You balance with 4S; plus 650. Even if everyone on the AC agrees that they would have bid 4S, and everyone else in the field actually did, that is NOT the criterion. Kaplan wrote, "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus the score should be adjusted to that for four hearts passed out. "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo, next time." In other words, a pass is not illogical; it is an LA. Anyone who has a problem with this should get L16A revised or get the Laws Commission to change its interpretation. Kaplan seemingly side-stepped the "seriously consider" wording, and went back to "logical alternative." Since he was the Co-chairman of the Laws Commission, I assume his illustration is authoritative, especially since he claimed it represented the thinking of the Commission. I should think that would have settled the matter. Does that mean the NOs get the gift of a top score for a 4H contract when all other pairs are -650? No. They get the same -650, the most favorable result that was likely if the irregularity had not occurred. The tendency of TDs and ACs to award a balancing score to the NOs is not in accordance with L12C2. In the case of Dallas Appeals Case #1, whatever intent the AKQ10xxxx holder had when he made a weak jump overcall of 2S, it is not illogical of him to change that plan when partner makes a direct double of 4H that (logically) tells him to shut up and don't bid further. Assign -790 to the OS, and in this case the balancing score of +790 for the NOs. The 4S bid was the irregularity, not the slow double of 4H, so the double stands. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 14:25:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 14:25:00 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 OAA29848 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 14:24:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA29617 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 21:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805170425.VAA29617@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 21:23:30 -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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > Why not? LAs are considered by comparing what other players would do > >in the same situation. Part of that situation may have been that he bid > >2S deliberately intending to bid spades at the lowest level until > >doubled. If so then you consider what other players **who had such a > >game plan** would have done over 4H*. Hey, be careful! I didn't write that, David did. > this is precisely the point I made about demented wombats and "an artist > in the middle of a piece of legerdemain", that is the start point. It's > no good arguing "well if I wuz going there I wouldn't have started from > here". You *are* here. If you don't play sliding pre-empts (I got +610 > out of one last week) you aren't appreciating the position IMO. > All discussion of ACBL NABC Appeals cases should allow for the fact that the Laws Commission of the ACBL (Formerly known as the National Laws Commission of the ACBL, but I guess that's an obsolete name now) interprets some laws for ACBL-land in ways that other SOs may not agree with. One instance is the interpretation of "most favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" in L12C2 (defined as 1 chance in 3 and 1 chance in 6, respectively). Another is the interpretation of "logical alternative" in L16A, which the Laws Commission defined as "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum," which seemed to need further interpretation. Jeff Goldsmith wrote the *Bridge World* about this, and his letter prompted Kaplan to write an editorial (December, 1995). Kaplan gave the example of S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJxx. LHO opens 4H, partner breaks tempo noticeably (25 seconds), passes, and RHO passes. You are vulnerable, opponents not. You balance with 4S; plus 650. Even if everyone on the AC agrees that they would have bid 4S, and everyone else in the field actually did, that is NOT the criterion. Kaplan wrote, "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus the score should be adjusted to that for four hearts passed out. "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame partner. Let him act in tempo, next time." In other words, a pass is not illogical; it is an LA. Anyone who has a problem with this should get L16A revised or get the Laws Commission to change its interpretation. Kaplan seemingly side-stepped the "seriously consider" wording, and went back to "logical alternative." Since he was the Co-chairman of the Laws Commission, I assume his illustration is authoritative, especially since he claimed it represented the thinking of the Commission. I should think that would have settled the matter. Does that mean the NOs get the gift of a top score for a 4H contract when all other pairs are -650? No. They get the same -650, the most favorable result that was likely if the irregularity had not occurred. The tendency of TDs and ACs to award a balancing score to the NOs is not in accordance with L12C2. In the case of Dallas Appeals Case #1, whatever intent the AKQ10xxxx holder had when he made a weak jump overcall of 2S, it is not illogical of him to change that plan when partner makes a direct double of 4H that (logically) tells him to shut up and don't bid further. Assign -790 to the OS, and in this case the balancing score of +790 for the NOs. The 4S bid was the irregularity, not the slow double of 4H, so the double stands. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 14:50:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 14:50:42 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 OAA29883 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 14:50:31 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA01868 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 21:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805170450.VAA01868@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 21:49:07 -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: > > mlfrench wrote: > > >The "25% rule," a guideline that was in force pre-1992, said you > >could not take an action suggested by UI if as many as one in four > >comparable players in an identical position would choose such an > >action. In 1992 the guideline was changed (by the National Laws > >Commission, not the ACBL) to define a "logical alternative as "an > >action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in > >a vacuuum." > > Just FTR, the National Laws Commission *is* the ACBL. I don't think the two are synonymous. It is better to say the "Laws Commission," "Board of Directors," etc., instead of "the ACBL," which leaves a reader in doubt as to the source of the information being communicated. If the BoD does something in violation of the Laws, that has no standing in the eyes of the Commission. If the ACBL TD department puts out a guideline that contradicts a BoD-passed regulation, it has no standing. Since these various entities are so independent, and have these hierarchical relationships, it is better to consider them as separate bodies even if they are all a part of the ACBL. The President, the Supreme Court, and the Congress are all part of the U. S. Government, but we usually don't attribute to "the U. S." some action taken by one of them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 17:41:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA00255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 17:41:41 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 RAA00248 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 17:41:32 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA18460 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 00:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805170741.AAA18460@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas Appeals Cases Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 00:40:09 -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 Okay, here's the whole story, with thanks to Linda Weinstein and Yvan Calame. It may interest only a few, but here it is anyway: The Federation Suisse de Bridge numbers the Appeals cases on its web site (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html) identically as in the NABC Bulletins. Of course, since that's where they come from. The cases are easier to view on that website, because those on the ACBL website are buried in the text of the NABC Bulletins. The NABC Bulletins cannot include all the NABC AC write-ups, because (1) space and reader interest only allow about 10 (11, in Dallas) per NABC to be published, and (2), they can take quite a while to prepare, so some write-ups aren't complete until well after the date of the last Bulletin for an NABC. The cases are numbered 1, 2, ..., chronologically in accordance with date of publishing in the Bulletin. For the casebooks, the AC write-ups are sorted by "topic" (MI, UI, Tempo, etc.). The reason is to make it easy for someone looking for a particular case concerning, say, tempo, to find it quickly. The cases are then numbered 1, 2, 3,...after the sorting is done. Here is the current cross-reference for Dallas NABC Appeals Cases: Casebook Case No. Bulletin/Swiss Case No. 1 8 2 3 3 5 4 4 5 6 6 11 7-8 Not published 9 1 10 9 11 7 12-14 Not published 15 10 16 Not published 17 2 Cases 18-21 in the casebook are from the International Team Trials in June 1997, so of course are not published in any NABC Bulletin. They do, however, appear on the Swiss website, numbered 1-4, on the page labeled 1997 US International Teams Trial Appeals. I had not realized before that the Dallas casebook covered cases from the ITT. That leaves six cases that are published only in the casebook. Are there others? No, except for senior events that are not nationally-rated, which the NABC ACs do not handle. They don't get published anywhere, rightly or wrongly. This means we have two published numbering systems, so I'll just have to refer to cases that have more than one number by both numbers. I understand that the ACBL would like to make money on the casebooks, but the AC write-ups could all be placed on the ACBL website, on a separate page, without endangering casebook sales. The casebook comments by the panel of experts, and by the editor, are what gives the casebooks their main value, and those comments would not have to be published. The casebooks can be ordered by phone from Memphis by calling toll-free 800-264-2743. I strongly encourage their purchase, as they are very instructive. I believe there are four available at this time, for San Francisco, Miami, Dallas, and Albuquerque. I do not recommend earlier casebooks, as it seemed to take a while for the technique of creating them to be mastered. Or maybe it's just that Rich Colker was editor (once co-editor) for these four. He did an excellent job, and I'm looking forward to his casebook for the St. Louis NABC. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 19:20:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:12 +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 TAA00460 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:06 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-23.uunet.be [194.7.13.23]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18720 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 11:20:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <355EA702.CAE352A7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 10:59:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Belgian Pairs final X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Penultimate Board : board 20 - (W/All) \ KJ west north east south \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass \ - A3 \ T987654 AKQ7 \ 4 T9 \ - 954 \ AQ642 Q2 \ 98652 \ AJ4 \ J87 \ North explains his 2 Diamonds as natural, weak, but immediately after transferring the tray realises his mistake. In fact, 2D shows majors. This is also the way the bid is explained at the other side of the screen. Two rounds later the whole table has realised that north had made a mistake, and a normal spade contract was reached by east-west. In the room (11 tables), 9 tables reach a score of -680. (=12/20) We make a ruling, for the non-offending side, of -1430. We consider that the double, made over a misexplained 2Di, would be differently interpreted at the other side of the screen. There would have been no appeal. Then we realise that two pairs, in first and second place, are on different sides of this deal, at different tables, both in -680. Our score correction to -1430 of course affects the result for -680, which now scores 11 to E-W. I ask the computer man about the difference between numbers one and two and he tells me this is less than one point (out of 853). We decide to send the deal to appeal all by ourselves. The AC decides that although it is difficult for EW to reach 6Sp (in fact no-one achieved this), or better even, 6Cl, this pair was hampered in their attempt. They decide to award A+/A-. Three questions : a) do you agree with our reason for sending this into appeal ourselves ? (I must say that this was the absolutely last tournament in Belgium under the 1987 Laws, so strictly we had no authority to do this, but we knew that if we explained this to the players at the table - two directors among them - they would appeal on principle anyway) b) do you agree with the artificial score ? c) when the board is recalculated, the score for the other E-Ws in -680 becomes 12.2, but the AAS is only 12 (60%). The chairman of the AC then decided to award 70% to EW. Do you agree with that ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 19:20:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:37 +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 TAA00468 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:31 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-23.uunet.be [194.7.13.23]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18733 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 11:21:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <355EA990.1806971@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 11:10:40 +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: <3.0.1.32.19980510182901.006dbbd4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980515165702.006dccf8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > (lots of snippage) > The best I can do for my opponents is to offer them my alternative > explanation alongside my partner's, making it clear that the truth could be > any of (1) I am right, (2) partner is right, or (3) neither of us is right. > To assert that I *know* which of these three possible "truths" is the > "true truth" would be misleading. Assuming, of course, that the regulators > haven't made it clear in advance that "the truth" in these cases is always > (3). > What this argument clearly shows is that the opponents of the "De Wael school" do not know how to solve this problem. They tell the opponents something which is : a) completely confusing - "I don't know which one of us is right, but the two possible meanings are ..." b) completely unnecessary - all action must be based on ONE explanation of the bidding, or else how are you going to rule misinformation ? c) completely unrequired - nothing in the Laws tells you to inform opponents about the fact that you are having a misunderstanding d) completely illegal - breaking L75D2 At least my solution is simple. You tell the opponents one meaning, of which you are not certain. If the TD later decides this meaning was not the correct one, you swallow the AS which follows from it. Let me elaborate on my point b) above : suppose a player offers in answer to a question from opponent an explanation like : "it might be A, but I am not certain; it could also be B; unless we are in fact playing system XYZ, in which case the bidding means C" (no previous irregularities). They call you, TD, and ask what they should now believe. Will you not rule by asking the player to pick one and let that be the base of opponents' actions ? If it happens to be wrong, would you punish the player ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 17 19:37:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:37:53 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00515 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:37:48 +1000 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn137.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP); Sun, 17 May 1998 11:37:59 +0200 Message-ID: <355EB06E.B55F4D41@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 11:39:58 +0200 From: Richard Bley Organization: Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another Appealing Case References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > If West was playing the hand still under the impression that North's 1NT > > had shown a strong NT then he is entitled to redress. > > How could declarer, looking at 28 points in his side's two hands, [and > maybe seeing South play the HQ at trick one] still believe North had > a strong NT? After South told him that he, South apparently, had made a > mistake, did not West ask for a clarification of that remark? > > Im sorry for not being clear in this point. S explained to W everything W wanted to know. After his remark everything was clear for W. But he didnt know what distribution N held, because of the 2D bid by S. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 01:07:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 01:07:53 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03397 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 01:07:40 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-41-244.s244.tnt10.brd.erols.com [207.172.41.244]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23017 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 11:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805171508.LAA23017@smtp1.erols.com> Reply-To: From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 11:07:49 -0400 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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199805170425.VAA29617@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> 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 Marvin L. > French > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 1998 12:24 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) > > [snip] > Jeff Goldsmith wrote the *Bridge World* about this, and his letter > prompted Kaplan to write an editorial (December, 1995). Kaplan gave > the example of S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJxx. LHO opens 4H, partner > breaks tempo noticeably (25 seconds), passes, and RHO passes. You > are vulnerable, opponents not. You balance with 4S; plus 650. Even > if everyone on the AC agrees that they would have bid 4S, and > everyone else in the field actually did, that is NOT the criterion. > Kaplan wrote, > > "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, > absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus the > score should be adjusted to that for four hearts passed out. > > "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle > or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame > partner. Let him act in tempo, next time." > > In other words, a pass is not illogical; it is an LA. Anyone who has > a problem with this should get L16A revised or get the Laws > Commission to change its interpretation. Kaplan seemingly > side-stepped the "seriously consider" wording, and went back to > "logical alternative." Since he was the Co-chairman of the Laws > Commission, I assume his illustration is authoritative, especially > since he claimed it represented the thinking of the Commission. I > should think that would have settled the matter. > > Does that mean the NOs get the gift of a top score for a 4H contract > when all other pairs are -650? No. They get the same -650, the most > favorable result that was likely if the irregularity had not > occurred. The tendency of TDs and ACs to award a balancing score to > the NOs is not in accordance with L12C2. > This seems to be completely wrong. If you're making an adjustment under Law 16, namely that pass was an LA, then the score gets rolled back to 4H for *both* sides. If the NO's get a top out of this, so be it. Your quote from Kaplan talks about adjusting the score, not splitting it. Under what rationale do you give the NO's their most likely score if the irregularity did not occur? The irregularity *did* occur, and the NO's are entitled to redress, even if it gives them the gift of a top. > In the case of Dallas Appeals Case #1, whatever intent the AKQ10xxxx > holder had when he made a weak jump overcall of 2S, it is not > illogical of him to change that plan when partner makes a direct > double of 4H that (logically) tells him to shut up and don't bid > further. Assign -790 to the OS, and in this case the balancing score > of +790 for the NOs. The 4S bid was the irregularity, not the slow > double of 4H, so the double stands. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > The appeals committee obviously felt otherwise about pass as an LA for that particular player under those particular circumstances, and I agree with them. Had they ruled the other way about pass as an LA, then 4HX making whatever would have been the score assigned to both sides. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 06:17:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 06:17:38 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 GAA04303 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 06:17:30 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA10272 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 13:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805172017.NAA10272@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:14:51 -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 Hirsch Davis wrote: ---------- > > > [snip] > > > Jeff Goldsmith wrote the *Bridge World* about this, and his letter > > prompted Kaplan to write an editorial (December, 1995). Kaplan gave > > the example of S-KQ10763 H-4 D-K7 C-QJxx. LHO opens 4H, partner > > breaks tempo noticeably (25 seconds), passes, and RHO passes. You > > are vulnerable, opponents not. You balance with 4S; plus 650. Even > > if everyone on the AC agrees that they would have bid 4S, and > > everyone else in the field actually did, that is NOT the criterion. > > Kaplan wrote, > > > > "Would it have been obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, > > absurd? No, it wouldn't--pass would be right quite often. Thus the > > score should be adjusted to that for four hearts passed out. > > > > "If you are convinced that you would always bid four spades, huddle > > or no huddle, do not blame the committee for robbing you--blame > > partner. Let him act in tempo, next time." > > > > In other words, a pass is not illogical; it is an LA. Anyone who has > > a problem with this should get L16A revised or get the Laws > > Commission to change its interpretation. Kaplan seemingly > > side-stepped the "seriously consider" wording, and went back to > > "logical alternative." Since he was the Co-chairman of the Laws > > Commission, I assume his illustration is authoritative, especially > > since he claimed it represented the thinking of the Commission. I > > should think that would have settled the matter. > > > > Does that mean the NOs get the gift of a top score for a 4H contract > > when all other pairs are -650? No. They get the same -650, the most > > favorable result that was likely if the irregularity had not > > occurred. The tendency of TDs and ACs to award a balancing score to > > the NOs is not in accordance with L12C2. > > This seems to be completely wrong. If you're making an adjustment under Law > 16, namely that pass was an LA, then the score gets rolled back to 4H for > *both* sides. If the NO's get a top out of this, so be it. Your quote from > Kaplan talks about adjusting the score, not splitting it. Under what > rationale do you give the NO's their most likely score if the irregularity > did not occur? Adjustments may be in order because of L16, but they are made in accordance with L12C2--: "When a Director awards an assigned adjusted score, ... the score is, for a non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." The Laws Commission of the ACBL has interpreted "likely" in this context as a probability >= 1/3. > The irregularity *did* occur, and the NO's are entitled to > redress, even if it gives them the gift of a top. There is nothing in the Laws that supports this popular notion. They are only entitled to what L12C2 says they should get, and that will automatically take care of any injury suffered because of the irregularity. In fact, they get the benefit of any fair amount of doubt as to what the assigned score should be. > > In the case of Dallas Appeals Case #1, whatever intent the AKQ10xxxx > > holder had when he made a weak jump overcall of 2S, it is not > > illogical of him to change that plan when partner makes a direct > > double of 4H that (logically) tells him to shut up and don't bid > > further. Assign -790 to the OS, and in this case the balancing score > > of +790 for the NOs. The 4S bid was the irregularity, not the slow > > double of 4H, so the double stands. > > The appeals committee obviously felt otherwise about pass as an LA for that > particular player under those particular circumstances, and I agree with > them. You are in a minority, according to the casebook panel and BLML messages. The spade bidder had made a weak jump overcall, not mentioned in the AC write-up. If the jump had been intermediate or strong, he would have had a better case for the pull of the double. Having promised no defense but having an AK suit, passing the direct double of 4H (which logically says "Partner, stop bidding!") is surely an LA to pulling, even if his original intent was to end up in 4S doubled. As several have stated, he knows partner has four hearts, which could well be QJ109 with an outside ace. Some on BLML have brought up the strangeness of the double (opposite a weak jump overcaller), but the AC did not (according to the write-up) go into this matter. > Had they ruled the other way about pass as an LA, then 4HX making > whatever would have been the score assigned to both sides. Yes, that's what I wrote--in this case, because it represents the most favorable result that was likely if North had not committed the irregularity of pulling the double. But not in Kaplan's example case, in which the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred was -650 (using my simplifying assumption that all other pairs had that score). How about a STOP card for one's own side, requiring partner to pause and think a while in a situation where doing so would normally be labelled a break in tempo? Or my idea of the "virtual curtain," which would have the spade bidder close his eyes when his LHO bids 4H, and not open them until someone says "It's your bid." Then he would not know who took the time to call, partner or RHO, and could bid 4S with no risk of being accused of using UI. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 07:59:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 07:59:52 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA04553 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 07:59:43 +1000 Received: from default (client15bc.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.188]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA07386 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 23:00:21 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Home address Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:45:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd81dd$136e6780$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01BD81E5.7532CF80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BD81E5.7532CF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : =20 This confirms I have opened up a second email address on my=20 box of tricks at home. and will operate it in parallel with this. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BD81E5.7532CF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18=20 8DJ           &nbs= p;    =20 :
           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;  =20  
This confirms I have opened up a = second email=20 address on my  
box of tricks at home. <Hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk>=20 and
will operate it in parallel with=20 this.
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;      =20  

 
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BD81E5.7532CF80-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 08:26:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 08:26:49 +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 IAA04672 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 08:26:40 +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 SAA27067 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 18:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980517182418.0d4f11bc@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 18:24:18 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) In-Reply-To: <199805170425.VAA29617@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:23 PM 5/16/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Does that mean the NOs get the gift of a top score for a 4H contract >when all other pairs are -650? No. They get the same -650, the most >favorable result that was likely if the irregularity had not >occurred. The tendency of TDs and ACs to award a balancing score to >the NOs is not in accordance with L12C2. > >In the case of Dallas Appeals Case #1, whatever intent the AKQ10xxxx >holder had when he made a weak jump overcall of 2S, it is not >illogical of him to change that plan when partner makes a direct >double of 4H that (logically) tells him to shut up and don't bid >further. Assign -790 to the OS, and in this case the balancing score >of +790 for the NOs. The 4S bid was the irregularity, not the slow >double of 4H, so the double stands. Can you explain why the NOs should receive -650 in the first case and +790 in the second? I would expect either the score for 4H undoubled in the first case and +790, or -650 and +300. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 08:39:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 08:39:25 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 IAA04709 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 08:39:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA00510 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 15:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805172239.PAA00510@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Two CCs on the Table Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:37:38 -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 Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times are violating L75A, which says that "partnership agreements...must be fully and freely available to the opponents." That means you shouldn't have to ask for information that is supposed to be shown on the CC. Asking risks UI to partner, and alerts the opponents that you are interested in something particular. It also gives an opponent the opportunity to say more than is necessary, ensuring that his/her partner knows exactly what the call or play conveyed to the replying player. Maybe these are the reasons that many experts prefer that you ask, not look, and therefore violate the regulation. In particular, I may want to know, at a glance, without asking: 1. On the lead of an ace, whether the opponents lead A from AK. If I ask, I give away that I don't have the king. 2. On the opening lead, whether opponents are playing standard or up-side-down attitudes signals. My play to the trick might depend on knowing that, but asking gives away that I am about to falsecard. 3. The meaning of third hand's play to the opening lead--attitude, count, suit preference? I may not want them to know I'm interested, and I don't want third hand to hear first hand's explanation. 4. The meaning of signals. Asking gives away that I am tuned in, and may discourage them from routine signalling. 5. The nature of preempts--sound, light, very light? Maybe I'm playing a different defense vs very light, and asking risks reminding partner of our understanding. CC-less opponents would have this coming, but I don't like to help partner, regardless of justification. 6. The meaning of cue bids, because I don't want the bidder to hear his partner's answer. 7. The meaning of any Alerted call, if it is shown on the CC, for the same reason as 6. Etc., etc. It is so easy to comply with the CC regulation that one must suspect ulterior motives on the part of those who do not. Let's start demanding that TDs enforce the regulation. And TDs: Please start enforcing it! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 10:02:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:02:59 +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 KAA04961 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:02:43 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26b0.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.176]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA17766 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 01:03:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 01:04:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd81f0$761ba7e0$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 Herman wrote... >Penultimate Board : > >board 20 - (W/All) > >\ KJ west north east south > \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He > \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass > \ - >A3 \ T987654 >AKQ7 \ 4 >T9 \ - >954 \ AQ642 > Q2 \ > 98652 \ > AJ4 \ > J87 \ I suspect that W has the missing KTC >North explains his 2 Diamonds as natural, weak, but immediately after >transferring the tray realises his mistake. In fact, 2D shows majors. >This is also the way the bid is explained at the other side of the >screen. >Two rounds later the whole table has realised that north had made a >mistake, and a normal spade contract was reached by east-west. > >In the room (11 tables), 9 tables reach a score of -680. (=12/20) > >We make a ruling, for the non-offending side, of -1430. I think that the most favourable result that was likely to the NOs is +680. I think that the most unfavourable result that was at all probable to the offending side is -1430. >We consider that the double, made over a misexplained <2Di, would be >differently interpreted at the other side of the screen. I agree. >There would have been no appeal. Who said? and Why not? >Then we realise that two pairs, in first and second place, are on >different sides of this deal, at different tables, both in -680. > >Our score correction to -1430 of course affects the result for -680, >which now scores 11 to E-W. > >I ask the computer man about the difference between numbers one and two >and he tells me this is less than one point (out of 853). > >We decide to send the deal to appeal all by ourselves. > >The AC decides that although it is difficult for EW to reach 6Sp (in >fact no-one achieved this), or better even, 6Cl, this pair was hampered >in their attempt. I agree >They decide to award A+/A-. WHAAT!! > >Three questions : > >a) do you agree with our reason for sending this into appeal ourselves ? NO >(I must say that this was the absolutely last tournament in Belgium >under the 1987 Laws, so strictly we had no authority to do this, but we >knew that if we explained this to the players at the table - two >directors among them - they would appeal on principle anyway) I thought you said there would be no appeal >b) do you agree with the artificial score ? NO > >c) when the board is recalculated, the score for the other E-Ws in -680 >becomes 12.2, but the AAS is only 12 (60%). The chairman of the AC then >decided to award 70% to EW. Do you agree with that ? Emphatically not. Surely that is not the way things should be done. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 10:13:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:13:32 +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 KAA04990 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:13:27 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA00996 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:13:42 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:13:40 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear BLMLers Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two diametrically opposed groups. Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) - Nil Vul Q98654 Dlr East 9 Q98543 K10432 AJ98 KJ 32 7642 Q853 J6 K107 Q765 A107 AKJ10 A2 West North East South - - Pass 1NT Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H All Pass Result: NS +450 *The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and rules under Law 27B1(a). After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of the green? Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra information to South. However I will also concede that without the original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. What do others think? Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 10:32:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:32:42 +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 KAA05031 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:32:36 +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 UAA07238 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 20:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980517203242.0d4ff18c@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 20:32:42 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table In-Reply-To: <199805172239.PAA00510@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:37 PM 5/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have >two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times are >violating L75A, which says that "partnership agreements...must be >fully and freely available to the opponents." Has someone besides you determined this? Sounds like you are stating fact when I suspect strongly that you are merely expressing your opinion. "Freely available" does not seem to me to imply written. >That means you >shouldn't have to ask for information that is supposed to be shown on >the CC. Why doesn't it mean that each partnership must make available to their opponents a full set of system notes? Afterall, as you point out, the Laws says "fully." I do not disagree with your assertion that every pair playing in an ACBL event should have two identically filled out ACBL convention cards. But, a pair which is in violation of this ACBL regulation does not seem to me to be in violation of the L75A just so long as they make available their partnershipp agreements in another fashion. Nor does it seem that making available a convention card satisfies the requirements of the Laws which require disclosure of all partnership agreements. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 10:54:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:54:56 +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 KAA05114 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:54:48 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb189.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.189]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA10617 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 20:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980517205458.00737254@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 20:54:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980515093600.006e2548@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980511180210.007296e8@pop.mindspring.com> <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:36 AM 5/15/98 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 06:02 PM 5/11/98 -0400, Michael wrote: > >>But certainly some _might_ choose to play this way. The point remains, the >>hesitation over 4S suggests an unusual degree of interest in some action >>other than defending 4S undoubled. *** The hesitator's partner cannot be >>allowed a successful guess as to which action to take *** (i.e., double or >>sacrifice), if Pass is, as you have said, a LA. >> >>This is an important point, because the general theme is quite common. In a >>competitive auction, one player hesitates before passing the opponents' >>bid. It may not be clear what the hesitator has in mind, but it is clear >>that he is considering either bidding again or doubling. Can his partner >>legally exploit such a pause in deciding whether to pass the bidding out? I >>certainly hope not. > >The heart of the debate here is the sentence I have highlighted above; you >either agree with it or you don't. I don't. Let's consider a series of >cases. > To begin with, thanks for your posting. You obviously put a lot of thought into it, and it certainly bears the hallmark of your usual careful analysis. I have not responded to it promptly because I wanted to at least try to do justice to the arguments you have raised, and that is no small task. >(1) For simplicity, assume BAM scoring. I believe the contract at the >other table will be 4S; I judge, without UI, that it is 50% to make, and >that I have a cheap save at 5D. I can pass, for a push, or I can either >double or bid 5D, either of which will win the board 50% of the time and >lose it 50% of the time. My expected score for any action is therefore .5, >and I'm on a complete guess. > >(2) This time, partner huddles. From the huddle, I know that either >partner expects 4S to go down, but decided not to double in case I had a >clear save, or expects 4S to make, but decided not to save in case I had a >clear double. With my middling hand, I know that whichever partner expects >will come about. The UI tells me that if double or save, the win or loss >will become not a 50-50 proposition, but either a sure win or a sure loss. >But if it's equally likely that partner was thinking of doubling or saving, >it's now just 50-50, in either case, whether I've already won the board or >lost it once I either double or save. My a priori statistical expectation >for either action is the same .5 it was in case (1) -- equal to my >expectation for passing -- and I've gained nothing from the UI. > Obviously your choice of BAM scoring is made to simplify the mathematics rather than to bolster your argument, but the form of scoring could complicate matters in a way which would undermine more than just the mathematics. The attractiveness of various possible outcomes is not (except in BAM) a simple win-loss-tie matter, and the various asymmetrical(and in general difficult to quantify) weightings which should be applied might strongly tilt the "suggestion" one way or the other. A more serious problem is that you have assumed a simple probability for various actions that partner is considering. Of course estimating such probabilities is, in practice, quite meaningless. On any contested issue, I would expect such estimates, offered, say, by participants on BLML, to vary in a range of 20% to 80%, i.e., there is in any particular case no way to achieve consensus on what these probabilities might be. But even if we could all agree on an objective probability to attach to partner's considerations, we would have to agree that the subjective probability is quite different, and likely more reliable. That is, I would be much more likely to correctly assess the meaning of my partner's hesitation, based on prior partnership experience, than the objective facts might warrant. Even if a TD or AC can't determine, absent the actual hand, what the hesitator was thinking, his partner might have a pretty good idea at the table. >Clearly, if the UI has not changed the expected score for any possible >action, in cannot have "demonstrably suggested" any one action over any >other. Why should my expectation for some set of LAs be arbitrarily >changed to .25 just because I have UI which doesn't affect the a priori >expectation for any of them? On what basis would Mike require me to pass? > >(3) Suppose now that, from my hand or the preceding auction or whatever, I >can tell that partner is somewhat more likely to be considering, say, >saving (the position is obviously symmetrical), with probability 60%. Now >my expected table score is .6 if I save, .5 if I pass, and .4 if I double. >But if I save and I'm right, my score will be adjusted (as Mike would have >it) to 4S making, so my expected score after the possible adjustment is .3. > So I will pass, pushing the board (and Mike will be happy). > >But wait! Without the UI, the expected score for both pass and double was >.5. With the UI, pass is .5, and double is .4. Doesn't the UI, then, >"demonstrably suggest" pass over double? If I pass and they make, >shouldn't my score be adjusted to 4SX making (alternatively put, if I'm >trying to be actively ethical, shouldn't I double)? That would make the >expectation for passing .2. Also, if I save and 4S would have made, my >score will be adjusted to 4SX making, so the expectation for saving (the >best action at the table) is 0. Whereas if I "bend over backwards" and >double, my expectation remains at .4. This is the result we want: The >counter-suggested action gives me the best expectation after a possible >adjustment, and the most strongly suggested action gives me the worst. > It is the result we want, but it only comes about if we are allowed to penalize the save. If the "objective" probability for the save is .6, and if we adopt your approach, then in fact we are _not_ likely to penalize the save. In practice, a .6 probability is indistinguishable, in a particular case, from even money. And your approach is to allow the successful save in that case. >If, however, we accept Mike's position (that I "cannot be allowed a >successful guess" and so should pass), then if I double my expectation >(after my prospective win is adjusted to 4S passed out) is .2, vs. .3 for >saving and .5 for passing. My best available action is one which has been >suggested by the UI over my worst available action. Even saving, which >would produce the best expected table result --*** and which we all agree >should not be allowed to stand if successful*** -- remains better than >doubling, which would produce the worst expected table result. Isn't this >the opposite of the result we want? > It is not at all clear that "we all agree" on this point. Several contributors on this thread have raised the question of how we should proceed when one action seems slightly more likely than another (statistically, at any rate). It seems absurd to argue that your approach is only correct when the probabilities attached to double and save are exactly 50-50, especially considering the aforementioned difficulties of precisely quantifying this probability. If a slow pass doesn't demonstrably suggest anything when partner's hesitation is equally likely to show interest in doubling or saving, then it doesn't "demonstrably" suggest anything if we change the odds to 55-45 or even 60-40. Thus to adapt your standard means, in practice, that we will be allowing virtually any action unless it is quite clear that partner's hesitiation is pointing to one particular course of action. That is one (perhaps legitimate) way to read L16, but from your comments I don't believe it's an interpretation you would be comfortable with. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 11:00:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:00:51 +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 LAA05145 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:00:45 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26f0.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.240]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA19326 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 02:01:28 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 02:02:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd81f8$91c63340$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: Marvin L. French I agree with everything you have said. Oh! That it were a perfect world. Do you think that a gradual approach is adequate, or would you decide that in ALL events where you direct you would implement this rule (Which is a rule in the UK) Perhaps you would carry a large stock of Simple System completed CCs and distibute them with gay abandon to all pairs without 2 cards until they have the required information to comply with full disclosure, I like it!! And I do not think it would be long before it was known that you would take "no nonsence." Generally speaking I think players respect a TD that they can predict will do things according to the rules. However, if you chose this approach, you cannot afford to make mistakes yourself, so beware:-)))) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 11:08:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:08:35 +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 LAA05170 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:08:30 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA21892 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:08:48 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:08:47 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: <199805142234.BAA02606@alpha.netvision.net.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi A few days ago I started this thread, but promised to fill in the other details at a later date. Thanks to all those that replied. There was no agreement between the two pairs about the tempo of North's 3NT bid. Not withstanding this I adjusted the score from NS +600 to -300, (a likely result if South converts to 4S). The appeals committee later readjusted the score to NS -100, saying they expected North to correct 4S to 4NT. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 11:39:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:39:23 +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 LAA05238 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:39:15 +1000 Received: from paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07393 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 21:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 21:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805180139.VAA23653@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199805172239.PAA00510@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have > two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times are > violating L75A, which says that "partnership agreements...must be > fully and freely available to the opponents." That means you > shouldn't have to ask for information that is supposed to be shown on > the CC. Another important part of this regulation is that the card must be complete. For example, many players do not fill out their lead from three small on their convention cards, but I suspect that most of them have an agreement. The new convention card has made low from three small standard, which partly solves the problem, but there are probably CPU's around from players who have never looked at the standard leads. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 11:42:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:42:23 +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 LAA05255 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:42:13 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ybEx6-0000RB-00; Mon, 18 May 1998 01:42:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 02:41:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laurie Kelso writes > >Dear BLMLers > >Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two >diametrically opposed groups. > >Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) > > - >Nil Vul Q98654 >Dlr East 9 > Q98543 > K10432 AJ98 > KJ 32 > 7642 Q853 > J6 K107 > Q765 > A107 > AKJ10 > A2 > > > West North East South > - - Pass 1NT > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > All Pass > > Result: NS +450 > > >*The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest >sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and >rules under Law 27B1(a). > >After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this >really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed >information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of >the green? > >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra >information to South. However I will also concede that without the >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. >What do others think? > > >Laurie > L27B1b - "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall award an adjusted score." You said it. 2H would end the auction. I adjust. No penalty as they're 99ers, but an explanation as to the ethics of the situation might be in order. These are the guys we should be showing how to conduct themselves at the bridge table, and it can be done nicely. -- 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 Mon May 18 11:42:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:42:38 +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 LAA05256 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:42:18 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ybEx7-0005Qh-00; Mon, 18 May 1998 02:42:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 02:32:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laurie Kelso writes > >Hi > >A few days ago I started this thread, but promised to fill in the >other details at a later date. Thanks to all those that replied. > >There was no agreement between the two pairs about the tempo of North's >3NT bid. Not withstanding this I adjusted the score from NS +600 to -300, >(a likely result if South converts to 4S). The appeals committee later >readjusted the score to NS -100, saying they expected North to correct 4S >to 4NT. > >Laurie > > > sounds like rkc in spades 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 Mon May 18 11:51:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:51:24 +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 LAA05292 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:51:17 +1000 Received: from paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07550 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 21:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 21:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805180152.VAA23817@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Laurie Kelso on Mon, 18 May 1998 10:13:40 +1000 (EST)) Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso writes: > Dear BLMLers > Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two > diametrically opposed groups. > Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) > - > Nil Vul Q98654 > Dlr East 9 > Q98543 > K10432 AJ98 > KJ 32 > 7642 Q853 > J6 K107 > Q765 > A107 > AKJ10 > A2 > West North East South > - - Pass 1NT > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > All Pass > Result: NS +450 > Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > information to South. However I will also concede that without the > original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > What do others think? Suppose this were a UI case, since the standard is similar, and information from withdrawn calls is now UI. What is the alleged UI? If North was intending to open or overcall 1H, he wouldn't have bid 2H, which partner was likely to pass, and would instead have bid 4H unilaterally. Therefore, the only UI South might expect is that North intended to respond 1H to a minor-suit opening. That UI does suggest values, and the fact that North bid 2H rather than passing suggests five or more hearts. Since South has a maximum with good support, it suggests bidding 3H or 4H over passing 2H. North would go on to 4H over 3H with his freak hand, so the quastion is whether pass is an LA, which would depend on the N-S style. 4H would not have been bid without the UI, and a reprimand might be in order, but choosing 4H over the LA of 3H caused no damage. But I think I'm asking too much of a novice pair to work this out. I don't think a novice South has any UI other than the fact that his novice partner was confused. Thus, given the event, I will allow the score to stand. For an expert pair which normally has four hearts when raising 2H to 3H (because they have other invitational sequences), I would rule 2H -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 11:56:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:56:28 +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 LAA05322 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:56:22 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp143.ac.net [205.138.55.52]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id VAA21275 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 21:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <355F8378.37F8@ac.net> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 20:40:25 -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: Dallas Appeals Cases References: <199805170741.AAA18460@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following are the Case books that I have in my Library (and that I assissted in preparing: Experts commented on all the cases - I have marked the ones that are simply a presentation of the comments with no editorial work by anyone as "NE". Seattle - Fall 1993 - 36 appeals - NE Cincinnati - Spring 1994 - 41 appeals - NE San Diego - Summer 1994 - 27 appeals - NE Minneapolis - Fall 1994 - 15 appeals - NE Albuquerque World Championship - 64 appeals - NE (published by Baron Books) Phoenix - Spring 1995 - 36 appeals - NE New Orleans - Summer 1995 - 16 appeals - NE Atlanta - Fall 1995 - 36 appeals - NE The Philadelphia Story - Spring 1996 - 41 appeals The Streets of San Francisco - Fall 1996 - 34 appeals Miami Vice - Summer 1996 - 33 appeals Dallas: They fought the Law - Spring 1997 - 21 appeals Albuquerque: High Plains Drifters - Summer 1997 - 30 appeals And on bookshelves for the Chicago Nationals: St. Louis Misery - tentative title - known only to Rich, me and now you folks :-) 44 appeals Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 11:56:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:56:44 +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 LAA05329 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:56:33 +1000 Received: from linda (ptp143.ac.net [205.138.55.52]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id VAA21302 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 21:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <355F92D6.5C02@ac.net> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 21:45:58 -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: Two CCs on the Table References: <199805172239.PAA00510@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think they will - call the Director - every single time if you feel strongly; but you must call every time. They get annoyed the third round in a row you call, and actually might do something. My partner and I were playing against a pair playing what to us was an unfamiliar system in the Blue Ribbon Pairs (something really weird - Polish Club or some such). We asked to see their card after a bid. It was scrawled and illegible. We asked to see the partner's card. Which did not exist. We called the Director. They were not going to be allowed to play their system unless they had two legible cards by the beginning of the next round. Too late, in my opinion, but better than nothing. I agree, two legible cards are nice. I will give some slack if it is obviously a partnership desk partnership or some such. As long as they agree to fulfill their obligation when politely told to. Good application for procedural penalties. Isn't this the kind of thing they are really there for? Failure to follow procedures? Why even bother having rules if they mean nothing? But, in National Events? No excuse. Try not having proper cards in a WBF event. Another of the many symptoms of bad management in the ACBL. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 12:19:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:19:53 +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 MAA05396 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:19:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026292; 18 May 98 2:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 03:13:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980517203242.0d4ff18c@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 03:37 PM 5/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have >>two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times are >>violating L75A, which says that "partnership agreements...must be >>fully and freely available to the opponents." >Has someone besides you determined this? Sounds like you are stating fact >when I suspect strongly that you are merely expressing your opinion. >"Freely available" does not seem to me to imply written. What difference does it make? Ok, Marv is probably wrong when he says it is a breach of L75A. So it is a breach of L40E instead. It is still illegal! -- 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 May 18 12:20:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:20:20 +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 MAA05411 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:20:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026293; 18 May 98 2:19 GMT Message-ID: <5d2J1TAPp5X1Ewjg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 03:17:51 +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 !!!!!!!!! Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB 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 Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Albert Lochli Killer 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 RB refers to a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 13:09:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 13:09:10 +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 NAA05517 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 13:09:04 +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 WAA19782 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 22:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980517230324.0fb78e72@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 23:03:24 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:13 AM 5/18/98 +1000, Laurie Kelso wrote: >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra >information to South. However I will also concede that without the >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. >What do others think? No information conveyed. Yet, you think the bidding would have been different without the insufficient bid. Can that really be? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 14:56:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:56:51 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 OAA05736 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:56:39 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25517 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 21:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805180456.VAA25517@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 21:54:24 -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: > > >Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have > >two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times are > >violating L75A, which says that "partnership agreements...must be > >fully and freely available to the opponents." > > Has someone besides you determined this? Sounds like you are stating fact > when I suspect strongly that you are merely expressing your opinion. Everything I say without attribution is my opinion. I dislike (but am somtimes guilty of using) IMO ("in mah ohpinyon"), or even worse, IMHO, whose users generally mean to express what to them is a universal truth that they are graciously sharing. > "Freely available" does not seem to me to imply written. If you have to ask for something that should be available without asking, then I would say it is not "freely available." Maybe the lawmakers should have written "as freely as is practical," or something like that, to fully convey their obvious intent. The ACBL has provided various means for making agreements freely available: Pre-Alerts, Alerts, Announcements, and CCs, which we are supposed to use. The whole idea is to reduce the necessity for asking questions, which frequently lead to UI for one side or the other. > >That means you > >shouldn't have to ask for information that is supposed to be shown on > >the CC. > > Why doesn't it mean that each partnership must make available to their > opponents a full set of system notes? After all, as you point out, the Laws > says "fully." The CC is designed to show the information that can be communicated freely in that fashion, but of course more detailed information can only be made available in some other form. The full set of system notes *does* have to be freely available, which means that information not on the card must be disclosed orally. The ACBL can only go so far in providing tools for communicating partnership agreements, so question-answer sessions are the fall-back means when other means can't do the job. > > I do not disagree with your assertion that every pair playing in an ACBL > event should have two identically filled out ACBL convention cards. But, a > pair which is in violation of this ACBL regulation does not seem to me to > be in violation of the L75A just so long as they make available their > partnership agreements in another fashion. As I explained, I want to ascertain such things as lead conventions, HCP range, meaning of cue bids, meaning of two-level openings, and other stuff that is clearly shown on the CC by reading it, not by hearing it. I don't care what opponents think about the intent of L75A, just so they follow the ACBL regulations in regard to CCs. > Nor does it seem that making > available a convention card satisfies the requirements of the Laws which > require disclosure of all partnership agreements. Agreed. Did I imply otherwise? I'll have to make myself more clear in the future. Show me your card, let me know if there is more pertinent information than what is on the card, but don't tell me what's on the card, and please don't ask what's on mine if you don't have a visual problem. See Dallas NABC Appeals Case #4, in which a player admits asking about range only when she has values. That practice is entirely too widespread (IMO!). I have completed an article for our La Jolla and Beach publication, Table Talk, which several subscribers helped me with. It is entitled "Convention Cards and Full Disclosure." Anyone interested can just ask me for it by private e-mail, as it's too long to put on BLML or RGB. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 14:57:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:57:53 +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 OAA05750 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:57:47 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-9.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.113]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA27981 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 00:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <355FC0E0.31B208AD@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 01:02:24 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Tim Goodwin wrote: > >At 03:37 PM 5/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >>Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have > >>two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times ......... > > > David wrote:"......... So it is a breach of L40E instead. It is still > illegal!" > > The one line that seems to be filled in the least (and is ACBL((at least)) > required) is the one that I would **really** like to know is line 1 on the > card. At least we would have an idea of *who* is breaking or following the > rules. How often have you forgotten someone's name and can't remember it. > Sneaking a peak at the convention card often is no help!! :-)) Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 15:57:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 15:57:16 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA05871 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 15:57:04 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA05832; Sun, 17 May 1998 22:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805180557.WAA05832@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:55:25 -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 Anne Jones wrote in re what I wrote on the subject: > I agree with everything you have said. Oh! That it were a perfect world. > > Do you think that a gradual approach is adequate, or would you decide > that in ALL events where you direct you would implement this rule (Which > is a rule in the UK) It's a simple rule, applicable to all games. Warn people when they sign in of the requirements, give them time to comply. Just follow what the ACBL published widely last December: "TWO IDENTICAL COPIES: Each player is required to have a Convention Card legibly filled out and on the table throughout the session. Both cards of a partnership must be identical. "COMPLETE CARD: If a director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play the conventions listed on the *ACBL Limted Conventions* chart and may only play standard carding. This restriction may be lifted by the director at the beginning of the next round once two completed cards have been approved by the director. Beginning with the second round after being notified about inadequately filled-out cards, the director will impose penalties. If only one substantially completed card Convention Card is produced by a partnership, the director may give warnings or penalties at his/her discretion." The ACBL Board of Directors, its Tournament Committee, and its advisory Competition and Conventions Committee, go to a lot of work to write such regulations. I don't understand how it is that they tolerate the non-enforcement of the regulations they pass. > Perhaps you would carry a large stock of Simple System completed CCs and > distibute them with gay abandon to all pairs without 2 cards until they > have the required information to comply with full disclosure, I like > it!! And I do not think it would be long before it was known that you > would take "no nonsence." Not necessary around these parts. Almost everyone (except some pros) has a card. However, it's usually in a purse or pocket, not on the table, and often not very legible. > Generally speaking I think players respect a > TD that they can predict will do things according to the rules. > Yes, as with baseball umpires, basketball referees, and other such. Players like to know that the rules will be fairly and consistently enforced. > However, if you chose this approach, you cannot afford to make mistakes > yourself, so beware:-)))) > I am too mistake-prone to be a TD myself, and lack the required temperament besides. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 16:19:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA05925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 16:19:27 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 QAA05919 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 16:19:20 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA10014 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 23:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805180619.XAA10014@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #4 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 23:16:43 -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 There did not seem to be much interest in Case #3 (Bulletin #4), and Case #4 (Bulletin #4 also) was similar: good work by the TD/AC in determining illegal use of UI, but doubtful adjustment of scores. Maybe #4 is more interesting than #3, maybe not: Vulnerability: Both Dealer: East S- KT83 H- A752 D- A2 C- AJ4 S- AQ9764 S- J2 H- K64 H- Q8 D- J75 D- KQT8 C- K C- T8763 S- 5 H- JT93 D- 9643 C- Q952 West North East South (usual directions) P P 1S 1NT P(1) P 2S Dbl - All pass (1) Alleged break in tempo, after inquiring about range and counting points, then thinking a few seconds. The contract made with an overtrick (somehow), +870 for E-W, and N-S called the TD after taking their cards out of the board for the next deal. The TD adjusted (the write-up incorrectly said "assigned", the word for real scores) the score artificially to avg+ for N-S, avg- for E-W. E-W appealed, and the AC (chaired by Jon Brissman) had a very difficult time with these inexperienced players, who felt they were being discriminated against. NABC ACs seem to be extremely good at handling such people, sometimes an impossible job, and did the best they could in this case. East admitted she would have passed without inquiry if she had held the South hand. The AC upheld the TD's rather obvious ruling as to the UI, and adjusted the score identically. But why the artificial scores? Because "the Committee could not determine with any certainty the likely result in 1NT," the same reasoning used by the TD. L12C2 does not call for "certainty" in regard to an assigned score, using only the words "likely" (for the NOs) and "probable" (for the OS). My opinion is -150 for E-W (most unfavorable result that was at all probable) and +90 for N-S (most favorable result that was likely). Others may disagree as to these numbers, but there is no reason an AC can't come up with assigned scores in such cases. Are they afraid of offending some AC member who might disagree with a majority opinion? If the emphasis is on trying to get unanimous AC decisions, that's carrying the principle too far. There are two other possible issues here: The lateness of the call to the TD (too late?) and the bad defense by N-S (should they keep their result?), both discussed in the casebook. Stay tuned, some upcoming cases are much more interesting. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 17:05:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA06006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 17:05:53 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA06001 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 17:05:46 +1000 Received: from modem44.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.172] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 0ybK0D-0003cT-00; Mon, 18 May 1998 08:06:29 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 08:02:48 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Hirsch Davis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) > Date: 17 May 1998 16:07 > >> > > > > > In other words, a pass is not illogical; it is an LA. Anyone who has > > a problem with this should get L16A revised or get the Laws > > Commission to change its interpretation. Kaplan seemingly > > side-stepped the "seriously consider" wording, and went back to > > "logical alternative." Since he was the Co-chairman of the Laws > > Commission, I assume his illustration is authoritative, especially > > since he claimed it represented the thinking of the Commission. I > > should think that would have settled the matter. > > ++++ C has never disagreed with this Kaplan statement and I think it fair to assume they do not do so now.++++ > > This seems to be completely wrong. If you're making an adjustment under Law > 16, namely that pass was an LA, then the score gets rolled back to 4H for > *both* sides. If the NO's get a top out of this, so be it. Your quote from > Kaplan talks about adjusting the score, not splitting it. Under what > rationale do you give the NO's their most likely score if the irregularity > did not occur? The irregularity *did* occur, and the NO's are entitled to > redress, even if it gives them the gift of a top. > > > ++++ That is so. [It has not been enunciated but the equity contemplated in 12C3 is taken to be equity for the pairs at the table and not for the field at large. The principle that other tables have no entitled interest in what happens at this table holds good.] ++++ Grattan++++ C=WBF Laws Cttee [.......personal comment......] From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 20:12:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 20:12:15 +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 UAA06388 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 20:12:05 +1000 Received: from perkunas.omnitel.net [205.244.196.2] (root) by mh1.omnitel.net with esmtp; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:15:36 +0200 Received: from res (sl-205-244-196-231.dial.omnitel.net [205.244.196.231]) by perkunas.omnitel.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA08904 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:13:04 -0100 Received: by res with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8256.7B441660@res>; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:14:18 +-300 Message-ID: <01BD8256.7B441660@res> From: Vytautas Rekus To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Leaving for a while Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:14:17 +-300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, It's pity, but I must leave BLML for some time (long business trip). I = really enjoined the time I spent together, I learned a lot from you... I really miss you. Hope to rejoin ASAP! Pls., note, that my Internet address will be no longer valid after the = week. If somebody would like to drop me the note, use my business = address: Vytautas@fi.ibm.com Sincerely yours, Vytautas Rekus From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 20:24:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 20:24:52 +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 UAA06448 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 20:24:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003756; 18 May 98 10:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 03:33:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table In-Reply-To: <355F92D6.5C02@ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: >I think they will - call the Director - every single time if you feel >strongly; but you must call every time. > >They get annoyed the third round in a row you call, and actually might >do something. > >My partner and I were playing against a pair playing what to us was an >unfamiliar system in the Blue Ribbon Pairs (something really weird - >Polish Club or some such). We asked to see their card after a bid. It >was scrawled and illegible. We asked to see the partner's card. Which >did not exist. We called the Director. They were not going to be >allowed to play their system unless they had two legible cards by the >beginning of the next round. Too late, in my opinion, but better than >nothing. Aaaaah, you want the EBU/WBU approach. They would have been playing a nice simple system - think Standard American for novices - until they had two legible cards. They would have loved that. -- 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 May 18 21:34:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:34:21 +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 VAA06688 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:34:13 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-176.uunet.be [194.7.13.176]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09548 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 13:34:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35601754.F9FBD0C6@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:11:16 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > >information to South. However I will also concede that without the > >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > >What do others think? > > > > > >Laurie > > > L27B1b - "If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such > information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall award an > adjusted score." > > You said it. 2H would end the auction. I adjust. No penalty as they're > 99ers, but an explanation as to the ethics of the situation might be in > order. These are the guys we should be showing how to conduct themselves > at the bridge table, and it can be done nicely. We did not receive enough information. Undoubtedely at the table there was some information as to whether or not North had remarked south's opening, and simply bid too low, or not, and intended to open the hand. >From the bidding, it seems clear it is the first case. If then south raises to game, he can be judged to do so without use of UI, and he is allowed to do so. In the other case, this clearly shows why directors MUST also read out L27B1b, when presenting north with his options. If he DID show that he was thinking of opening this load of rubbish, he should now convert not to 2H, but to 4H himself ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 21:34:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:34:22 +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 VAA06692 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:34:15 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-176.uunet.be [194.7.13.176]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09539; Mon, 18 May 1998 13:34:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356012D7.F52DE52E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:52:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hdavis@erols.com, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199805171438.KAA16049@smtp1.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > -----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: Sunday, May 17, 1998 5:00 AM > > To: Bridge Laws > > Subject: Belgian Pairs final > > > > > > Penultimate Board : > > > > board 20 - (W/All) > > > > \ KJ west north east south > > \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He > > \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass > > \ - > > A3 \ T987654 > > AKQ7 \ 4 > > T9 \ - > > 954 \ AQ642 > > Q2 \ > > 98652 \ > > AJ4 \ > > J87 \ > > > > > [snip] > > Technical question- presumably the club KT are in the W hand, which only > has 11 cards? > > Hirsch Indeed ! Sorry ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 21:34:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:34:19 +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 VAA06687 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:34:12 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-176.uunet.be [194.7.13.176]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09544 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 13:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35601573.37AC4E40@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:03:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd81f0$761ba7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Herman wrote... > > >Penultimate Board : > > > >board 20 - (W/All) > > > >\ KJ west north east south > > \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He > > \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass > > \ - > >A3 \ T987654 > >AKQ7 \ 4 > >T9 \ - > >954 \ AQ642 > > Q2 \ > > 98652 \ > > AJ4 \ > > J87 \ > > I suspect that W has the missing KTC > Indeed > >North explains his 2 Diamonds as natural, weak, but immediately after > >transferring the tray realises his mistake. In fact, 2D shows majors. > >This is also the way the bid is explained at the other side of the > >screen. > >Two rounds later the whole table has realised that north had made a > >mistake, and a normal spade contract was reached by east-west. > > > >In the room (11 tables), 9 tables reach a score of -680. (=12/20) > > > >We make a ruling, for the non-offending side, of -1430. > > I think that the most favourable result that was likely to the NOs is > +680. I think that the most unfavourable result that was at all probable > to the offending side is -1430. > That might indeed have been better. > >We consider that the double, made over a misexplained <2Di, would be > >differently interpreted at the other side of the screen. > > I agree. > > >There would have been no appeal. > > Who said? and Why not? > Because it was late and the pairs in question were tenth and penultimate. > >Then we realise that two pairs, in first and second place, are on > >different sides of this deal, at different tables, both in -680. > > > >Our score correction to -1430 of course affects the result for -680, > >which now scores 11 to E-W. > > > >I ask the computer man about the difference between numbers one and two > >and he tells me this is less than one point (out of 853). > > > >We decide to send the deal to appeal all by ourselves. > > > >The AC decides that although it is difficult for EW to reach 6Sp (in > >fact no-one achieved this), or better even, 6Cl, this pair was hampered > >in their attempt. > > I agree > > >They decide to award A+/A-. > > WHAAT!! When I explained to them that -681 and -1430 would give the same result, they did not want to give a top, but would not let the score stand either. So they decided to take the score out of the field and awarded something slightly higher. > > > >Three questions : > > > >a) do you agree with our reason for sending this into appeal ourselves > ? > > NO > Whyever not ? Mind you, if we consider this under 1997 laws ! > >(I must say that this was the absolutely last tournament in Belgium > >under the 1987 Laws, so strictly we had no authority to do this, but we > >knew that if we explained this to the players at the table - two > >directors among them - they would appeal on principle anyway) > > I thought you said there would be no appeal > They would have if we had explained to them that technically we could not yet have used the new L83. > >b) do you agree with the artificial score ? > > NO > > > >c) when the board is recalculated, the score for the other E-Ws in -680 > >becomes 12.2, but the AAS is only 12 (60%). The chairman of the AC > then > >decided to award 70% to EW. Do you agree with that ? > > Emphatically not. Surely that is not the way things should be done. > Well, what do you do then ? A pair scores 60% in a normal manner, but the AC decides they should get A+. Let's suppose this is correct. Now all the other pairs that had 60% with the same score, suddenly get 61% ! Is this fair ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 22:06:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 22:06:52 +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 WAA06813 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 22:06:45 +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 HAA28964 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 07:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980518080657.0a77b11c@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 08:06:57 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.16.19980517203242.0d4ff18c@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:13 AM 5/18/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: >>At 03:37 PM 5/17/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>>Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have >>>two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times are >>>violating L75A, which says that "partnership agreements...must be >>>fully and freely available to the opponents." > >>Has someone besides you determined this? Sounds like you are stating fact >>when I suspect strongly that you are merely expressing your opinion. >>"Freely available" does not seem to me to imply written. > > What difference does it make? Ok, Marv is probably wrong when he says >it is a breach of L75A. So it is a breach of L40E instead. It is still >illegal! L40E gives the sponsoring organization the right to prescribe a convention card and establish regulations for its use. But, it doesn't make these regulations part of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, does it? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 22:18:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 22:18:12 +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 WAA06868 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 22:18:04 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-151.uunet.be [194.7.14.151]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA12377 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:18:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35602363.DD9167A7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:02:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: L75C - interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk All the discussions about the De Wael school have led me to believe there is a serious misunderstanding about the interpretation of L75C. In a few episodes, I would like to get to the bottom of this. Let me start by taking you by the hand on a journey where you may at every turn jump in and disagree. OK ? To start, I would like you to imagine a player who is in doubt as to the meaning of his partner's last call. He is asked about this meaning (or is wondering whether or not to alert) and he has to respond something. Let's assume there are only two possibilities : A and B. Do you agree that a third possibility will not change our rulings ? There are four possible types of answers that the player can give : 1) it is A 2) it is A, but I'm not certain 3) it is A, but it could also be B 4) it is A or B I am not talking of actual words, just types. In 2) the player expresses his doubts but does not mention an alternative. Do you agree that these four types contain all possible answers and that the actual wording is of no particular importance to our rulings ? Let's first deal with type 4) answers. When presented with an opponent who does not give just one answer, what do you do ? You press for one answer, and if he does not comply, you call the TD, who shall ask for 1 answer. You can imagine circumstances where you do not ask, but then this falls back into a situation like if you did not ask any questions. Do you agree that this turns a type 4) reply into a type 3) one ? So we can just deal with three types of responses. Now I have five questions to put to you : (you may answer these on private e-mail, if you have nothing else to contribute to a more general discussion) One : what type of response do you give when in doubt ? 1 2 3 Two : what type of response do you advise your players to give ? 1 2 3 Three : If the true meaning turns out to be B, do you deal with each type of response exactly the same harsher on the type 1 2 3 Four : If the true meaning turns out to be C, do you deal with each type of response exactly the same harsher on the type 2 3 Five : Do you deal harsher or not on a player who answered type 1 but afterwards : says he made a mistake admits he was uncertain but did not tell this to opponents By harsher I mean anything : from exclusion to giving a PP, to considering a PP, to telling off, to a gentle warning that this is not to be done. If necessary, you may indicate how much more harsher you deal with in any particular case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 22:48:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 22:48:26 +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 WAA06947 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 22:48:20 +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 IAA10658 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 08:46:15 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id IAA15896 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 May 1998 08:46:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199805181246.IAA15896@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 08:46:45, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is the ACBL regulation: http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm#ConventionCards Convention Cards At Sectional and higher rated tournaments: 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled out and on the table throughout the session. Both cards of a partnership must be identical and include the first and last names of each member of the partnership. 2. 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. 3. If the director determines that the partnership has at least one substantially completed convention card but has not fully complied with ACBL regulations, then the director may give warnings or assign such penalties as he deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. 4. The object of these warnings and penalties is the encouragement of full compliance with ACBL regulations. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 18 23:09:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 23:09:36 +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 XAA07025 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 23:09:30 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA26997 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 13:10:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980518091124.006f0a60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:11:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980515171322.0073a210@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980515093600.006e2548@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980511180210.007296e8@pop.mindspring.com> <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:13 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >While you are contemplating your choices, partner blurts out "For Pete's >sake, you can't pass here!" Not surprisingly, pass was one of the options >you were considering. Of course your side will be slapped with a hefty PP >for partner's outburst, but does his comment impose any L16 restrictions on >your decision? > >Not according to the Landau/Willner/Beneschan approach to L16 enforcement, >as I understand it. Since partner's comment is neutral as between doubling >and saving ("high and low"), we are free to choose any of the options, even >to the point of ruling out Pass on the basis of partner's recommendation. Exactly, given the stipulation that partner's comment is truly "neutral". In order for L16A to come into play, the UI, no matter how egregious or inappropriate, must demonstrably suggest one LA over another. If it doesn't do this, the player in possession of it isn't constrained. Of course, in real life, it might be very hard to convince a TD/AC that partner's outburst *doesn't* demonstrably suggest any alternative action over passing. But you would be legally entitled to try, and a good TD or AC should consider your argument. >On second thought, why should there be a PP at all, if partner's comment is >so harmless? "Harmless" relates to the issue of damage (or possible damage), which matters only in equity-adjustment cases, and is not relevant to PPs. There should be a PP for partner's blatant and intentional violation of L73B1, which says that "Partners shall not communicate... through extraneous remarks". There is nothing in L73 to suggest that such communication is improper only if happens to be covered by L16A. 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 May 19 00:03:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 00:03:27 +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 AAA07222 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 00:03:07 +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 PAA24410 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 15:03:36 +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 PAA05709 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 15:03:35 +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 PAA15323 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 15:03:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 18 May 98 15:03:33 BST Message-Id: <13728.9805181403@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 3) it is A, but it could also be B > 4) it is A or B > > I am not talking of actual words, just types. In 2) the player > expresses his doubts but does not mention an alternative. > > Do you agree that these four types contain all possible answers and that > the actual wording is of no particular importance to our rulings ? > > Let's first deal with type 4) answers. When presented with an opponent > who does not give just one answer, what do you do ? > You press for one answer, and if he does not comply, you call the TD, > who shall ask for 1 answer. > > You can imagine circumstances where you do not ask, but then this falls > back into a situation like if you did not ask any questions. > > Do you agree that this turns a type 4) reply into a type 3) one ? No The playing giving the explanation does not have to chose, he can say: "We have an agreement, I am sure it is A or B but I do not know which." The player may suggest that opponents consult the convention card. If the convention card is unhelpful, the TD will be called. But if the player was not sure what their agreement is, the TD should not ask the player to guess. > So we can just deal with three types of responses. > > Now I have five questions to put to you : (you may answer these on > private e-mail, if you have nothing else to contribute to a more general > discussion) I don't real understand the point of these questions: players should do there best to explain there methods (as much as they are able), they should not be penalized for doing so. > One : what type of response do you give when in doubt ? > > 1 2 3 The response that most accurately reflects my recollection (or lack of recollection) of our agreements: anything from 1 to 4. > Two : what type of response do you advise your players to give ? > > 1 2 3 The response that most accurately reflects their recollection (or lack of recollection) of their agreements: anything from 1 to 4. > Three : If the true meaning turns out to be B, do you deal with each > type of response > > exactly the same > > harsher on the type > > 1 2 3 If the player has given an honest statement of his recollection of the agreements then why should a procedural penalty be appropriate. If the player has not given an honest statement then I treat any response exactly the same. > Four : If the true meaning turns out to be C, do you deal with each type > of response > > exactly the same > > harsher on the type > > 2 3 See three. > Five : Do you deal harsher or not on a player who answered type 1 but > afterwards : > > says he made a mistake Inform him that as soon as he knows he has made a mistake, he should call the TD. > admits he was uncertain but did not tell this to opponents Inform him that if he is uncertain then he should say so, at the time. To my mind, it is more interesting how we deal with MI for the various types: Type 1. Agreement is A: No MI Agreement is B/C: MI -- possible damage. Type 2. Agreement is A: possible MI, if opponent thought some other meaning was right. Agreement is B/C: MI -- possible damage, rule as type 1. Type 3. Agreement is A: possible MI, if opponent thought meaning B was right. Agreement is B: MI -- possible damage, rule as type 1; unless it should be very obvious to opponents that meaning B was right. Agreement is C: MI -- possible damage, rule as type 1. Type 4. Agreement is A/B: possible MI and damage, unless it should be obvious to opponents that the right meaning of A or B is right. Agreement is C: MI -- possible damage, rule as type 1. 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 May 19 00:07:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 00:07:51 +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 AAA07249 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 00:07:45 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA28359 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:08:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980518100941.006f1544@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:09:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Self Explanations In-Reply-To: <355EA990.1806971@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980510182901.006dbbd4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980515165702.006dccf8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:10 AM 5/17/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >(lots of snippage) > >> The best I can do for my opponents is to offer them my alternative >> explanation alongside my partner's, making it clear that the truth could be >> any of (1) I am right, (2) partner is right, or (3) neither of us is right. >> To assert that I *know* which of these three possible "truths" is the >> "true truth" would be misleading. Assuming, of course, that the regulators >> haven't made it clear in advance that "the truth" in these cases is always >> (3). >> > >What this argument clearly shows is that the opponents of the "De Wael >school" do not know how to solve this problem. > >They tell the opponents something which is : > >a) completely confusing - "I don't know which one of us is right, but >the two possible meanings are ..." >b) completely unnecessary - all action must be based on ONE explanation >of the bidding, or else how are you going to rule misinformation ? >c) completely unrequired - nothing in the Laws tells you to inform >opponents about the fact that you are having a misunderstanding >d) completely illegal - breaking L75D2 > >At least my solution is simple. > >You tell the opponents one meaning, of which you are not certain. > >If the TD later decides this meaning was not the correct one, you >swallow the AS which follows from it. > >Let me elaborate on my point b) above : >suppose a player offers in answer to a question from opponent an >explanation like : "it might be A, but I am not certain; it could also >be B; unless we are in fact playing system XYZ, in which case the >bidding means C" (no previous irregularities). They call you, TD, and >ask what they should now believe. > >Will you not rule by asking the player to pick one and let that be the >base of opponents' actions ? If it happens to be wrong, would you >punish the player ? Certainly not. The opponents have already been told the possible agreements based on which each player has selected his actions. They have all of the information they can be given to help them interpret those actions. Before the game, they may have "agreed" on one of those possible agreements, or made no agreement at all, but at this point one or both players has forgotten what was said. Knowing what the original (forgotten) agreement was can't help the opponents at all, since they already know what each player believes the agreement to have been. So why should one of the players be subjected to a "guessing game" that is totally irrelevant to the action at the table, whose only effect is to leave the guesser open to "punishment" by a TD or AC for guessing wrong? If you *know* what your agreements are, you must tell your opponents. If you do not know what your agreements are, you must give the opponents all of the information you have which might be relevant to their understanding of your actions. My view is that if your interpretation of your agreements disagrees with your partner's, you *do not know* what your agreements are, and it is therefore appropriate to give the opponents more information than they would be entitled to if you did know. I argue that, absent certainty about what my actual agreements are, my opponents are entitled to whatever information about our agreements (including my admittedly possibly incorrect interpretation) I have available to me that would help me -- or them -- to work out what my side's actions actually mean. The fact that providing them all that information would mean offering them more than one possible explanation of the meaning of a particular action, or would let them know that partner and I are in the midst of a misunderstanding, doesn't give me license to decide to omit some of 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 Tue May 19 01:24:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 01:24:20 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09755 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 01:24:14 +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 LAA13458; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17789; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:25:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:25:00 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805181525.LAA17789@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: JeffLaws1@bridgeworld.com Subject: Re: Draft of Bridge World Editorial Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks very much for the advance peek at a very interesting editorial and for the chance to comment. > A dramatic improvement > in this area would be achieved if the bonus for winning a rubber by > two games to none were effectively 800 instead of 700. Then, all game > bonuses could be scored immediately. Beginners could be taught: nonvulnerable > game = 300, vulnerable game = 500; period. This sounds like a reasonable suggestion, but there may be a minor pedagogical disadvantage. If the bonus for a two-game rubber is 800, each of the two games is "really" worth something close to 400. (One J. Rubens pointed this out, as I recall, in a wonderful book, and Ron Klinger in his letter seems to endorse the concept that the two games are of equal value.) You would have the scoring table award 300 for the first, 500 for the second. Perhaps this is close enough, but I wonder. Maybe you should add a sentence or two addressing the question. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 01:41:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 01:41:35 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09788 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 01:41:27 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-54.access.net.il [192.116.198.54]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA12172; Mon, 18 May 1998 18:40:41 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3560575E.141C8318@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:44:30 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Dennis" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Multiple Choice References: <3.0.1.32.19980512233751.0069793c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read all the remarks about this issue and I believe we can't make a general empirical decision. I mean that when there was a break of regular call/play ( tempo , manners , etc..)the TD's task is to decide if the offender's partner action is by his hand's cards and previous legal information he got from auction/play ONLY. If in doubt - ONLY - the TD must apply the "demonstrably" criterion for any of offender's partner action . The AC should consider and decide the same way - the trouble and the luck here are that usually the AC's members are higher level players than most of the contestants - their bridgistic judgment is : trouble = higher level bidding/play ; luck = more experienced and able to consider the specific case accordingly to many other similar cases. Dany Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > After reviewing the thread "High, Middle, Low" (which I unaccountably > missed in the first place) and the related discussion in "suggested over > another", I am still in a muddle about the problem of determining when one > action might be "suggested over another" in the presence of multiple options. > > To abstract what seems to me the essence of the matter, we consider a > player who has UI and faces a problem in which there are three possible > actions (absent the UI, of course). Typically, these options will be Pass, > Bid, or Double, but for now I would prefer to keep them abstract. We > further suppose that the UI has the logical effect of making option A > "demonstrably" less attractive, while offering little or no guidance > between B and C. > > My interpretation of L16 is that action A is the only legal alternative in > this setting. But there seems to be another viewpoint: that since the UI > does not "demonstrably" suggest either B or C, these are both legitimate > options. > > I realize that some, perhaps most, who argued for allowing various bids in > the aforementioned threads will not agree that the above formulation > captures the essential points of those cases. Indeed, Adam's main argument > seemed to be based on a fundamental interrelatedness among the options in > the original case. But this did appear as a theme common to a number of > arguments in those threads, which Steve, at least, seems to feel developed > into a rough consensus on this point. > > Whatever. Take it as a generic case. Do you think: > a) Mike is right. Only option A is legal in this case. > b) It depends on how the options are related to each other. Could go either > way. > c) L16 does not restrict the player's options in this case, especially > after the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". > > Mike Dennis _ > msd@mindspring.com o\ /o > Pikesville, MD o|_|o > USA |-| > o|-| > |-| > |_| > / \ > ( _ ) > \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 02:01:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 02:01:54 +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 CAA09996 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 02:01:48 +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 MAA14834 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17849; Mon, 18 May 1998 12:02:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:02:35 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805181602.MAA17849@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: suggested over another X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From msd@mindspring.com Fri May 15 17:14:36 1998 > While you are contemplating your choices, partner blurts out "For Pete's > sake, you can't pass here!" This is exactly the situation you posed before. The UI (taken at face value) makes one option less attractive while not saying much about the choice between two others. As I said on May 13, there ought to be universal agreement that the less attractive option (pass in this case) is the only legal one if it is a LA. The situation we have been discussing is where you cannot tell which option is suggested or where UI makes one option is made _more_ attractive without suggesting anything between the other two. If you want a blatant example, it would be "You have to pass here!" Now pass is illegal if there's another LA, but which of double or bid (or of several possible bids) is illegal? This example is flawed because double is probably illegal because it caters to anything, but what if there are several possible bids? Is any of them illegal? As you say, there would be a significant PP in such blatant examples, but we ought to be able to apply the same score adjustment principles whether the UI is blatant or subtle. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 04:26:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 04:26:05 +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 EAA10324 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 04:25:57 +1000 Received: from mike (ip152.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.152]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA05312 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980518142611.007436e8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:26:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980518091124.006f0a60@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980515171322.0073a210@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980515093600.006e2548@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980511180210.007296e8@pop.mindspring.com> <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:11 AM 5/18/98 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 05:13 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Michael wrote: > >>While you are contemplating your choices, partner blurts out "For Pete's >>sake, you can't pass here!" Not surprisingly, pass was one of the options >>you were considering. Of course your side will be slapped with a hefty PP >>for partner's outburst, but does his comment impose any L16 restrictions on >>your decision? >> >>Not according to the Landau/Willner/Beneschan approach to L16 enforcement, >>as I understand it. Since partner's comment is neutral as between doubling >>and saving ("high and low"), we are free to choose any of the options, even >>to the point of ruling out Pass on the basis of partner's recommendation. > >Exactly, given the stipulation that partner's comment is truly "neutral". >In order for L16A to come into play, the UI, no matter how egregious or >inappropriate, must demonstrably suggest one LA over another. If it >doesn't do this, the player in possession of it isn't constrained. > >Of course, in real life, it might be very hard to convince a TD/AC that >partner's outburst *doesn't* demonstrably suggest any alternative action >over passing. But you would be legally entitled to try, and a good TD or >AC should consider your argument. > While Steve (and in a similar vein, Adam) wrote: >This is exactly the situation you posed before. The UI (taken at face >value) makes one option less attractive while not saying much about the >choice between two others. As I said on May 13, there ought to be >universal agreement that the less attractive option (pass in this case) >is the only legal one if it is a LA. It was, evidently, unfair to characterize this as the Landau/Willner/Beneshcan approach, since the named individuals differ so markedly on their conclusions in this example. Eric, at least, was consistent in his application of the proposed principle, even though I think Adam and Steve got it right this time. Steve, I assume you noticed the relationship between my "nonsense" auction and the problem you posed earlier on this thread. In fact, they were meant to be the same, except that in your problem, partner tanked before bidding 4S while in my problem partner passed in tempo but made the problematic comment. There has been much speculation about what partner might be considering in these types of situations (dbl, pass, save). Eric offered a fairly detailed argument based on estimating the probability that partner was considering save vs. double. But often in these competitive situations, partner will be considering _both_ save and double, and will sometimes pass because of an unwillingness to commit to either course. We can't really know what was going on in partner's head at the time (and often even when we see the whole hand later, but that's a different problem). The only reliable inference to be drawn from partner's slow pass to 4S is that he is somewhat reluctant to defend 4S undoubled, contrary to the nominal meaning of the Pass itself. As it happens, this is the very message conveyed by partner's inappropriate comment, differing only in the degree of insistence in the message. That difference in degree seems like a slender thread upon which to hang opposing applications of "suggested over another". When partner makes a slow pass over LHO's action, he is (presumably inadvertently) communicating the potentially useful information that the present position might well be improved upon, whether or not his hesitation points toward a specific action on your part. Fundamental to the idea of L16 is that players shall not gain advantage due to UI. If we accept the principle that a slow pass in these dbl/save/pass situations does not demonstrably suggest anything at all, then we will have tacitly endorsed a technique which is in fact quite common, but quite illegal. In club games all over the country, and I suspect all over the world, players use a slow pass to communicate rather specific information, usually suggesting further competition, but sometimes just showing extra values. These "agreements" are not official, of course, but they are generally understood as a matter of partnership experience. The Laws should not condone such practices, and IMO they don't. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 05:52:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 05:52:15 +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 FAA10632 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 05:52:09 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA05565 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 19:52:09 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980518155334.00695a9c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 15:53:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:13 AM 5/18/98 +1000, Laurie wrote: >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra >information to South. However I will also concede that without the >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. >What do others think? These hypotheses are contradictory: Either North's actions have conveyed some information to South, or North's actions cannot have affected South's call. It doesn't matter that the information North's actions may have conveyed to South may have been wrong information. If South's 4H bid were based on, for example, the mistaken notion that North's attempt to bid 1H meant that South had the values for an opening bid, then South has violated L16A, and has damaged the opponents in doing so, so the score should be adjusted, notwithstanding the fact that the conclusion on which South based his violating action was patently incorrect. So *if* you believe that absent the original insufficient bid South would have passed 2H, you should adjust. If you believe that absent the original insufficient bid, South would have bid 4H, then, given North's hand (clearly not suitable for an opening 1H bid), it would seem reasonable to decide that the original insufficient bid conveyed no unauthorized (whether right or wrong) information which would constrain South's action, and allow the result to stand. Obviously, you can't believe both of these simultaneously. This is a question of fact, not law, so it's up to the TD (or AC) on the spot to make the determination. 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 May 19 07:22:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 07:22:22 +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 HAA11015 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 07:22:16 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA07397 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:22:48 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980518172413.006cb9a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 17:24:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980517205458.00737254@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980515093600.006e2548@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980511180210.007296e8@pop.mindspring.com> <199805111433.KAA29981@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:54 PM 5/17/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >It is not at all clear that "we all agree" on this point. Several >contributors on this thread have raised the question of how we should >proceed when one action seems slightly more likely than another >(statistically, at any rate). It seems absurd to argue that your approach >is only correct when the probabilities attached to double and save are >exactly 50-50, especially considering the aforementioned difficulties of >precisely quantifying this probability. If a slow pass doesn't demonstrably >suggest anything when partner's hesitation is equally likely to show >interest in doubling or saving, then it doesn't "demonstrably" suggest >anything if we change the odds to 55-45 or even 60-40. > >Thus to adapt your standard means, in practice, that we will be allowing >virtually any action unless it is quite clear that partner's hesitiation is >pointing to one particular course of action. That is one (perhaps >legitimate) way to read L16, but from your comments I don't believe it's an >interpretation you would be comfortable with. Mike's (mostly snipped) analysis is insightful and essentially correct, but, no, I don't agree with his conclusions. I would rephrase his statement of my standard: I do not require that partner's hesitation "point[] to one particular course of action", only that it point to one or more particular courses of action as more likely to succeed than one or more others. But I suspect that Mike knows this, and miswrote. And I concede that my hypothetical cases were contrived, as nothing as complicated as this is ever *exactly* 50-50 in real life. So I do require that the "pointing" to some action(s) must be clear, where by "clear" I mean clear enough for a TD or AC to believe that the action was indeed indicated by the UI without recourse to the actual hands or result. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a player in possession of UI who takes a winning action may have knowledge inaccessible to a TD or AC which, when combined with the UI, suggests a particular action or actions. But that's the point! If the suggestion requires knowledge accessible only to the player who had the UI, then it is not, by definition, demonstrable. My view is that the lawmakers deliberately substituted "demonstrable" (a much stronger standard) for "reasonable" because, while it may be reasonable to think that the winning action, whatever it may be, was suggested by the UI, this in itself was not intended to be sufficient to meet the "suggested" requirement of L16. Furthermore, although it's a bit off the point, I don't believe that the "subjective" odds (from the player's viewpoint) have anything (or at least have very little) to do with the "demonstrable" odds (from the TD's/AC's viewpoint). If the subjective odds are 51%-49% for reasons apparent to the TD/AC, then the 51% action has indeed been "demonstrably suggested" over the 49% action, whereas if the subjective odds are 90%-10%, but the TD/AC cannot determine that they are other than 50%-50%, then the 90% action, while it may certainly have been "suggested", has not been "demonstrably suggested". This is not to suggest that the demonstrable odds must be determined in isolation. The TD/AC is entitled (and duty-bound) to consider what the players have to say about what they were thinking (with the usual caveats about discounting self-serving statements) and the past history of the partnership in determining whether the "suggestion" was or was not "demonstrable". But I do not believe that this determination should depend on whether or not the possibly suggested action was or was not successful. 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 May 19 07:59:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 07:59:43 +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 HAA11184 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 07:59:35 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA08013 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 22:00:09 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980518180134.00696060@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:01:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: In tempo 3NT? In-Reply-To: References: <199805142234.BAA02606@alpha.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:08 AM 5/18/98 +1000, Laurie wrote: >There was no agreement between the two pairs about the tempo of North's >3NT bid. Not withstanding this I adjusted the score from NS +600 to -300, >(a likely result if South converts to 4S). The appeals committee later >readjusted the score to NS -100, saying they expected North to correct 4S >to 4NT. If everything were on track according to the actual agreement, wouldn't a 4NT bid by North over South's 4S be Blackwood? 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 May 19 09:16:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 09:16:44 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 JAA11484 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 09:16:38 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13003 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 16:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805182316.QAA13003@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 16:14:08 -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 Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > Those who ignore the ACBL regulation that partnerships should have > > two legible convention cards(CCs) on the table at all times are > > violating L75A, which says that "partnership agreements...must be > > fully and freely available to the opponents." That means you > > shouldn't have to ask for information that is supposed to be shown on > > the CC. > > Another important part of this regulation is that the card must be > complete. For example, many players do not fill out their lead from > three small on their convention cards, but I suspect that most of them > have an agreement. The new convention card has made low from three > small standard, which partly solves the problem, but there are probably > CPU's around from players who have never looked at the standard leads. > This may be because they vary their practice according to circumstances. For instance, leading high from three small in partner's suit after supporting the suit, but low otherwise, is a common agreement. The solution is to circle both the highest and lowest x, indicating a variable practice. This goes for all "multiple x" holdings: circle every card that might be led according to some partnership agreement. The ACBL instructions for filling out the CC (15 pages, available on the web site) are vague on this subject, but do say "circle any exceptions to standard leads." That would seem to permit multiple circles in any group of x's, but the standard lead should also be circled if it is included with one or more others. The ACBL sends out a copy of the CC instructions, just one, with any purchase of CCs. Additional copies are available for $1.00 each. Anything for a buck these days. Surprisingly, the instructions are rather well-written. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 09:39:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 09:39:02 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 JAA11575 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 09:38:56 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA15452 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 16:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805182339.QAA15452@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 16:37:24 -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: > > Here is the ACBL regulation: > > http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm#ConventionCards > > Convention Cards > > At Sectional and higher rated tournaments: > > 1. Each player is required to have a convention card legibly filled > out and on the table throughout the session. Both cards of a > partnership must be identical and include the first and last names > of each member of the partnership. > > 2. 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. > > 3. If the director determines that the partnership has at least one > substantially completed convention card but has not fully complied > with ACBL regulations, then the director may give warnings or > assign such penalties as he deems to be appropriate under the > circumstances. > > 4. The object of these warnings and penalties is the encouragement of > full compliance with ACBL regulations. > Thanks, Chyah. There is a slight inconsistency between this regulation and the instructions for filling out the CC, also on the ACBL web site. The latter says that "sectional and higher tournaments" applies only to full names at the top of the card, and that the rest of the above regulation is applicable to *all* ACBL games. Which is right? Now how about using your influence to get the regulation enforced? Bobby Goldman had no CC at all when I played against him at the Reno NABC. I have given up asking ACBL TDs to enforce this and other regulations (e.g., skip bid warning), because they refuse to do so. Since the ACBL management is not requiring TDs to comply, I think it behooves every Tournament Manager to tell the Chief Tournament Director that he/she is expected to enforce all ACBL regulations. If you're a Tournament Manager, manage the Tournament! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 10:02:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 10:02:58 +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 KAA11663 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 10:02:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019397; 18 May 98 23:58 GMT Message-ID: <4uYlv1Al0CY1EwJD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:44:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980518080657.0a77b11c@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >L40E gives the sponsoring organization the right to prescribe a convention >card and establish regulations for its use. But, it doesn't make these >regulations part of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, does it? Not part: but breach of those regulations is a breach of that Law surely? Anyway, what difference does it make? -- 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 May 19 10:08:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 10:08:25 +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 KAA11692 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 10:08:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019393; 18 May 98 23:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:56:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <35602363.DD9167A7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >All the discussions about the De Wael school have led me to believe >there is a serious misunderstanding about the interpretation of L75C. > >In a few episodes, I would like to get to the bottom of this. > >Let me start by taking you by the hand on a journey where you may at >every turn jump in and disagree. OK ? Groan! >To start, I would like you to imagine a player who is in doubt as to the >meaning of his partner's last call. He is asked about this meaning (or >is wondering whether or not to alert) and he has to respond something. > >Let's assume there are only two possibilities : A and B. > >Do you agree that a third possibility will not change our rulings ? No. >There are four possible types of answers that the player can give : > >1) it is A >2) it is A, but I'm not certain >3) it is A, but it could also be B >4) it is A or B > >I am not talking of actual words, just types. In 2) the player >expresses his doubts but does not mention an alternative. > >Do you agree that these four types contain all possible answers No. How about: 5) i don't know 6) i think we have no partnership agreement 7) i know we have no partnership agreement 8) that call is impossible! 9) i know it is A, but my partner sometimes gets it wrong and thinks it is B I could go on: there are others! > and that >the actual wording is of no particular importance to our rulings ? No. The understanding of the oppos of our agreements often depends on the actual wording. >Let's first deal with type 4) answers. When presented with an opponent >who does not give just one answer, what do you do ? Call the TD. >You press for one answer, and if he does not comply, you call the TD, >who shall ask for 1 answer. Why? The TD is not there to bully the players, and in this case who should explain what the Law demands and then let the player answer. >You can imagine circumstances where you do not ask, but then this falls >back into a situation like if you did not ask any questions. > >Do you agree that this turns a type 4) reply into a type 3) one ? No. > >So we can just deal with three types of responses. Well, nine. > >Now I have five questions to put to you : (you may answer these on >private e-mail, if you have nothing else to contribute to a more general >discussion) > >One : what type of response do you give when in doubt ? > > 1 2 3 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 dependent on the individual circumstances >Two : what type of response do you advise your players to give ? > > 1 2 3 I don't advise them to give a response: I make clear that they know what they are doing, and listen to the response, but it is not my job to tell them what to say, because I do not know the answer. Of course, I may investigate to discover the answer, but that is at the end of the hand, and we are talking during the hand. For me to tell them what to say would be similar to me looking into their hand for the purposes of making a ruling. >Three : If the true meaning turns out to be B, do you deal with each >type of response > > exactly the same > > harsher on the type > > 1 2 3 > Depends on the circumstances. >Four : If the true meaning turns out to be C, do you deal with each type >of response > > exactly the same > > harsher on the type > > 2 3 > Depends on the circumstances. >Five : Do you deal harsher or not on a player who answered type 1 but >afterwards : > > says he made a mistake > > admits he was uncertain but did not tell this to opponents > Depends on the circumstances. > >By harsher I mean anything : from exclusion to giving a PP, to >considering a PP, to telling off, to a gentle warning that this is not >to be done. > >If necessary, you may indicate how much more harsher you deal with in >any particular case. > -- 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 May 19 10:29:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 10:29:57 +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 KAA11780 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 10:29:35 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021517; 19 May 98 0:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 01:25:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Leaving for a while In-Reply-To: <01BD8256.7B441660@res> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vytautas Rekus wrote: >It's pity, but I must leave BLML for some time (long business trip). I really >enjoined the time I spent together, I learned a lot from you... > >I really miss you. > >Hope to rejoin ASAP! Come back soon! -- 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 May 19 13:55:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:55:17 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 NAA12408 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:55:08 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17322 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 20:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805190355.UAA17322@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 20:53:27 -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 Grattan wrote: Hirsch Davis wrote; > > > > This seems to be completely wrong. If you're making an adjustment under > > Law 16, namely that pass was an LA, then the score gets rolled back to 4H for > > *both* sides. If the NO's get a top out of this, so be it. Your quote > > from Kaplan talks about adjusting the score, not splitting it. Under what > > rationale do you give the NO's their most likely score if the irregularity > > did not occur? The irregularity *did* occur, and the NO's are entitled > > to redress, even if it gives them the gift of a top. > > > ++++ That is so. [It has not been enunciated but the equity contemplated > in 12C3 is taken to be equity for the pairs at the table and not for the > field at large. The principle that other tables have no entitled interest in what > happens at this table holds good.] ++++ Grattan++++ > C=WBF Laws Cttee > [.......personal comment......] But, but, but (sputter, sputter) L12C3 is not valid in ACBL-land! Anyway, that doesn't matter. A pair uses UI (a slow double) to arrive in 4S after an opposing 4H bid, but everyone else is in that contract without the help of UI. Had it not been for the irregularity, however, 4S would very likely have been bid anyway. The TD assigns the score of an opposing 4H doubled contract to the OS because he determines that passing 4H doubled was an LA to bidding 4S. He assigns the score of an opposing 4S to the NOs, because that is the "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." That is very plainly correct per L12C2, and I don't see how L12C3 can do anything different "to achieve equity" "for the pairs at the table." I have no quarrel with an NO getting an unearned top due to an irregularity, forget about the field, so long as the provisions of L12C2 are followed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 14:21:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 14:21:35 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 OAA12461 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 14:21:24 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21123; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805190421.VAA21123@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 21:19:30 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote; > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Does that mean the NOs get the gift of a top score for a 4H contract > >when all other pairs are -650? No. They get the same -650, the most > >favorable result that was likely if the irregularity had not > >occurred. The tendency of TDs and ACs to award a balancing score to > >the NOs is not in accordance with L12C2. > > > >In the case of Dallas Appeals Case #1, whatever intent the AKQ10xxxx > >holder had when he made a weak jump overcall of 2S, it is not > >illogical of him to change that plan when partner makes a direct > >double of 4H that (logically) tells him to shut up and don't bid > >further. Assign -790 to the OS, and in this case the balancing score > >of +790 for the NOs. The 4S bid was the irregularity, not the slow > >double of 4H, so the double stands. > > Can you explain why the NOs should receive -650 in the first case and +790 > in the second? I would expect either the score for 4H undoubled in the > first case and +790, or -650 and +300. > No, I screwed up. In the first case, the NOs get the assigned score for a 4H contract, since that would definitely have been the contract if the irregularity had not occurred. In Dallas Case#1, if the irregularity had not occurred (pulling the double), the contract would definitely have been 4H doubled, making with overtrick(s), so assign that result for both sides, a balanced assignment. I should have picked a better example for non-balancing assignments (like a valid one?). Take Dallas Case #4, where a reasonable assignment would be -150 for E-W (1NT making 3) and +90 for N-S (1NT making 1), the former representing the least favorable result that was at all probable for the OS, the latter the most favorable result that was likely for the NOs. Thank you, Tim Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 14:39:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 14:39:07 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 OAA12532 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 14:39:00 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23166 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 21:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805190439.VAA23166@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 21:37:21 -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 Well, I screwed up this time. I wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > Hirsch Davis wrote; > > > > > > This seems to be completely wrong. If you're making an > adjustment under > > > Law 16, namely that pass was an LA, then the score gets rolled > back to 4H for > > > *both* sides. If the NO's get a top out of this, so be it. Your > quote > > > from Kaplan talks about adjusting the score, not splitting it. > Under what > > > rationale do you give the NO's their most likely score if the > irregularity > > > did not occur? The irregularity *did* occur, and the NO's are > entitled > > > to redress, even if it gives them the gift of a top. > > > > > > ++++ That is so. [It has not been enunciated but the equity > contemplated > > in 12C3 is taken to be equity for the pairs at the table and not > for the > > field at large. The principle that other tables have no entitled > interest in what > > happens at this table holds good.] ++++ Grattan++++ > > C=WBF Laws Cttee > > [.......personal comment......] > > But, but, but (sputter, sputter) L12C3 is not valid in ACBL-land! > > Anyway, that doesn't matter. A pair uses UI (a slow double) to arrive > in 4S after an opposing 4H bid, but everyone else is in that contract > without the help of UI. Had it not been for the irregularity, > however, 4S would very likely have been bid anyway. The TD assigns > the score of an opposing 4H doubled contract to the OS because he > determines that passing 4H doubled was an LA to bidding 4S. He > assigns the score of an opposing 4S to the NOs, because that is the > "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred." > > That is very plainly correct per L12C2, and I don't see how L12C3 can > do anything different "to achieve equity" "for the pairs at the > table." > > I have no quarrel with an NO getting an unearned top due to an > irregularity, forget about the field, so long as the provisions of > L12C2 are followed. This is faulty logic; I never said I was smart. In the absence of the irregularity, 4H doubled is the contract, so assign that, in accordance with L12C2. The principle I was trying to illustrate is correct, however: assigned scores do not have to balance (see Dallas Appeals Case #4 discussion). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 16:04:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 16:04:02 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 QAA12695 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 16:03:54 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA03290 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 23:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805190604.XAA03290@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:01:10 -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 This case is interesting only because of the apparent similarity to Case #1, in which North bid 4S with a five-loser hand, pulling partner's slow double of 4H. Vulnerability: None Dealer: South S- KQJT86 H- 3 D- 63 C- KQ83 S- A7 S- 54 H- T964 H- AKJ2 D- AKJ32 D- 84 C- J2 C- T9764 S- 932 H- Q875 D- QT97 C- A5 West North East South P 1H 1S 4H P(1) P 4S All pass (1) Break in tempo West had missorted her hand and thought she had five hearts. In case #1, the overcall was a weak jump overcall of 2S, and South's break in tempo ended with a double, not a pass as in this case. Most people think the AC decision to allow the 4S bid in that case was not good. This 4S was set one trick. The TD allowed the 4S bid, and E-W appealed, reasonably thinking they could make 4H (which they could not, even double dummy, according to the casebook panel). Anyway, after discussion the AC agreed with the TD that 4S should stand. The difference between this and Case #1 is that South's slow pass gives no indication as to what he was thinking about, , whereas in Case #1 South was obviously in doubt about doubling. Also, passing 4H would not be logical for North (as opposed to passing a double of 4H, which would be logical even if not the best call). This was a close decision, showing why it is necessary to have smart people serving on ACs (in this case Rich Colker, chairman, plus Bruce Reeve and John Solodar). Let's give the unknown TD credit also, for getting it right. The full write-up of this case can be viewed on the Federation Suisse de Bridge website (as #6, not #5), on page http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/dls_app.html The Dallas NABC casebook, with comments on all cases by a panel of experts, edited by Rich Colker, can be ordered from the ACBL (800-264-2743). It includes 21 AC cases, 17 from Dallas and 4 from the International Team Trials for 1997. Six of the Dallas cases are not published elsewhere. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 19:50:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 19:50:56 +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 TAA13122 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 19:50:49 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-231.uunet.be [194.7.13.231]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15247 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:51:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356151D7.33C1D620@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:33:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <13728.9805181403@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > One : what type of response do you give when in doubt ? > > > > 1 2 3 > > The response that most accurately reflects my recollection (or lack of > recollection) of our agreements: anything from 1 to 4. > Your recollection is that you are uncertain. I will count this as a reply type 3 : A, or maybe B. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 19:51:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 19:51:01 +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 TAA13130 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 19:50:53 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-231.uunet.be [194.7.13.231]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15253 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:51:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356153EA.992D1925@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:42:02 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation 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: > (snip) I don't like this at all David. I was asking the world for their opinions, as if conducting a poll. I was not offering my own views (although readers may have a good idea as to what they are) You offer your views and the rest of the world remains silent. You make it sound as if I'm the bad guy, who needs to get shut up. I do believe there are more readers out there with views similar to mine. I urge them not to shut up just because David thinks this is a silly argument and he alone can RTFLB. I know this may seem unfriendly, David, and I don't mean to be unfriendly towards you, but your reply has done nothing to further the discussion. I ask for a replay 1,2 or 3 and you reply "anything from 1 to 9". I know you have said you disagreed with my premise that there are only three types of response, but you could have gone a little way in following the reasoning. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 19:50:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 19:50:54 +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 TAA13120 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 19:50:47 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-231.uunet.be [194.7.13.231]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15241 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:51:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35615189.27065991@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:31:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <13728.9805181403@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > Do you agree that this turns a type 4) reply into a type 3) one ? > > No > > The playing giving the explanation does not have to chose, he can say: > "We have an agreement, I am sure it is A or B but I do not know which." > The player may suggest that opponents consult the convention card. > > If the convention card is unhelpful, the TD will be called. But if the > player was not sure what their agreement is, the TD should not ask the > player to guess. > And then what do you do (as TD) when opponents ask you "we play different defenses according to the type of answer we get - what shall we play ?" I believe opponents are entitled to ONE reply, and if it turns out wrong, they are entitled to redress. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 19 21:03:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 21:03:56 +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 VAA13332 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 21:03:50 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029109; 19 May 98 10:56 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:30:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <356153EA.992D1925@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >I don't like this at all David. Shame. >I was asking the world for their opinions, as if conducting a poll. True. >I was not offering my own views (although readers may have a good idea >as to what they are) Very funny. >You offer your views and the rest of the world remains silent. That is up to them. I personally think that the majority of people are beginning to pass your stuff over. You have been arguing for too long an untenable minority position and feedback that I have received is that some readers of this list would prefer you to give it a rest. I am willing to play along to the extent of answering a flawed poll. However, the more premises you include in your questions, the less you can expect intelligent readers to just respond in the way you would wish without obvious thought. >You make it sound as if I'm the bad guy, who needs to get shut up. This seems to be the majority view. >I do believe there are more readers out there with views similar to >mine. So we'll just have to educate them that lying is bad for the game, won't we? >I urge them not to shut up just because David thinks this is a silly >argument and he alone can RTFLB. I agree: they should not keep quiet because of me. But are you sure that is why you are not hearing what you want to hear? >I know this may seem unfriendly, David, and I don't mean to be >unfriendly towards you, but your reply has done nothing to further the >discussion. No, I did not think you wanted a correct and honest reply. As far as being unfriendly is concerned, there is too much annoyance at the moment to worry about such things. Let's get this unfortunate period over with and then worry. >I ask for a replay 1,2 or 3 and you reply "anything from 1 to 9". You put premises is in and made the answer totally unworkable. It is a completely unfair and biased poll. >I know you have said you disagreed with my premise that there are only >three types of response, but you could have gone a little way in >following the reasoning. Why? Your unreasonable bias permeated the later questions: to have answered 1 2 or 3 [to which the answer would *of course* have been "any of 1, 2 or 3 dependent on circumstance"] would have been to accept the totally spurious reasoning that the options were limited to 1, 2 or 3. Either [a] Accept that your position is untenable and give up trying to argue it, or [b] Set unbiased polls where answers to questions do not depend on getting the answers to other questions right per HdW, or [c] Accept the honest and correct answers to the poll you set, even if you do not like the answers ---------------------- Herman De Wael wrote: >Robin Barker wrote: >> > One : what type of response do you give when in doubt ? >> > >> > 1 2 3 >> >> The response that most accurately reflects my recollection (or lack of >> recollection) of our agreements: anything from 1 to 4. >Your recollection is that you are uncertain. > >I will count this as a reply type 3 : A, or maybe B. If you are going to treat an honest reply from another person as not meaning what he says then you should not be conducting a poll of this sort. Robin explained his reasoning perfectly. You may not like the answers to your poll, but one day you will finally realise there is an answer to that. -- 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 May 19 22:43:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 22:43:33 +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 WAA13643 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 22:43:19 +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 NAA18990; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:43:46 +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 NAA17127; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:43:45 +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 NAA25110; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:43:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 19 May 98 13:43:43 BST Message-Id: <20357.9805191243@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is getting away from the original thread, but ... > From: Herman De Wael > Robin Barker wrote: > > The playing giving the explanation does not have to chose, he can say: > > "We have an agreement, I am sure it is A or B but I do not know which." > > The player may suggest that opponents consult the convention card. > > > > If the convention card is unhelpful, the TD will be called. But if the > > player was not sure what their agreement is, the TD should not ask the > > player to guess. > > > > And then what do you do (as TD) when opponents ask you "we play > different defenses according to the type of answer we get - what shall > we play ?" I sympathise with their predicament and explain they may be entitled to redress. > I believe opponents are entitled to ONE reply, and if it turns out > wrong, they are entitled to redress. > I don't believe the laws (or our regulations) require a player to guess when he is not sure. Neither does my esteemed colleague: > From: David Stevenson > Why? The TD is not there to bully the players, and in this case who > should explain what the Law demands and then let the player answer. The (only) practical solution to "we play different defenses according to the type of answer we get - what shall we play ?" is to find out in advance. That is, if a partnership plays methods which vary depending on opponents agreements, then the partnership should check at the beginning of the round what the opponents agreements are in the relevant situations. That way the partnership can be clear which methods are going to apply. Otherwise, you can't help being fixed, e.g. NS play penalty double of WJO, take out double of strong jump overcalls. W: Pass, N: 1H, E: 3C, S: How strong is that? W: Random: 5-15, 5+ card suit, may or may not have useful outside cards. S: Is it weak or strong? W: 5-15, 5+ card suit, may or may not have useful outside cards. S: TD - West won't tell me what my methods are in this position. TD: ? He's not obliged to. 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 May 20 01:41:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:41:32 +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 BAA16514 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:41:24 +1000 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil by mx3.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 2.90l) id 00001370; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:35:20 -0400 Message-Id: <199805191535.00001370@mx3.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: L75C - interpretation Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:35:12 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-reply-to: <356153EA.992D1925@village.uunet.be> 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 Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 5:42 AM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > (snip) > > > I don't like this at all David. > > I was asking the world for their opinions, as if conducting a poll. > > I was not offering my own views (although readers may have a good idea > as to what they are) > > You offer your views and the rest of the world remains silent. > [snip] I expressed my views early, and will admit to being silent since. I believe that others, especially David, have expressed my feelings in this matter more eloquently than I could. However, since you appear to be asking for other opinions, I will try and express mine succinctly. 1) You are advocating lying to opponents about partnership agreements in certain situations 2) You are advocating deliberately violating the Laws of the game in certain situations I believe that this approach undermines the Laws, and threatens the integrity of the game. I believe that anyone who will allow players to engage in these behaviors should not be directing bridge games. I believe that the 1987 Laws were actually clearer than the 1997 version. They used the weaker "it is inappropriate" wording in L75D2, making it quite clear that L75C and the host of other Laws you are breaking had priority. Perhaps this wording needs to be examined again. And with that, I will return to silence. I feel that semantic games attempting to justify the behaviors above are pointless. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 02:12:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 02:12:23 +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 CAA16789 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 02:12:16 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA27475 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:12:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.71) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027445; Tue May 19 11:12:21 1998 Received: by har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD831F.399DA720@har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 19 May 1998 12:11:17 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD831F.399DA720@har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:11:08 -0400 Encoding: 89 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Even if one concedes, for purposes of argument, that the 4S bid WAS an LA suggested by the slow pass, where is the damage? The NOS has been whisked from a negative to a positive score by the phantom sac. The action would surely not be so egregious to warrant a PP, and rolling back to 4H down one certainly doesn't redress the situation. Was the deposit retained? Or was the appellant's argument that they did not get an opportunity to benefit from gross defensive error and somehow bring in 4H? That would not seem a 1 in 6 likelihood, let alone a one in three. Unless I'm missing something, this looks like a clear case of no harm, no foul. Craig Senior ---------- From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:01 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) This case is interesting only because of the apparent similarity to Case #1, in which North bid 4S with a five-loser hand, pulling partner's slow double of 4H. Vulnerability: None Dealer: South S- KQJT86 H- 3 D- 63 C- KQ83 S- A7 S- 54 H- T964 H- AKJ2 D- AKJ32 D- 84 C- J2 C- T9764 S- 932 H- Q875 D- QT97 C- A5 West North East South P 1H 1S 4H P(1) P 4S All pass (1) Break in tempo West had missorted her hand and thought she had five hearts. In case #1, the overcall was a weak jump overcall of 2S, and South's break in tempo ended with a double, not a pass as in this case. Most people think the AC decision to allow the 4S bid in that case was not good. This 4S was set one trick. The TD allowed the 4S bid, and E-W appealed, reasonably thinking they could make 4H (which they could not, even double dummy, according to the casebook panel). Anyway, after discussion the AC agreed with the TD that 4S should stand. The difference between this and Case #1 is that South's slow pass gives no indication as to what he was thinking about, , whereas in Case #1 South was obviously in doubt about doubling. Also, passing 4H would not be logical for North (as opposed to passing a double of 4H, which would be logical even if not the best call). This was a close decision, showing why it is necessary to have smart people serving on ACs (in this case Rich Colker, chairman, plus Bruce Reeve and John Solodar). Let's give the unknown TD credit also, for getting it right. The full write-up of this case can be viewed on the Federation Suisse de Bridge website (as #6, not #5), on page http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/dls_app.html The Dallas NABC casebook, with comments on all cases by a panel of experts, edited by Rich Colker, can be ordered from the ACBL (800-264-2743). It includes 21 AC cases, 17 from Dallas and 4 from the International Team Trials for 1997. Six of the Dallas cases are not published elsewhere. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 03:26:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 03:26:00 +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 DAA17058 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 03:25:51 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-043.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.48]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA20388 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 10:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <356073DA.6634@lightspeed.net> Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:46:02 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation References: <20357.9805191243@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: [Much snippage-- ongoing discussion of what to do when partner misses a bid.] > > NS play penalty double of WJO, take out double of strong jump overcalls. > W: Pass, > N: 1H, > E: 3C, > S: How strong is that? > W: Random: 5-15, 5+ card suit, may or may not have useful outside cards. > S: Is it weak or strong? > W: 5-15, 5+ card suit, may or may not have useful outside cards. > S: TD - West won't tell me what my methods are in this position. > TD: ? He's not obliged to. > I very much like this example of appropriate description. *I* know certain partners are prone to error, and avoid CPU's like the plague, so I end up with such descriptions as: "That is supposed to be a transfer to diamonds, but she frequently does it on invitational notrump hands," OR: "That's a limit raise, but we just changed our methods in the majors, so she may believe that preemptive raises apply here," OR: "Our agreement is that jump raises of overcalls are preemptive, but the bridge logic of this auction may override that interpretation (Marv, don't sue -- I believe it is appropriate to share bridge knowledge when my partnership's basic theory of the game may be different than other people's.) With another partner, who had a better memory than me, and with whom I played a card with a lot of writing in the margins: "I haven't got a clue. We've discussed this, but it's either 5 spades and a bad hand or 4 spades and a good hand -- I've forgotten which." I think these are all appropriate. Maximum information to the opponents may result in more UI, but such is life. We will suffer for it most of the time. In an effort to bolster Herman's point, let's look at what happens after 1N-P-2N- to Victim, who holds AJx x KQJxxxxx xx, or AJxx Qxxxx -- AJ98 when 2N is described as above as a supposed transfer to diamonds? Victim is toast; he may have been better off without the additional information. However, I think that's just tough for Victim. I've described our explicit and implicit partnership understandings. By doing so, I expect to lose some UI rulings. If a TD demanded I pick one, I'd probably have to refuse; I've explained as best I can. And I think that's the essence of full disclosure. The downside of the DeWael school (the one I haven't seen covered, anyway) is that it can and would be used by unscrupulous players to hide MI. That can't be good. --JRM > Robin > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 03:30:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 03:30:48 +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 DAA17094 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 03:30:41 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07530; 19 May 98 10:30 PDT To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 May 1998 12:11:08 PDT." <01BD831F.399DA720@har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:30:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805191030.aa07530@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Even if one concedes, for purposes of argument, that the 4S bid WAS an LA > suggested by the slow pass, where is the damage? The NOS has been whisked > from a negative to a positive score by the phantom sac. The action would > surely not be so egregious to warrant a PP, and rolling back to 4H down one > certainly doesn't redress the situation. Was the deposit retained? Or was > the appellant's argument that they did not get an opportunity to benefit > from gross defensive error and somehow bring in 4H? . . . The hand: > > S- KQJT86 > H- 3 > D- 63 > C- KQ83 > > S- A7 S- 54 > H- T964 H- AKJ2 > D- AKJ32 D- 84 > C- J2 C- T9764 > > S- 932 > H- Q875 > D- QT97 > C- A5 Does it really take a gross defensive error to let 4H make? Say North leads the spade king; West wins, enters dummy with a trump, takes three diamond tricks, pitching a spade from dummy, ruffs a spade, and leads a club off dummy. It doesn't seem unreasonable for South to win and return a club, leading to this position with North to lead: QJT -- -- Q8 -- -- T96 KJ 32 -- -- T97 9 Q87 Q -- I believe that West can now always take four of the last five tricks. (E.g. on a spade continuation, ruff in dummy, club overruff, diamond ruff, trump coup.) I'm taking it on faith that 4H can't be made double-dummy, if NS defend perfectly. I haven't analyzed the whole hand, so I don't know what defense would beat it. Nor have I tried to run the hand through GIB. But it sure seems that 4H can make with a good guess by declarer and normal less-than-perfect defense. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 04:23:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 04:23:37 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17277 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 04:23:30 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA08401; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:23:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-12.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.76) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008307; Tue May 19 13:22:59 1998 Message-ID: <3561CD7F.3870@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:20:47 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix8.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table References: <199805182316.QAA13003@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote, inter alia: > > The ACBL sends out a copy of the CC instructions, just one, with any > purchase of CCs. Additional copies are available for $1.00 each. > Anything for a buck these days. This comment is Marvin's latest in a litany critical of the ACBL's finances and/or revenue-raising schemes. Part of the reason that the ACBL needs to pursue funds is that a portion of their membership refuses to pay their annual dues (or Life Master Service Fees). Marvin, you haven't paid your ACBL dues in years; how do you have standing to criticize? People who pay no taxes should not be critical of tax policies. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 05:22:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 05:22:41 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 FAA17443 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 05:22:35 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06886 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 12:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805191922.MAA06886@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:20:14 -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 John Brissman wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote, inter alia: > > > > > The ACBL sends out a copy of the CC instructions, just one, with any > > purchase of CCs. Additional copies are available for $1.00 each. > > Anything for a buck these days. > > This comment is Marvin's latest in a litany critical of the ACBL's > finances and/or revenue-raising schemes. Part of the reason that the > ACBL needs to pursue funds is that a portion of their membership refuses > to pay their annual dues (or Life Master Service Fees). Marvin, you > haven't paid your ACBL dues in years; how do you have standing to > criticize? People who pay no taxes should not be critical of tax > policies. > Life masters aren't required to pay dues. They are asked to pay a "life master service fee" in return for receiving *The Bridge Bulletin*, regular reporting of masterpoints, qualification for recognition in masterpoint "races," and qualification for receiving expenses to various high-level events. Since I am not interested in receiving any of these services, I don't pay the fee. The ACBL gets more money from me than from most LMs, as I attend all NABCs, and many regionals and sectionals. Those of us who attained LM status before the fee was instituted were told we would never have to pay dues in the future. Instituting the fee, which is a euphemism for "dues," broke what we regarded as a contract. It's a matter of principle for many of us to not pay the fee. We made LM when doing so was difficult (took me six years and a lot of money, and I was the youngest LM in San Diego at the time--1956). We don't sympathize with the ACBL because its policy of inflating masterpoints resulted in inadequate dues receipts. Besides, a lot of us feel that the ACBL does not spend its money wisely, and that is the main source of its fiscal problems. Anyone for Classic Bridge? People other than you have implied that not paying the fee means that an LM should have less standing vis a vis other ACBL members. I wrote to Memphis asking about this some time ago, when my (former) unit attempted to block me from attending an annual membership tournament that was restricted to dues-paying members only. Memphis replied that I had full standing in the ACBL and the decision not to pay the LM Service Fee in no way affects that. Anyway, I feel that when the ACBL comes up with a new and complicated CC, it owes the members free information about how to fill it out. This is on the ACBL's web site, but ought to be published in *The Bridge Bulletin* for non-internet members. Withholding free paper publication is similar to the decision not to publish the 1997 Laws on the ACBL website until nearly a year after they become effective, in order to recoup printing costs by sales of the Laws book during the year, or of not publishing on the website all NABC appeals cases other than those few buried in the text of NABC Daily Bulletins, in order (it appears) to sell more casebooks. Such short-sighted practices will not serve the long-range outlook for the ACBL. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 07:02:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 07:02:19 +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 HAA17795 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 07:02:13 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h7.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id BAA28226; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:02:57 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35628E0E.3357@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 01:02:22 -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: aims of BLML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) As I am novice in BLML - let me allow to ask: what is the aim of BLML? If it is for one's monologue - well, it may be interesting too. But only in case when the monologist is kind of M. Twain:) I guess that BLML is the forum for free discussion. Then - there should be different opinion. Then there should be minority and minority's right:)) That's why I do not like when anybody says to Herman "shut up" - I understand his view and do not agree with it. But he has rights to speak. If anybody does not want to read it - he may not read:) Otherwise in 2-3 weeks there will not be discussion and there will be the Moderator opinion only >From other hand: Herman, when anybody publishes his view - he should be ready to receive a most hegative estimation. life does be difficult:)) One word more: m-r Davis wrote "that semantic games attempting to justify the behaviors above are pointless". Well, any discussion about any Laws (not only bridge Laws) with necessity becomes semantic. Moreover - all of us are no more then semantic images: chains of letters at PC screens:)) Vitold P.S. May I ask all of you to try to use only such words and expressions that you would like to receive to your own address?:) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 07:04:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 07:04:45 +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 HAA17825 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 07:04:39 +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 XAA03370 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 23:05:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805192105.XAA03370@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:06:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > board 20 - (W/All) > > \ KJ west north east south > \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He > \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass > \ - > A3 \ T987654 > AKQ7 \ 4 > T9 \ - > 954 \ AQ642 > Q2 \ > 98652 \ > AJ4 \ > J87 \ > > North explains his 2 Diamonds as natural, weak, but immediately after > transferring the tray realises his mistake. I have got to get *call the director* into my signature. There might still have been a chance for East to undo his double if North had followed the laws and called the director when he realized his wrong explanation. Sigh. > In fact, 2D shows majors. > This is also the way the bid is explained at the other side of the > screen. > Two rounds later the whole table has realised that north had made a > mistake, and a normal spade contract was reached by east-west. > > In the room (11 tables), 9 tables reach a score of -680. (=12/20) > > We make a ruling, for the non-offending side, of -1430. > > We consider that the double, made over a misexplained 2Di, would be > differently interpreted at the other side of the screen. It may be a language problem, but I don't understand your reasoning. I fail to see how you find EW damaged. Are you saying that if North misbids 2D but East gets the right description of NS's methods, then EW are more likely to find the slam? Or are you saying that if North does not misbid but instead bids a higher number of (presumably natural) diamonds, then EW are more likely to find the slam? Or are you simply saying that you are in doubt and so will adjust the score in favor of the non-offenders? > > There would have been no appeal. > > Then we realise that two pairs, in first and second place, are on > different sides of this deal, at different tables, both in -680. > > Our score correction to -1430 of course affects the result for -680, > which now scores 11 to E-W. > > I ask the computer man about the difference between numbers one and two > and he tells me this is less than one point (out of 853). > > We decide to send the deal to appeal all by ourselves. > > The AC decides that although it is difficult for EW to reach 6Sp (in > fact no-one achieved this), or better even, 6Cl, this pair was hampered > in their attempt. > > They decide to award A+/A-. > > Three questions : > > a) do you agree with our reason for sending this into appeal ourselves ? > (I must say that this was the absolutely last tournament in Belgium > under the 1987 Laws, so strictly we had no authority to do this, but we > knew that if we explained this to the players at the table - two > directors among them - they would appeal on principle anyway) No. But I admit that the Danish NA accepted the principle of a similar appeal when someone else's placing in a teams event depended on the ruling. > > b) do you agree with the artificial score ? Of course not. First of all, I don't think there is any damage to redress, so the score should not be adjusted. But if there is any damage, it must be because EW would bid the slam with some probability. In that case, the AC might award, say, 30% of the match points for the slam and 70% of the match points for the game. Some attention should probably also be given to the likelihood of a sacrifice in 7D, which is today's special at only 1100. > > c) when the board is recalculated, the score for the other E-Ws in -680 > becomes 12.2, but the AAS is only 12 (60%). The chairman of the AC then > decided to award 70% to EW. Do you agree with that ? No. But it can easily be justified under L12C3. Interesting, by the way, that the chairman does the final adjusting all on his own, without consulting his AC. Not the decision process I would normally expect in an AC. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 07:27:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 07:27:06 +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 HAA17912 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 07:27:00 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04385 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 May 1998 16:24:09 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199805192124.QAA04385@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 16:24:09 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [accidentally deleted attribution--Robin Barker, IIRC.] > > The playing giving the explanation does not have to chose, he can say: > > "We have an agreement, I am sure it is A or B but I do not know which." > > The player may suggest that opponents consult the convention card. > > > > If the convention card is unhelpful, the TD will be called. But if the > > player was not sure what their agreement is, the TD should not ask the > > player to guess. > > > > And then what do you do (as TD) when opponents ask you "we play > different defenses according to the type of answer we get - what shall > we play ?" > > I believe opponents are entitled to ONE reply, and if it turns out > wrong, they are entitled to redress. Why? It would seem to be that getting the "Either A or B" reply would actually be even better for me than forcing an uncertain opponent to guess. If it can be demonstrated later that 'A' was the real agreement, and both my partner and I use our 'anti-A' defenses, then I have not been harmed. [And if I am given both alternatives, I can use my own hand to help me figure out which is more likely.] If either of us use our anti-B defense, then we can appeal for redress. So it seems to me that forcing the player to pick one explanation will both: 1) make it more likely that I receive MI, since I cannot judge the correct explanation using my own hand but must take the player's guess instead, and 2) will not improve my ability to ask for redress. OTOH, it seems to offer no actual advantage that I can see, and requires a player to invent false certainty about an agreement. In answer to your poll, then, I give whatever answer is closest to my opinion of my agreements. If I am sure that 'A' is the agreement, I answer 'A'. If I think it's 'A' but I'm not sure, I say that. [If I am unsure between 'A' and 'B', I specify that.] Etc. I give the opponents whatever answer most closely reflects my memory. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Sincerely, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 08:48:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 08:48:40 +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 IAA18162 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 08:48:34 +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 SAA30961 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 18:49:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27107; Tue, 19 May 1998 18:49:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 18:49:27 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805192249.SAA27107@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: suggested over another X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Steve, I assume you noticed the relationship between my "nonsense" auction > and the problem you posed earlier on this thread. In fact, they were meant > to be the same, except that in your problem, partner tanked before bidding > 4S while in my problem partner passed in tempo but made the problematic > comment. It seems this disagreement has been based on a boring difference in bridge judgment about what the original hesitation shows. (In a competitive auction, LHO bids 4H; partner tanks and passes.) Michael seems to think the hesitation says "I have extra values, and I don't much care whether you bid on or double." This is indeed more or less equivalent to his "You can't pass" remark, and I think we all agree that pass is required if it is a LA in either case. On the other hand, I think the hesitation says only the part about having extra values. The hesitator may have a strong preference between playing and defending, but we cannot tell. In general, I would expect double to be illegal in this case because it caters to either. In other words, double is suggested over pass. I fail to see -- under my interpretation of what the hesitation shows -- how bidding on is suggested over pass. The hesitator will be very unhappy if he has a trump stack and was considering a double. Everett's example (not so contrived if, say, partner doubles in a loud voice while banging on the table) may be a better one. With the UI that double was penalty, pass is illegal if bidding is a LA, but how is one bid suggested over another? (Of course it might be in a specific situation, but in general, I think not.) Or, to get back to our original situation, suppose we replace the hesitation by "I'd like to double this, but I guess I better not?" Wouldn't all of us say a bid is required if one is a LA? So why should a bid be forbidden if partner's hesitation might show such a hand? Of course you are welcome to disagree with my judgment about what the hesitation shows in the case originally posed, but in my judgment, it is not at all similar to Michael's example. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 10:35:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:35:07 +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 KAA18372 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:34:59 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-39.access.net.il [192.116.204.39]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA17741; Wed, 20 May 1998 03:35:13 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356225FD.7E3FE93B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 03:38:21 +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: L75C - interpretation References: <35602363.DD9167A7@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good morning Herman and all the friends. Please read the following patiently and I hope all the tension , reactions and some unpleasant feelings will .....vanish. Herman De Wael wrote: > > All the discussions about the De Wael school have led me to believe > there is a serious misunderstanding about the interpretation of L75C. > < snip > I believe your above statement is true , but I disagree with your points of view. You should know that the Laws should apply for all levels players and all kinds of partnerships. The TD isn't a robot or a monkey and should know to apply Laws the best possible way for miscellaneous and different situations.. I write it here because I had a lot of discussions with Mr. Kooijman (some years ago - during the Festivals here ) and applied his clever advice , so never had problems - (didn't say troubles ; read on bellow !!!) . IMHO Law 75C is very clear and simple , just apply it the right way. There can't be an answer '...maybe or maybe.....". 1) A long-term partnership should have very clear-cut answers , even they are complicated - here the answer can be "... it is either X or Y or Z or ALPHA..." ;but I don't accept any other explanation. 2) Good players , in an occasional partnership, have no detailed CC and for this case there was written the last part of 75C .....: "..but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience ". It was written in order to save these good and ethical players from the TRAP of being compelled to give UI by a Law's order !!!!!!!!!!!!! 3) When directing at the level of either "social" or ordinary club sessions , or low level players , you meet more cases when a lot of calls are not clear to the partnership's members (this situation fits D. Stevenson's 9 or more possible answers). Again, the will to get a clear-cut answer is a TRAP ; those players usually even don't understand it is a hard infringement of the Laws. I agree that these are the most unpleasant situations , but here the summoned TD must apply his best judgment after the board's end - this is why a TD should be in trouble what to decide , but the main line of "how to deal with.." is clear and simple for me . I suggest we"ll accept this way of solving our TD enigmas and not to advice players to behave or act in some generally non accepted ways. Your friend Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 11:06:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:06:37 +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 LAA18462 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:06:30 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-39.access.net.il [192.116.204.39]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id EAA23065; Wed, 20 May 1998 04:06:37 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35622D5B.FB86B16B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 04:09:47 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurie Kelso CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmm - it is not fair to ask and answer when there is a great lack of information..... But I guess !!! (i hate it !) and apologize a priori if not right that the one to be bullied is the TD ..... I don't know if 1NT - 2H is forcing, semi-forcing , total pass etc... But if the TD would explain the offender what are ALL the possibilities and their consequences according to the laws , when correcting his insufficient bid , there shouldn't be any problem to decide .... Maybe you"ll tell us what was the whole scenario near that table ???? Dany Laurie Kelso wrote: > > Dear BLMLers > > Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two > diametrically opposed groups. > > Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) > > - > Nil Vul Q98654 > Dlr East 9 > Q98543 > K10432 AJ98 > KJ 32 > 7642 Q853 > J6 K107 > Q765 > A107 > AKJ10 > A2 > > West North East South > - - Pass 1NT > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > All Pass > > Result: NS +450 > > *The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest > sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and > rules under Law 27B1(a). > > After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this > really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed > information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of > the green? > > Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > information to South. However I will also concede that without the > original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > What do others think? > > Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 11:14:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:14:13 +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 LAA18482 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:14:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA04638 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:14:27 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:14:27 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <35615189.27065991@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 May 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robin Barker wrote: > > > > If the convention card is unhelpful, the TD will be called. But if the > > player was not sure what their agreement is, the TD should not ask the > > player to guess. > > > > And then what do you do (as TD) when opponents ask you "we play > different defenses according to the type of answer we get - what shall > we play ?" > > I believe opponents are entitled to ONE reply, and if it turns out > wrong, they are entitled to redress. I agree that if the opponents end up giving MI, then redress may be appropriate. However if a player doesn't know what the agreement is (maybe he has forgotten, maybe he never knew), then making him guess only makes things worse. The director should be an impartial arbiter of fact. In the above scenario he may be actively generating MI. What happens later in committee when the player says "the director made me tell the opponents that"? If the player says there are two possibilities, that is what he believes. The opponent then has availiable to him the same information as the confused player. UI considerations are a separate issue, which can only be addressed after the conclusion of play. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 13:24:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:24:02 +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 NAA24788 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:23:57 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA10628; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:22:51 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:22:50 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: Dany Haimovici cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <35622D5B.FB86B16B@internet-zahav.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 20 May 1998, Dany Haimovici wrote: > Hmmm - it is not fair to ask and answer when > there is a great lack of information..... > > But I guess !!! (i hate it !) and apologize a priori if not right > that the one to be bullied is the TD ..... > I don't know if 1NT - 2H is forcing, semi-forcing , total pass etc... I was not the TD involved, but as I wrote originally 1NT - 2H for this novice pair was systematically an old fashioned natural signoff. > But if the TD would explain the offender what are ALL the > possibilities and their consequences according to the laws , when > correcting his insufficient bid , there shouldn't be any problem > to decide .... The main reason I posted this situation is that I was curious what the real consequences are! The laws after all specifically say that Law 16C does not apply to withdrawn insufficient bids. > Maybe you"ll tell us what was the whole scenario near that table ???? What other information do you require? North at the time indicated (to the director away from the table) that he had wished to bid 2H (not 1H) over 1NT. Isn't it really South's actions that we should be examining? Remember also that this is a 0-99 masterpoint section. Laurie > > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > > > Dear BLMLers > > > > Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two > > diametrically opposed groups. > > > > Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) > > > > - > > Nil Vul Q98654 > > Dlr East 9 > > Q98543 > > K10432 AJ98 > > KJ 32 > > 7642 Q853 > > J6 K107 > > Q765 > > A107 > > AKJ10 > > A2 > > > > West North East South > > - - Pass 1NT > > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > > All Pass > > > > Result: NS +450 > > > > *The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest > > sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and > > rules under Law 27B1(a). > > > > After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this > > really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed > > information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of > > the green? > > > > Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > > information to South. However I will also concede that without the > > original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > > What do others think? > > > > Laurie > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 13:34:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:34:14 +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 NAA24976 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:34:07 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb45.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.45]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA21638 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 23:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980519233349.00746508@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:33:49 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: suggested over another In-Reply-To: <199805192249.SAA27107@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:49 PM 5/19/98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Steve, I assume you noticed the relationship between my "nonsense" auction >> and the problem you posed earlier on this thread. In fact, they were meant >> to be the same, except that in your problem, partner tanked before bidding >> 4S while in my problem partner passed in tempo but made the problematic >> comment. > >It seems this disagreement has been based on a boring difference in >bridge judgment about what the original hesitation shows. (In a >competitive auction, LHO bids 4H; partner tanks and passes.) Michael >seems to think the hesitation says "I have extra values, and I don't >much care whether you bid on or double." This is indeed more or less >equivalent to his "You can't pass" remark, and I think we all agree >that pass is required if it is a LA in either case. The point is, the hesitation doesn't demonstrably show anything at all, except some degree of reluctance to defend undoubled (which is what the remark shows as well). I _don't_ claim it necessarily implies extra values, but I do claim that the knowledge that partner is reluctant to pass can be of (illegal) value, even when it doesn't demonstrably suggest a particular alternative. Look at it this way. We've all seen disasters resulting from misunderstandings over whether a particular pass is forcing. Suppose I could offer you a fool-proof method for determining when partner's pass is forcing. Cadging some lebensohl-ish terminology, we'll call it "Slow with forcing". Works like this: in a competitive auction, a normal in-tempo pass of the opponent's bid suggests a willingness to play there undoubled. It essentially says, "partner, I've bid my hand out and have no reason to think we should be competing further". A slow pass, however, is more or less forcing, strongly inviting further action by partner. Useful? You bet! Legal? I certainly hope not. Obviously only certifiable cheaters would actually agree to such a method. But the fact is, people use exactly this "system" every day, without any explicit agreement to do so. Why do they do it? Because it works! In competitive situations, it can be very helpful to distinguish between hands which are not appropriate for further action and those that are, even when it is unclear which further action is most attractive. IMO, L16 provides the legal authority to act against such shenanigans, and should be applied to this category of cases. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 13:59:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:59:44 +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 NAA29675 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:59:39 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA00936 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:59:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:59:58 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980518155334.00695a9c@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 18 May 1998, Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:13 AM 5/18/98 +1000, Laurie wrote: > > >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > >information to South. However I will also concede that without the > >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > >What do others think? > > These hypotheses are contradictory: Either North's actions have conveyed > some information to South, or North's actions cannot have affected South's > call. It doesn't matter that the information North's actions may have > conveyed to South may have been wrong information. South knows that North originally made an insufficient bid and then decided after hearing all his options that substituting 2H was the best choice. Why does this suddenly make South's 4H a potentially successful action? If North had an opening hand, he would have bid game himself, not 2H. > If South's 4H bid were based on, for example, the mistaken notion that > North's attempt to bid 1H meant that South had the values for an opening > bid, then South has violated L16A, and has damaged the opponents in doing > so, so the score should be adjusted, notwithstanding the fact that the > conclusion on which South based his violating action was patently > incorrect. Is this really so? Law 27B1(a) says that 16C2 does not apply. Whether this goes as far as implying that information from the withdrawn insufficient bid is authorised is something else to discuss. I know that 27B1(b) is there as a fail safe mechanism, but I would argue that the rigorous conditions that Law 16 imposes in regard to LA's aren't applicable here thanks to the 16C2 waiver. What is (was) the intent of the 16C2 waiver in Law 27? Maybe Grattan can help us out? When should 27B1(b) be operable? Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 16:52:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:52:40 +1000 Received: from smtp2.mailsrvcs.net (smtp2.gte.net [207.115.153.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA24286 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:52:33 +1000 Received: from pavilion (1Cust24.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [208.255.105.24]) by smtp2.mailsrvcs.net with SMTP id BAA23269 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 01:53:08 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005101bd83bb$a530be40$1869ffd0@pavilion> From: "mike dodson" To: Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:50:18 -0700 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 Laurie Kelso wrote: >On Tue, 19 May 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Robin Barker wrote: > >> >>> If the convention card is unhelpful, the TD will be called. But if the >>> player was not sure what their agreement is, the TD should not ask the >>> player to guess. >>> > >> And then what do you do (as TD) when opponents ask you "we play >>different defenses according to the type of answer we get - what shall >>we play ?" >> >> I believe opponents are entitled to ONE reply, and if it turns out >> wrong, they are entitled to redress. >I agree that if the opponents end up giving MI, then redress may be >appropriate. However if a player doesn't know what the agreement is (maybe >he has forgotten, maybe he never knew), then making him guess only makes >things worse. The director should be an impartial arbiter of fact. In the >above scenario he may be actively generating MI. What happens later in >committee when the player says "the director made me tell the opponents >that"? >If the player says there are two possibilities, that is what he believes. >The opponent then has available to him the same information as the >confused player. UI considerations are a separate issue, which can only be >addressed after the conclusion of play. >Laurie I have long assumed the opponents are entitled to know not only my uncertainty but also how I am going to treat partners bid when I respond. My hand and general bridge knowledge may contribute to my decision but how can an objective observer know where partnership discussion and experience stop and other factors start? I suppose examples could be contrived where truly only general knowledge applies but not when phases like "I don't remember" or "Partner sometimes forgets" are used. This will create UI for partner of course, but since I am going to have to make some choice before I bid, the opponents should know the basis of my bid. Indeed, to me this is the flaw in De Wael approach, if I tailor my explanations to partners misexplanations I am deliberately misleading them about the meaning of my bids. That this places an additional burden on partner to ignore my explanations is just part of the penalty we pay for the initial MI. I am a relatively new lurker on BLML and I would like to thank all the regular contributors for sharing their views. I've enjoyed you all. Mike Dodson From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 17:04:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 17:04:35 +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 RAA25412 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 17:04:27 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yc2w6-0007jM-00; Wed, 20 May 1998 08:05:14 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 19 May 1998 19:55:29 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Two CCs on the Table Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 19:55:28 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon Brissman wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote, inter alia: > > > > > The ACBL sends out a copy of the CC instructions, just one, with any > > purchase of CCs. Additional copies are available for $1.00 each. > > Anything for a buck these days. > > This comment is Marvin's latest in a litany critical of the ACBL's > finances and/or revenue-raising schemes. Part of the reason that the > ACBL needs to pursue funds is that a portion of their membership > refuses > to pay their annual dues (or Life Master Service Fees). Marvin, you > haven't paid your ACBL dues in years; how do you have standing to > criticize? People who pay no taxes should not be critical of tax > policies. > > ######### In England, if you don't pay you are not allowed to play. > Simple really! ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 19:01:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:01:48 +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 TAA26162 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:01:41 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-37.uunet.be [194.7.13.37]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA22599 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:02:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35629921.7A98A5B7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:49:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <20357.9805191243@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> <356073DA.6634@lightspeed.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: > > > The downside of the DeWael school (the one I haven't seen covered, > anyway) is that it can and would be used by unscrupulous players to hide > MI. That can't be good. > No it is not ! How can you say this ? By giving a clear-cut answer, without all the fringes that do not tell opponents anything, you accept the full force of MI ! On the contrary it is by adding additional information that you try to avoid MI rulings! I simply won't accept that the Laws force me to express doubts to opponents, even if I do have doubts. This is not a question of lying to opponents. This is a question of telling opponents what the methods are. You have just ONE method, and being uncertain and telling two possible methods is NOT a correct information. But I will shut up. There's obviously no use. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 19:16:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:16:22 +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 TAA26230 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:16:14 +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 KAA10624; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:16:50 +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 KAA08656; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:16:48 +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 KAA03085; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:16:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 20 May 98 10:16:46 BST Message-Id: <23860.9805200916@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, mikedod@gte.net Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "mike dodson" > > I have long assumed the opponents are entitled to know not only my > uncertainty but also how I am going to treat partners bid when I respond. My attitude to this is that the EBU has a regulation saying explicity that players should not do this. I have lived with this for so long, and always played bridge that way, that I have never really questioned it. Clearly the laws do not require a player to say how he will take partners bid. Orange Book (1998 draft 5?): "2C5 When you know your partner's call is alertable, but cannot remember its meaning, you should alert. If asked for its meaning and if it is likely to be on the convention card then you may refer your opponents to your convention card. You must not say how you intend to interpret partner's call. ..." > My hand and general bridge knowledge may contribute to my decision but > how can an objective observer know where partnership discussion and > experience stop and other factors start? I suppose examples could be > contrived where truly only general knowledge applies but not when phases > like "I don't remember" or "Partner sometimes forgets" are used. > > This will create UI for partner of course, but since I am going to have to > make some choice before I bid, the opponents should know the basis of my bid. [snip] > I am a relatively new lurker on BLML and I would like to thank all the > regular contributors for sharing their views. I've enjoyed you all. > > Mike Dodson > Glad to be a source of amusement/enjoyment. :-) 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 May 20 19:45:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:45:22 +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 TAA26294 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:45:16 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client249e.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.158]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA27363 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:46:01 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: ACBL Sabotage Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:46:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd83d4$31d83400$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 Hello All I spent several hours with David Stevenson last Sunday and I have been VERY VERY ill ever since. Do you think that the plot to infiltrate EBU/WBU land is to spread a bug which lays low all those who meet each other. On the other hand, is this a fiendish attempt to kill the Scotish whisky industry. I know it's put David on the wagon, and I haven't had a drink since last Saturday. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 20:47:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 20:47:42 +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 UAA26442 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 20:47:35 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA22217 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 06:48:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 06:45:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL Sabotage In-Reply-To: <01bd83d4$31d83400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 20 May 1998, Anne Jones wrote: > Hello All > > I spent several hours with David Stevenson last Sunday and I have been > VERY VERY ill ever since. > Do you think that the plot to infiltrate EBU/WBU land is to spread a bug > which lays low all those who meet each other. No, no, no Anne! You've got it wrong. David had it nearly right. It's a plot to infect the BLML crew in the UK. There is clear evidence that ordinary EBU members are immune. My brother has reported no ill-effects. Thinks. Should I have admitted that? > On the other hand, is this a fiendish attempt to kill the Scotish whisky > industry. I know it's put David on the wagon, and I haven't had a drink > since last Saturday. No. I like the stuff. I wouldn't try to put the whisky industry out of business. Seriously, get well soon! -- Richard Lighton | Cricket--a game which the English, not being a spiritual (lighton@idt.net) | people, have invented in order to give themselves some Wood-Ridge NJ | conception of eternity. USA | --Baron Mancroft From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 20 23:20:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:20:46 +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 XAA27003 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:20:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004121; 20 May 98 13:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:58:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: >Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two >diametrically opposed groups. > >Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) > > - >Nil Vul Q98654 >Dlr East 9 > Q98543 > K10432 AJ98 > KJ 32 > 7642 Q853 > J6 K107 > Q765 > A107 > AKJ10 > A2 > > > West North East South > - - Pass 1NT > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > All Pass > > Result: NS +450 > > >*The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest >sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and >rules under Law 27B1(a). > >After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this >really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed >information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of >the green? > >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra >information to South. However I will also concede that without the >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. >What do others think? South has a hand that some people might raise to 3H, and presumably North would bid 4H. Of course, if N/S were good players, North would have bid 4H anyway! What is the effect of North bidding 1H? What information does it show? In the absence of UI South does not *know* but it seems quite likely that it shows that North has enough to respond to 1C or 1D. Presumably it either shows that or it was intended as a signoff and he pulled the wrong card. If the latter, why was it not corrected under L25A? I would say that the insufficient bid has shown 5+HCP *probably*. With an 18 count and a known eight-card fit, the knowledge of a combined 23 count is enough for game to be a reasonable shot. So the 4H bid is probably based on the 1H bid and is disallowed under L27B1B. -- 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 May 20 23:25:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:25:45 +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 XAA27040 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:25:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004091; 20 May 98 13:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:00:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <005101bd83bb$a530be40$1869ffd0@pavilion> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk mike dodson wrote: >I am a relatively new lurker on BLML and I would like to thank all the >regular contributors >for sharing their views. I've enjoyed you all. Welcome, Mike. Any 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 Thu May 21 00:01:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:01:32 +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 AAA27180 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:01:26 +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 KAA09816 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27532; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:02:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:02:22 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805201402.KAA27532@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > West North East South > > - - Pass 1NT > > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > > All Pass > > *The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest > > sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and > > rules under Law 27B1(a). It suddenly occurred to me that we have all overlooked the correct ruling. Under the 1997 Laws, in order to rule under L27B1, both 1H and 2H must be not conventional. But in most real bidding systems, again under the definitions in the new Laws, an opening bid of 1H _is_ conventional, so the ruling should be under L27B2. This entirely prevents the problem that was posed. It was quite an interesting question under the old Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 00:07:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:07:10 +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 AAA27219 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:07:04 +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 KAA20720 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:04:59 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAA13814 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:04:48 -0400 Message-Id: <199805201404.KAA13814@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:04:48, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry if I am introducing the ridiculous here, but sometimes you have to try to remember the faulty knowledge you had when you were a novice. The corrected 2H bid could very well have been invitational. Did the director ask which way they play 2H? Did the director every ask why the guy bid 4H, made he had an answer that made sense to him. When partner opens 1NT, if you have a bad hand you pass, even if you have 5 hearts, that is why 2H would have been invitationl and 3H would have been forcing. This is also similar to partner opening up 1C and you have 6-10 points. Even though you have a 4 card major, you want to show your 6-10 points and bid 1NT over the 1C bid either forgetting or not knowing to bid the major. So the guy bid 4H and made it, write a little "F" in your convention card tally sheet for "fixed" and hope you are there the next N times the guy bids 4H and doesn't make it. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 00:15:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:15:53 +1000 Received: from boito.videotron.net (boito.videotron.net [205.151.222.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29505 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:15:47 +1000 Received: from default (ppp245.101.mmtl.videotron.net [207.253.101.245]) by boito.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA20620 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: Subject: Subscribtion Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:13:01 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd83f9$65e2ce20$f565fdcf@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD83D7.DED12E20" 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 Message en plusieurs parties et au format MIME. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD83D7.DED12E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please suscribe OHMSS@videotron.ca to the list. Thanks, Christian Chantigny ACBL TD ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD83D7.DED12E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please suscribe OHMSS@videotron.ca to the=20 list.
 
Thanks,
 
Christian = Chantigny
ACBL = TD
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BD83D7.DED12E20-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 00:29:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:29:41 +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 AAA29571 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:29:35 +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 KAA10816 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27563; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:30:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:30:31 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805201430.KAA27563@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Laurie Kelso > North at the time indicated (to > the director away from the table) that he had wished to bid 2H (not 1H) > over 1NT. This would seem to suggest a ruling under L25A. No doubt the TD had his reasons for ruling otherwise, but I hope all of us would have considered the possibility. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 00:50:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:50:50 +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 AAA29648 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:50:44 +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 KAA11655 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27594; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:51:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:51:41 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805201451.KAA27594@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "mike dodson" > I have long assumed the opponents are entitled to know not only my > uncertainty but also how I am going to treat partners bid when I respond. Welcome to the list. Both parts of the above (uncertainty and how you plan to resolve it) seem to be fairly common assumptions, but I don't think you will find much support for either one in the Laws. The latter seems fairly clear; the opponents are never entitled to know your reasoning for a particular action. (Good thing for some of us fuzzy thinkers!) As to the former, if there is partnership experience that contributes to your uncertainty (e.g. you or your partner have forgotten this one the last three times it has come up, or the situation has never been discussed), the opponents are certainly entitled to know that. But if you have just had a momentary blackout and suddenly can't remember, the opponents are not entitled to know. Of course if your confusion causes you to explain wrong, the opponents may very well be entitled to redress. But their only claim is to know your agreements, including experience using them, and not your mental state or the cards you hold. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 01:06:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 01:06:16 +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 BAA29709 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 01:06:06 +1000 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id LAA28301 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA20505; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805201506.LAA20505@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Sabotage Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >On Wed, 20 May 1998, Anne Jones wrote: > >> Hello All >> >> I spent several hours with David Stevenson last Sunday and I have been >> VERY VERY ill ever since. >> Do you think that the plot to infiltrate EBU/WBU land is to spread a bug >> which lays low all those who meet each other. > >No, no, no Anne! You've got it wrong. David had it nearly right. It's >a plot to infect the BLML crew in the UK. There is clear evidence that >ordinary EBU members are immune. My brother has reported no ill-effects. > Please note that there have been no reported incidents of illness reported from the non-cat owning (not living with cat?not owned-by cat?) members of the BLML (would this be considered a "catty" remark?). Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 01:30:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 01:30:54 +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 BAA29826 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 01:30:48 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA20560 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:30:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020532; Wed May 20 10:30:28 1998 Received: by har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD83E2.8A5ADCA0@har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 20 May 1998 11:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD83E2.8A5ADCA0@har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: aims of BLML Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:29:22 -0400 Encoding: 32 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold makes an excellent point. We shall only stifle useful debate if we tell those with whom we disagree to shut up. There can be a tyranny of the majority as we all know. I have disagreed with Herman on the matter of lying to opponents for whatever well-intentioned reasons, or deliberately breaking laws. I also see his point and prefer his attempt to be fair with opponents rather that BL'ing the letter of the law to an artificial advantage. Several comments have shown how it is possible to be actively ethical within the laws, and I feel many of us have gained by thinking the matter through. While I would never consider telling Herman to shut up, there is such a thing as beating a dead horse. Perhaps it is time for the DeWael school to go on holiday for the summer. The matter could be revisited when some of us have come up with something new to add to the discussion. As Vitold points out very well, civility on the list adds to the pleasure for all of us. (So does the humour.) Let's be willing to let everyone who can stand the flame have his say...but be careful not to redundantly repeat and reiterate over and over again. -------- From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru[SMTP:vitold@elnet.msk.ru] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 4:02 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: aims of BLML <> From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 01:42:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 01:42:31 +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 BAA29903 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 01:42:04 +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 QAA19598; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:42:08 +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 QAA02029; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:42:07 +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 QAA07779; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:42:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 20 May 98 16:42:04 BST Message-Id: <26710.9805201542@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve > > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > > West North East South > > > - - Pass 1NT > > > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > > > All Pass > > > > *The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest > > > sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and > > > rules under Law 27B1(a). > > It suddenly occurred to me that we have all overlooked the correct > ruling. Under the 1997 Laws, in order to rule under L27B1, both 1H and > 2H must be not conventional. But in most real bidding systems, again > under the definitions in the new Laws, an opening bid of 1H _is_ > conventional, so the ruling should be under L27B2. I was confused by your remarks. Please help me. Under 1987 laws, if the insufficient bid was conventional then we ruled by L27B2. The change in 1997 was that if the substituted bid was conventional then we also rule by L27B2; we are given that systemically 2H was a natural sign-off: so there should be no difference 1987 v 1997. If 1H is conventional we use L27B2 now and in 1988. Why *in most real bidding systems, again under the definitions in the new Laws, an opening bid of 1H _is_ conventional* ? What aspect of the meaning of an real (American?) 1H opener is not covered by - willingness to play in H, - high card stength in H, - length (3+) in H, - agreement as to overall strength. Or is this some horrible semantic argument that I don't want to (re-)start. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 02:37:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 02:37:12 +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 CAA00364 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 02:37:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015118; 20 May 98 16:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:24:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Sabotage In-Reply-To: <01bd83d4$31d83400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Hello All > >I spent several hours with David Stevenson last Sunday and I have been >VERY VERY ill ever since. Whoops, sorry! Get well soon! -- 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 May 21 02:43:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 02:43:50 +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 CAA00416 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 02:43:44 +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 MAA19842 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27725; Wed, 20 May 1998 12:44:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:44:40 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805201644.MAA27725@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > Under 1987 laws, if the insufficient bid was conventional then we ruled > by L27B2. The change in 1997 was that if the substituted bid was > conventional then we also rule by L27B2; Aaargh! I should have RTF(1987)LB. Yes, I was mixed up about what changed. At least I did RTF(1997)LB. The rule now is that, in order to rule under L27B1, _both_ the original, insufficient bid _and_ the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination must be "incontrovertibly not conventional." We seem to agree on that. > we are given that systemically > 2H was a natural sign-off: so there should be no difference 1987 v 1997. > If 1H is conventional we use L27B2 now and in 1988. > > Why *in most real bidding systems, again under the definitions in the > new Laws, an opening bid of 1H _is_ conventional* ? What also changed in 1997 was the definition of convention. That is the key change. > What aspect of the meaning of an real (American?) 1H opener > is not covered by > - willingness to play in H, > - high card stength in H, > - length (3+) in H, > - agreement as to overall strength. Hearts longer than spades. Or spades shorter than hearts, if you prefer. Plus stipulations about heart length versus minor suit length. Also "not a balanced hand in our NT range." Actually, the same argument may apply to the 2H bid over 1NT, but that one is arguable. Since the bid is a signoff, responder is not "showing" anything and in theory could have longer spades (or some other suit) than hearts. So I think you could argue either way whether the 2H signoff is conventional. I don't see any room for argument about a 1H opening, though, or a 1H response to a 1m opening. There are distributional restrictions other than heart length. What would a non-conventional 1 of a suit opening look like? Some years ago, I played against a pair that opened the highest ranking four card or longer suit, regardless of greater length in a lower-ranking suit. (Well known US expert Erik Paulsen was the system inventor. Indeed, Erik's partner opened 1S holding four ratty spades and seven solid clubs.) I claim that _this_ 1S bid was not conventional. Of course their 1C, 1D, and 1H bids were conventional, even though showing at least four cards in the respective suit, because each by agreement denied as many as four cards in any higher suit. Question: if this pair played a natural one notrump, so the 1S bid denied a balanced hand in the appropriate range, would that make their 1S opening conventional? (I think it would. I forget whether the real system includes a natural notrump opening or not, but for illustration we can imagine a system that doesn't.) I don't understand why the change in the convention definition hasn't received more attention. There was a brief discussion on BLML, but I don't recall much mention of the practical effects. One effect is that rulings under L27B1 will become very rare. Another is that most SO's ought to revise their convention rules. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 03:00:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:00:14 +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 DAA00533 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:00:08 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ycCEZ-0000PB-00; Wed, 20 May 1998 18:00:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:58:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: ACBL Sabotage In-Reply-To: <01bd83d4$31d83400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bd83d4$31d83400$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >Hello All > >I spent several hours with David Stevenson last Sunday and I have been >VERY VERY ill ever since. >Do you think that the plot to infiltrate EBU/WBU land is to spread a bug >which lays low all those who meet each other. >On the other hand, is this a fiendish attempt to kill the Scotish whisky >industry. I know it's put David on the wagon, and I haven't had a drink >since last Saturday. > >Anne > On the other hand I spent half the nights at the spring 4's with DWS and the other UK TD's and it has had absolutely no effect on me. (No doubt much to the chagrin of BLML subscr*bers). I blame Richard Lighton :) -- 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 May 21 03:11:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:11:47 +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 DAA00601 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:11:39 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-184.access.net.il [192.116.198.184]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA27408; Wed, 20 May 1998 20:11:47 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35630F91.E1B61A3B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:14:57 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurie Kelso CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you Lorie for your answer bellow.(sorry but I didn't yet understand if the player himself/herself changed the bid or the LHO summoned the TD becuase he/she didn't accept that insufficient bid - see bellow why it is important). As much as I understand those people don't know too much what the laws are and I agree that their main interest should be the joy of play . In this case I agree with Chya's opinion : doesn't matter what exactly happened there , just let the score stand and play again against that pair - for sure you"ll get 82% or more , good results. But still I suggest the TD: A- Try to explain All the possibilities and their consequences as appearing in the Laws.It is an educational issue and it will help all the involved people in future - both players and TDs. B- Don't take or send players away from the table - IMHO it is a very unsuccessful way to avoid UI which produces more UI ... And for Steve : From: Laurie Kelso > North at the time indicated (to > the director away from the table) that he had wished to bid 2H (not 1H) > over 1NT. This would seem to suggest a ruling under L25A. No doubt the TD had his reasons for ruling otherwise, but I hope all of us would have considered the possibility. ######### My opinion: It is not yet clear for me if the TD was summoned before the player changed his inadvertent 1H or afterwards. IMHO it is important to decide either it was a change of inadvertent call - then you right 25A applies , or after his LHO asked for the TD - then you can't apply it , but use 27b1(a). Friendly Dany Laurie Kelso wrote: > > On Wed, 20 May 1998, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > Hmmm - it is not fair to ask and answer when > > there is a great lack of information..... > > > > But I guess !!! (i hate it !) and apologize a priori if not right > > that the one to be bullied is the TD ..... > > I don't know if 1NT - 2H is forcing, semi-forcing , total pass etc... > > I was not the TD involved, but as I wrote originally 1NT - 2H for this > novice pair was systematically an old fashioned natural signoff. > > > But if the TD would explain the offender what are ALL the > > possibilities and their consequences according to the laws , when > > correcting his insufficient bid , there shouldn't be any problem > > to decide .... > > The main reason I posted this situation is that I was curious what the > real consequences are! The laws after all specifically say that Law 16C > does not apply to withdrawn insufficient bids. > > > Maybe you"ll tell us what was the whole scenario near that table ???? > > What other information do you require? North at the time indicated (to > the director away from the table) that he had wished to bid 2H (not 1H) > over 1NT. Isn't it really South's actions that we should be examining? > > Remember also that this is a 0-99 masterpoint section. > > Laurie > > > > > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > > > > > Dear BLMLers > > > > > > Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two > > > diametrically opposed groups. > > > > > > Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) > > > > > > - > > > Nil Vul Q98654 > > > Dlr East 9 > > > Q98543 > > > K10432 AJ98 > > > KJ 32 > > > 7642 Q853 > > > J6 K107 > > > Q765 > > > A107 > > > AKJ10 > > > A2 > > > > > > West North East South > > > - - Pass 1NT > > > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > > > All Pass > > > > > > Result: NS +450 > > > > > > *The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest > > > sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and > > > rules under Law 27B1(a). > > > > > > After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this > > > really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed > > > information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of > > > the green? > > > > > > Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > > > information to South. However I will also concede that without the > > > original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > > > What do others think? > > > > > > Laurie > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 03:54:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:54:00 +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 DAA00803 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:53:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000689; 20 May 98 17:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:36:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <199805201404.KAA13814@mime4.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: >Sorry if I am introducing the ridiculous here, >but sometimes you have to try to remember the >faulty knowledge you had when you were a >novice. > >The corrected 2H bid could very well have >been invitational. Did the director ask which >way they play 2H? Did the director every ask >why the guy bid 4H, made he had an answer >that made sense to him. Certainly the Director should ask before ruling. >When partner opens 1NT, if you have a bad hand >you pass, even if you have 5 hearts, that is >why 2H would have been invitationl and 3H >would have been forcing. If you play this way then 2H requires an alert in both the EBU and the ACBL. I think we may assume that if 2H had been alerted we would have been told. >This is also similar to partner opening >up 1C and you have 6-10 points. Even >though you have a 4 card major, you >want to show your 6-10 points and bid >1NT over the 1C bid either forgetting >or not knowing to bid the major. Except that it is standard for 1H over 1C to show 6+HCP: it is very unusual for 2H over 1NT to show 6+HCP. Most people respond 2H to 1NT routinely [if not playing transfers] with xxx 9xxxxx xx xx >So the guy bid 4H and made it, write >a little "F" in your convention card >tally sheet for "fixed" and hope you >are there the next N times the guy >bids 4H and doesn't make it. No, there's no fix here. If the 2H is a signoff, the normal method, then the result should be adjusted. If the 2H is a game try then the auction is normal, and would presumably have been the same without the insufficient 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 Thu May 21 03:57:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:57:28 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA00840 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:57:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000687; 20 May 98 17:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:36:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <26710.9805201542@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >Or is this some horrible semantic argument that I don't want to (re-)start. I have this horrible feeling ..... ---------------------- Steve Willner wrote: >It suddenly occurred to me that we have all overlooked the correct >ruling. Under the 1997 Laws, in order to rule under L27B1, both 1H and >2H must be not conventional. But in most real bidding systems, again >under the definitions in the new Laws, an opening bid of 1H _is_ >conventional, so the ruling should be under L27B2. OK, Steve, I'll bite. Why is a 1H opening conventional? ---------------------- Steve Willner wrote: >This would seem to suggest a ruling under L25A. No doubt the TD had >his reasons for ruling otherwise, but I hope all of us would have >considered the possibility. If you look at my main answer you will see that the question of L25A is included. -- 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 May 21 07:09:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:09:25 +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 HAA01401 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:09:18 +1000 Received: from cph57.ppp.dknet.dk (cph57.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.57]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA05778 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:10:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:10:02 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35654659.5071632@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <01bd81f0$761ba7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <35601573.37AC4E40@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <35601573.37AC4E40@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 Mon, 18 May 1998 13:03:15 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, what do you do then ? A pair scores 60% in a normal manner, but >the AC decides they should get A+. Let's suppose this is correct. > >Now all the other pairs that had 60% with the same score, suddenly get >61% ! Is this fair ? No - it demonstrates very nicely that giving A+ in a case like this instead of an assigned adjusted score was a bad idea in the first place. If you want the non-offenders to score at least as much as players who score 680, then give them an assigned score of at least 680. In other words, I am not willing to "suppose this is correct" - because it is _not_ correct. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 07:33:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:33:52 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01494 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:33:47 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA12535; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:33:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.119) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012287; Wed May 20 16:33:12 1998 Received: by har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8415.32D15080@har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 20 May 1998 17:32:01 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8415.32D15080@har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Robin Barker'" , "willner@cfa183.harvard.edu" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:31:54 -0400 Encoding: 38 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Horrible may be the wrong word. Nit-picking perhaps? And in what way is the absurdity limited to a Standard American opening? To give Steve his due I suspect he would find a 1H opening in Precision or Acol equally "conventional". If I recall from an earlier thread 7N is one of the few openings that would not be conventional. :-) ---------- From: Robin Barker[SMTP:rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk] >Why *in most real bidding systems, again under the definitions in the >new Laws, an opening bid of 1H _is_ conventional* ? >What aspect of the meaning of an real (American?) 1H opener >is not covered by > - willingness to play in H, > - high card stength in H, > - length (3+) in H, > - agreement as to overall strength. It shows you have no 9 card suit other than hearts. It shows that are not void in both minors unless hearts are longer than spades. It shows that you have a distaste for passing opening bids. It shows a lot of other silly things, but the clear primary meaning fits the definition well enough that no one really believes that it is likely to mean anything other than a 4 card (usually 5) or longer heart suit, in a hand at least a queen better than average. The fact that it does hint that you lack 7 clubs or longer spades falls more into the realm of general bridge judgement or knowledge than into that of convention. >Or is this some horrible semantic argument that I don't want to (re-)start. You have perhaps done so. Let's send this debate to the de Wael summer school too. :-) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 07:33:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:33:42 +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 HAA01488 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:33:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029560; 20 May 98 21:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:37:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <199805201644.MAA27725@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Robin Barker >> Under 1987 laws, if the insufficient bid was conventional then we ruled >> by L27B2. The change in 1997 was that if the substituted bid was >> conventional then we also rule by L27B2; > >Aaargh! I should have RTF(1987)LB. Yes, I was mixed up about what >changed. > >At least I did RTF(1997)LB. The rule now is that, in order to rule >under L27B1, _both_ the original, insufficient bid _and_ the lowest >sufficient bid in the same denomination must be "incontrovertibly not >conventional." We seem to agree on that. > >> we are given that systemically >> 2H was a natural sign-off: so there should be no difference 1987 v 1997. >> If 1H is conventional we use L27B2 now and in 1988. >> >> Why *in most real bidding systems, again under the definitions in the >> new Laws, an opening bid of 1H _is_ conventional* ? > >What also changed in 1997 was the definition of convention. That is >the key change. > >> What aspect of the meaning of an real (American?) 1H opener >> is not covered by >> - willingness to play in H, >> - high card stength in H, >> - length (3+) in H, >> - agreement as to overall strength. > >Hearts longer than spades. Or spades shorter than hearts, if you >prefer. Plus stipulations about heart length versus minor suit >length. Also "not a balanced hand in our NT range." > >Actually, the same argument may apply to the 2H bid over 1NT, but that >one is arguable. Since the bid is a signoff, responder is not >"showing" anything and in theory could have longer spades (or some >other suit) than hearts. So I think you could argue either way whether >the 2H signoff is conventional. I don't see any room for argument >about a 1H opening, though, or a 1H response to a 1m opening. There >are distributional restrictions other than heart length. > >What would a non-conventional 1 of a suit opening look like? Some >years ago, I played against a pair that opened the highest ranking four >card or longer suit, regardless of greater length in a lower-ranking >suit. (Well known US expert Erik Paulsen was the system inventor. >Indeed, Erik's partner opened 1S holding four ratty spades and seven >solid clubs.) I claim that _this_ 1S bid was not conventional. Of >course their 1C, 1D, and 1H bids were conventional, even though showing >at least four cards in the respective suit, because each by agreement >denied as many as four cards in any higher suit. > >Question: if this pair played a natural one notrump, so the 1S bid >denied a balanced hand in the appropriate range, would that make their >1S opening conventional? (I think it would. I forget whether the >real system includes a natural notrump opening or not, but for >illustration we can imagine a system that doesn't.) > >I don't understand why the change in the convention definition hasn't >received more attention. There was a brief discussion on BLML, but I >don't recall much mention of the practical effects. One effect is that >rulings under L27B1 will become very rare. Another is that most SO's >ought to revise their convention rules. I do not think your approach to the meaning of Convention is going to help the game very much. Furthermore, I think the definition of convention is sufficiently vague and confusion that we cannot be sure that your interpretation is correct. So, I think we should follow the somewhat more obvious interpretation. I do hope that in 2007 the Lawmakers approach the definition of Convention in a less abstruse way. The definition is only needed for two purposes, insufficient bids and the right to regulate. Neither purpose needs the accuracy that the lawmakers have tried to put in. Furthermore, the two [three?] positions do not need to use the same definition. For now, I suggest we do not look for unhelpful interpretations of Convention, since I think most of us agree the Definition is not crystal clear. -- 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 May 21 07:47:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:47:52 +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 HAA01562 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:47:46 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA02540; Wed, 20 May 1998 16:47:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.119) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002516; Wed May 20 16:47:53 1998 Received: by har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8417.411D5EC0@har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 20 May 1998 17:46:44 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8417.411D5EC0@har-pa3-55.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'CHYAH E BURGHARD'" Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:46:43 -0400 Encoding: 52 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: CHYAH E BURGHARD[SMTP:DMFV47B@prodigy.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 8:00 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency When partner opens 1NT, if you have a bad hand you pass, even if you have 5 hearts, that is why 2H would have been invitationl and 3H would have been forcing. This is also similar to partner opening up 1C and you have 6-10 points. Even though you have a 4 card major, you want to show your 6-10 points and bid 1NT over the 1C bid either forgetting or not knowing to bid the major. #####While no one advocates "getting tough" with developing players, they must follow the rules of the game like everyone else. Having to pay a penalty when they violate a law is part of learning the game. Would you expect to waive an established revoke penalty? Or play on with no penalty when one defender erroneously faces his cards? Or allow play to resume because a novice does not understand a claim? This is what is ofen referred to as a "teachable moment" in education. Let the novices learn that when you hesitate or when you make an insufficient bid and partner gets information to which he is not entitled the laws restrict the actions he may take. Let them learn early that this is not an accusation of cheating or bad ethics, but just giving the NOS its due under the laws. I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N/2H was a game invitation in hearts. You either learned it as a drop dead bid or from some teachers as a Jacoby transfer. I don't think any of my cats would consider the sequence invitational, and not one of them yet has a full master point. Your second example is not relevant to this case. Yes, novices can forget their bids. If they bypass a 4cM with 1m/1N through forgetfulness of system they confuse partner as well as opponents. We have established procedures for dealing with such misbids, which surely are not limited to novices. They should be applied even-handedly though in a kindly and educational manner. "Developing players" is not just a euphemism for beginners...it is what they can become if they are allowed to learn, rather than consistently play some game other than bridge. If they decide (as they should) to play in open (or stratified) competition, they must expect to play by the real rules. They will develop much faster in this way and the game will be fairer for everyone they meet as well. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 08:42:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 08:42:20 +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 IAA01692 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 08:42:14 +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 SAA09961 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 18:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA28041; Wed, 20 May 1998 18:43:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:43:06 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805202243.SAA28041@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior > >What aspect of the meaning of an real (American?) 1H opener... > It shows you have no 9 card suit other than hearts. It shows that are not > void in both minors unless hearts are longer than spades. It shows that you > have a distaste for passing opening bids. It shows a lot of other silly > things, but the clear primary meaning fits the definition well enough that > no one really believes that it is likely to mean anything other than a 4 > card (usually 5) or longer heart suit, in a hand at least a queen better > than average. The fact that it does hint that you lack 7 clubs or longer > spades falls more into the realm of general bridge judgement or knowledge > than into that of convention. Of course all of the above is true, and few if any of the inferences listed would make the bid conventional. Do you think that a 1H bid that shows 4 spades and 5+ hearts is conventional? Of course you do. So why shouldn't it be conventional if 1H, by agreement, sends a different message about spade length? Or do you really think a standard 1H opening is made holding more spades than hearts? Yet it would be right to open 1H with 5-4 or 6-4 if playing a canape system. Look, folks, when you have two or more four-card or longer suits, which one you open is a matter of _agreement_, not necessity and not logic. And for most real bidding systems, that agreement will make your 'one of a suit' openings conventional because of they give distributional information about other suits. By agreement. > From: David Stevenson > I do not think your approach to the meaning of Convention is going to > help the game very much. Blame the lawmakers, not me! > Furthermore, I think the definition of > convention is sufficiently vague and confusion that we cannot be sure > that your interpretation is correct. The new definition may be _surprising_. As I recall, Grattan did not consider it either vague or confusing. On second thought, perhaps it is confusing precisely because it differs so much from earlier usage. The text itself seems perfectly clear. > So, I think we should follow the somewhat more obvious interpretation. I think we should follow the text, whether we like it or not, but this would not be the first occasion for SO's to do otherwise. > I do hope that in 2007 the Lawmakers approach the definition of > Convention in a less abstruse way. The definition is only needed for > two purposes, insufficient bids and the right to regulate. Neither > purpose needs the accuracy that the lawmakers have tried to put in. > Furthermore, the two [three?] positions do not need to use the same > definition. I agree that a better job needs to be done in 2007. > For now, I suggest we do not look for unhelpful interpretations of > Convention, since I think most of us agree the Definition is not crystal > clear. Grattan? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 08:44:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 08:44:47 +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 IAA01707 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 08:44:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008844; 20 May 98 22:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:42:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final In-Reply-To: <355EA702.CAE352A7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Penultimate Board : > >board 20 - (W/All) > >\ KJ west north east south > \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He > \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass > \ - >A3 \ T987654 >AKQ7 \ 4 >T9 \ - >954 \ AQ642 > Q2 \ > 98652 \ > AJ4 \ > J87 \ > >North explains his 2 Diamonds as natural, weak, but immediately after >transferring the tray realises his mistake. He called the TD immediately, I trust? > In fact, 2D shows majors. >This is also the way the bid is explained at the other side of the >screen. >Two rounds later the whole table has realised that north had made a >mistake, and a normal spade contract was reached by east-west. > >In the room (11 tables), 9 tables reach a score of -680. (=12/20) > >We make a ruling, for the non-offending side, of -1430. > >We consider that the double, made over a misexplained 2Di, would be >differently interpreted at the other side of the screen. It is actually quite difficult to see how E/W were damaged. Still, I presume the interest in this hand is the procedure rather than the judgement so I shall go along with the notion of damage. My instinct, however, is that the result should stand because of lack of damage. >There would have been no appeal. > >Then we realise that two pairs, in first and second place, are on >different sides of this deal, at different tables, both in -680. > >Our score correction to -1430 of course affects the result for -680, >which now scores 11 to E-W. > >I ask the computer man about the difference between numbers one and two >and he tells me this is less than one point (out of 853). > >We decide to send the deal to appeal all by ourselves. > >The AC decides that although it is difficult for EW to reach 6Sp (in >fact no-one achieved this), or better even, 6Cl, this pair was hampered >in their attempt. > >They decide to award A+/A-. > >Three questions : > >a) do you agree with our reason for sending this into appeal ourselves ? >(I must say that this was the absolutely last tournament in Belgium >under the 1987 Laws, so strictly we had no authority to do this, but we >knew that if we explained this to the players at the table - two >directors among them - they would appeal on principle anyway) I take it that you are really asking whether it was correct to send it to appeal under the 1997 Laws. There is a principle that is accepted globally: you cannot ask for a ruling at another table, and you cannot appeal a ruling at another table. This is not easy to prove as a matter of Law [unless I have missed something] where rulings are concerned, but L92A makes it clear that appeals are for the players concerned. Of course, sometimes people will suffer from this , but it is considered a rub of the green matter. No doubt if you lose a major event by 0.03% it would be to your advantage to review every ruling at every table - and even ask for rulings on matters you hear about. Eventually you might find something that adjusts the scores slightly, and there is your win! To allow it would put an intolerable burden on TDs and ACs since the BLs would have a field day fighting the decisions at the other tables. As a practical decision we do not allow this. Therefore it would be extremely unfair to allow TDs to do it for the players when they are not allowed to themselves. In the quoted case did you review *every* other decision made in the event and send them all to appeal if any judgement was involved? It is not fair to send one and only one such decision to appeal. It is clear that TDs should not send a matter to appeal when the players were unable to do so because [a] it is against the general principles accepted and [b] because it is totally biased and unfair unless they send every ruling in the whole tournament to appeal. Note this is totally different from a situation where the players concerned were at the table. In such case they could have appealed, so for the TDs to appeal for them or for their opponents is not against general principles. >b) do you agree with the artificial score ? Do I really need to answer this? The AC did not understand L12C2 or L12C3. >c) when the board is recalculated, the score for the other E-Ws in -680 >becomes 12.2, but the AAS is only 12 (60%). The chairman of the AC then >decided to award 70% to EW. Do you agree with that ? If I have understood you then a decision was made by the AC and changed by a single person when he discovered the effect. I would put in a report about the Chairman to the Belgian equivalent of our Laws & Ethics Committee. This sounds absolutely horrible, and I hope I have misunderstood you. I can think of no justification whatever to this completely illegal change of AC decision, and trust that a hearing was held to find out why it happened. -- 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 May 21 09:09:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:09:33 +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 JAA02350 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:09:27 +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 TAA10391 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:10:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA28076; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:10:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:10:25 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805202310.TAA28076@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > It is clear that TDs should not send a matter to appeal when the > players were unable to do so because [a] it is against the general > principles accepted and [b] because it is totally biased and unfair > unless they send every ruling in the whole tournament to appeal. Oh, come! Most of David's message makes good sense, but [b] does not. In fact, from the rest of his post, I think David meant something slightly different. For most rulings, TD's should do the best they can and be satisfied with the results. The players can decide whether to appeal or not. The approach should not change for a particular ruling just because it might affect the outcome of the event. We agree so far. However... it is perfectly reasonable for a TD to decide that a specific ruling depends on a subtle matter of bridge judgment that would be better decided by an AC. (This may be more popular in North America than elsewhere.) If so, the normal procedure should be for the TD to send this ruling to appeal. This is in no way biased or unfair; it is simply the TD doing his best in each case. Now the question arises, if the TD wishes to send a ruling to an AC for the reason above, and the players show no interest, should the TD persist, or should he drop the appeal? The latter clearly makes practical sense, and I suspect most of us would agree with it, but _this_ is what introduces bias and may be unfair. Still, this bias and unfairness may be tolerable in the practical interest of finishing the competition. It is less tolerable if it may affect the top finishers. Bottom line: each SO (or chief TD, if the SO doesn't) should establish a policy on when rulings should be referred to an AC. If David wishes to adopt "never" (and his SO agrees), that's fine. If others want to adopt a different policy, that's fine too. Bias comes in when you depart from the adopted policy, whatever it is. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 09:12:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:12:41 +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 JAA03113 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:12:35 +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 TAA10143 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:13:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA28083; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:13:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:13:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805202313.TAA28083@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior > I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N-2H was a > game invitation in hearts. Quite a few old-timers played it as natural and forcing. I understand that is still the non-alerted meaning in the EBU. (I don't know any authorities who recommend this agreement, but it used to be popular.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 11:25:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:25:27 +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 LAA06505 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:25:22 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.80] (mg4-80.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.80]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA18085 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:26:09 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:26:10 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>When partner opens 1NT, if you have a bad hand >>you pass, even if you have 5 hearts, that is >>why 2H would have been invitationl and 3H >>would have been forcing. > > If you play this way then 2H requires an alert in both the EBU and the >ACBL. I think we may assume that if 2H had been alerted we would have >been told. This hand occurred under the jurisdiction of the ABF, and such an invitational 2H would be considered alertable - having a meaning "that the opponents may not expect". Notwithstanding, I suspect that a majority of players in this particular event (0-99 restricted teams) would have little idea about what alertable bids might be, and that 2H would not have been alerted even if it were systemically invitational. (Just had a scary thought: I still just qualify to play in this event...) Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 11:33:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:33:02 +1000 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06551 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:32:58 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p35.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.115]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA04009 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:33:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980521112527.006cb768@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:25:27 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Careless or irrational Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone gave me this simple situation. West is declarer in spades, and holds S AQJ9 D 109. The diamonds are winners. North is on lead, and dithering. West says "It doesn't matter what you lead, the rest are mine" making no claim about drawing trumps. North has the one outstanding trump (the S6), and can ruff a diamond lead from West. Is North enitled to his trump trick? It seems likely that West has forgotten about the outstanding trump. I have always adopted the policy in thse situations that, if West believes all his remaining cards are equals, he may carelessly cash his side suit winners first and lose a trick to the outstanding trump. If his diamonds were the AK, I would so rule. Do you agree so far, or am I being unduly rigid? However, even though the D10 and D9 are winners, it seems to go against bridge psychology to expect West, even carelessly, to cash his small winners before cashing his high cards. I would probably rule in this situation that to play on diamonds first would be irrational. Opinions please. Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 11:40:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:40:20 +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 LAA06574 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:40:14 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ycKLt-0005KP-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 01:41:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 02:39:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <199805202313.TAA28083@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199805202313.TAA28083@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Craig Senior >> I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N-2H was a >> game invitation in hearts. > >Quite a few old-timers played it as natural and forcing. I understand >that is still the non-alerted meaning in the EBU. (I don't know any >authorities who recommend this agreement, but it used to be popular.) Nope, but the non alerted meaning of an opening 2H is "strong and forcing one round". but then we have to alert simple stayman too :) BTW in the 50's Reece was advocating 2H to be invitational and natural, I don't think, over a weak NT it has *ever* been forcing. ... -- 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 May 21 11:48:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:48:38 +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 LAA06602 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:48:32 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1022162; 21 May 98 1:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 02:43:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Careless or irrational In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980521112527.006cb768@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980521112527.006cb768@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch writes >Someone gave me this simple situation. West is declarer in spades, and >holds S AQJ9 D 109. The diamonds are winners. North is on lead, and >dithering. West says "It doesn't matter what you lead, the rest are mine" >making no claim about drawing trumps. North has the one outstanding trump >(the S6), and can ruff a diamond lead from West. Is North enitled to his >trump trick? It seems likely that West has forgotten about the outstanding >trump. > >I have always adopted the policy in thse situations that, if West believes >all his remaining cards are equals, he may carelessly cash his side suit >winners first and lose a trick to the outstanding trump. If his diamonds >were the AK, I would so rule. Do you agree so far, or am I being unduly rigid? > I agree >However, even though the D10 and D9 are winners, it seems to go against >bridge psychology to expect West, even carelessly, to cash his small >winners before cashing his high cards. I would probably rule in this >situation that to play on diamonds first would be irrational. Opinions please. > It would be careless IMO, but not irrational However if the last card was the 7D it would be irrational as there is a beer resting on that one :) >Reg Busch. > -- 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 May 21 12:04:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 12:04:23 +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 MAA06641 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 12:04:12 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa26940; 20 May 98 19:04 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Careless or irrational In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 May 1998 11:25:27 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19980521112527.006cb768@ozemail.com.au> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:04:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805201904.aa26940@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: > Someone gave me this simple situation. West is declarer in spades, > and holds S AQJ9 D 109. The diamonds are winners. North is on lead, > and dithering. West says "It doesn't matter what you lead, the rest > are mine" making no claim about drawing trumps. North has the one > outstanding trump (the S6), and can ruff a diamond lead from West. > Is North enitled to his trump trick? It seems likely that West has > forgotten about the outstanding trump. > > I have always adopted the policy in thse situations that, if West > believes all his remaining cards are equals, he may carelessly cash > his side suit winners first and lose a trick to the outstanding > trump. If his diamonds were the AK, I would so rule. Do you agree so > far, or am I being unduly rigid? I agree; this is the only possible ruling under Law 70C. > However, even though the D10 and D9 are winners, it seems to go > against bridge psychology to expect West, even carelessly, to cash > his small winners before cashing his high cards. I would probably > rule in this situation that to play on diamonds first would be > irrational. Opinions please. To me, if you believe your hand is all winners, it makes no sense to consider any line of play "irrational", since your belief is apparently that it doesn't matter what order in which you try to cash your tricks. So I give North his trump. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 13:31:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:31:07 +1000 Received: from pegasus.com.au (peg.apc.org [192.131.13.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA06801 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:31:03 +1000 Received: from qb (t6.dialup.peg.apc.org [192.203.176.134]) by pegasus.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA03846; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:35:30 +1000 (GMT+1000) Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:35:30 +1000 (GMT+1000) Message-Id: <199805210335.NAA03846@pegasus.com.au> X-Sender: soundconnex@pop.peg.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Reg Busch From: Roger Penny & Jane Stapleton Subject: Re: Careless or irrational Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 21/05/98 +1000, you wrote: >Someone gave me this simple situation. West is declarer in spades, and >holds S AQJ9 D 109. The diamonds are winners. North is on lead, and >dithering. West says "It doesn't matter what you lead, the rest are mine" >making no claim about drawing trumps. North has the one outstanding trump >(the S6), and can ruff a diamond lead from West. Is North entitled to his >trump trick? It seems likely that West has forgotten about the outstanding >trump. > >I have always adopted the policy in these situations that, if West believes >all his remaining cards are equals, he may carelessly cash his side suit >winners first and lose a trick to the outstanding trump. If his diamonds >were the AK, I would so rule. Do you agree so far, or am I being unduly rigid? > I agree. > >However, even though the D10 and D9 are winners, it seems to go against >bridge psychology to expect West, even carelessly, to cash his small >winners before cashing his high cards. I would probably rule in this >situation that to play on diamonds first would be irrational. Opinions please. > I disagree. Had West made a statement of claim other than "... the rest are mine", it is all too likely that he would have said, "The diamonds are high and then there are my four trumps" - careless perhaps but certainly not irrational, and this statement would have led (I believe) to the ruling, "One trick to the non-revoking side because your statement of claim showed that you would lead the diamonds first, indicating that you had clearly overlooked the outstanding trump". By claiming WITHOUT stating any line of play, West has failed to give the opponents their rights under Law which, if he'd specified the line I've suggested, would have led to the "one trick to the oppos" ruling - and that should be the ruling regardless of any consideration of "bridge psychology". "Bridge psychology", in my view, applies to cases where declarer makes the same sort of claim, holding S.AQJ9, and a defender tries to claim one trick because he holds S.10 (the one outstanding spade) and argues that: "If he thought all his trumps were high he could have - carelessly - led S9 first ....". "Bridge psychology" in this case says that declarer will lead the outstanding spades, starting with SA, not S9. Roger Penny Certainly From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 13:34:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:34:28 +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 NAA06823 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:34:20 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-29.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.195]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA00680 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3563A1E2.74A292D@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:39:14 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have to disagree with David's line of thought regarding the bidding on this hand in a 99er game. Have we determined if North pulled the wrong card, intending to respond 2 hearts or whatever?? However, when he corrects to the sufficient 2 Hearts, could he not be bidding the bid he intended in response to 1 NT, meaning it as a drop dead bid. His partner now thinks, wow, he has at least a 5 card suit, but probably 6. His count is anywhere from 0 - 7, and if he has the KQ hearts and a Q of diamonds if not I know he has some ruffing values. I have 4 quick tricks.. I think I will go for it and bid 4 hearts. People in my novice game would. (In fact, I think I will have this hand in their boards at our next game.) Lots of novices have no clue as to what UI is and take their partners misbid as just a mistake. Using your logic I think we can have a lot of problems with an insufficient bid! I have been at a table when a life master made an insufficient bid and then corrected to 3 NT so he could bar partner and play the hand. Most novices would not even think of such a thing. I think East/West here is upset by a daring bid by an opponent which was successful. (we can deviate from our system at any time as long as partner doesn't expect it.). I would allow the bid to stand. Sometimes it pays to toss the system aside and take a chance! I suspect this North is going to be a good player, if he isn't already!!!! David Stevenson wrote: > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > >Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two > >diametrically opposed groups. > > > >Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) > > > > - > >Nil Vul Q98654 > >Dlr East 9 > > Q98543 > > K10432 AJ98 > > KJ 32 > > 7642 Q853 > > J6 K107 > > Q765 > > A107 > > AKJ10 > > A2 > > > > > > West North East South > > - - Pass 1NT > > Pass (1H)2H* Pass 4H > > All Pass > > > > Result: NS +450 > > > > > >*The director determines that the insufficient bid corrected to the lowest > >sufficient bid in the same denomination would be a natural sign off and > >rules under Law 27B1(a). > > > >After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this > >really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed > >information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of > >the green? > > > >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > >information to South. However I will also concede that without the > >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > >What do others think? > > South has a hand that some people might raise to 3H, and presumably > North would bid 4H. Of course, if N/S were good players, North would > have bid 4H anyway! > > What is the effect of North bidding 1H? What information does it > show? In the absence of UI South does not *know* but it seems quite > likely that it shows that North has enough to respond to 1C or 1D. > Presumably it either shows that or it was intended as a signoff and he > pulled the wrong card. If the latter, why was it not corrected under > L25A? > > I would say that the insufficient bid has shown 5+HCP *probably*. > With an 18 count and a known eight-card fit, the knowledge of a combined > 23 count is enough for game to be a reasonable shot. So the 4H bid is > probably based on the 1H bid and is disallowed under L27B1B. > > -- > 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 May 21 14:00:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:00:05 +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 NAA06873 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:59:59 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-29.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.195]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA02265 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3563A7E6.A180F044@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:04:54 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi.. Let me give you a hand from the Audrey Grant ACBL lessons Club series. Lesson 3. Responses to 1 NT. Lesson we play whist, Lesson 2 we teach how to open 1 NT, then lesson 3. This is my favorite hand in the whole book. N S 1098765 S. S QJ H 732 H AK4 D 87 D A653 C 43 C A862 then they randomly deal the remaining cards to east/west. The hand is played twice, once in 1 NT and then in 2 Spades. 1 NT takes only 4 tricks, while 2 spades makes easily by players who can hardly follow suit. We stress (triple underlined) that they must not pass with this North hand as they have a 8 card fit in spades. The same bid would be made with a 5 card suit. I have taken this hand to many bridge clubs and the majority of players passed the 1 NT for down 3. Only the pairs who play transfers got to 2 spades and then not all of them!. This hand is very similar to the hand under discussion. The hand in question has two fitting suits and the responder chose to bid the major which is what we stress!!! In the hand in question, an aggressive player with his heart honors and a six card suit from partner would take the plunge a disciplined player would not.. Lots of novices don't play anything other than Stayman and would not know transfers, so use of the drop dead bid is not surprising at this level of play, nor is an innocent insufficient bid!!! Nancy Mark Abraham wrote: > >>When partner opens 1NT, if you have a bad hand > >>you pass, even if you have 5 hearts, that is > >>why 2H would have been invitationl and 3H > >>would have been forcing. > > > > If you play this way then 2H requires an alert in both the EBU and the > >ACBL. I think we may assume that if 2H had been alerted we would have > >been told. > > This hand occurred under the jurisdiction of the ABF, and such an > invitational 2H would be considered alertable - having a meaning "that the > opponents may not expect". Notwithstanding, I suspect that a majority of > players in this particular event (0-99 restricted teams) would have little > idea about what alertable bids might be, and that 2H would not have been > alerted even if it were systemically invitational. (Just had a scary > thought: I still just qualify to play in this event...) > > Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 14:33:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:33:31 +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 OAA06982 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:33:25 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-29.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.195]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA04226 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3563AFBC.39DD98E@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:38:20 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------081BB844C0B3E43FD8643FA7" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------081BB844C0B3E43FD8643FA7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Stevenson wrote: > CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > >Sorry if I am introducing the ridiculous here, > >but sometimes you have to try to remember the > >faulty knowledge you had when you were a > >novice. > > > > > > > >When partner opens 1NT, if you have a bad hand > >you pass, even if you have 5 hearts, wrong, you bid 2 hearts and pray partner has 3. > > > >This is also similar to partner opening > >up 1C and you have 6-10 points. Even > >though you have a 4 card major, you > >want to show your 6-10 points and bid > >1NT over the 1C bid either forgetting > >or not knowing to bid the major. Typical novice bid! > > > Except that it is standard for 1H over 1C to show 6+HCP: it is very > unusual for 2H over 1NT to show 6+HCP. Most people respond 2H to 1NT > routinely [if not playing transfers] with > > xxx > 9xxxxx > xx > xx > > >So the guy bid 4H and made it, write > >a little "F" in your convention card > >tally sheet for "fixed" and hope you > >are there the next N times the guy > >bids 4H and doesn't make it. Yes, absolutely!!! > David wrote: > > No, there's no fix here. If the 2H is a signoff, the normal method, > then the result should be adjusted.* If the 2H is a game try then the > auction is normal, and would presumably have been the same without the > insufficient bid. > *Cannot a partner ignore the bid that says quit and bid on if he is so > inclined??? Should responder then alert that he is not playing our > system???? ;-)) Wouldn't a game try bid have to be alerted and > conventional? Nancy > -- > > --------------081BB844C0B3E43FD8643FA7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

David Stevenson wrote:

CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote:
>Sorry if I am introducing the ridiculous here,
>but sometimes you have to try to remember the
>faulty knowledge you had when you were a
>novice.
>
 

 

>When partner opens 1NT, if you have a bad hand
>you pass, even if you have 5 hearts,

wrong, you bid 2 hearts and pray partner has 3.
 

>This is also similar to partner opening
>up 1C and you have 6-10 points. Even
>though you have a 4 card major, you
>want to show your 6-10 points and bid
>1NT over the 1C bid either forgetting
>or not knowing to bid the major.

Typical novice bid!
 

  Except that it is standard for 1H over 1C to show 6+HCP: it is very
unusual for 2H over 1NT to show 6+HCP.  Most people respond 2H to 1NT
routinely [if not playing transfers] with

   xxx
   9xxxxx
   xx
   xx

>So the guy bid 4H and made it, write
>a little "F" in your convention card
>tally sheet for "fixed" and hope you
>are there the next N times the guy
>bids 4H and doesn't make it.

Yes, absolutely!!!
David wrote:

  No, there's no fix here.  If the 2H is a signoff, the normal method,
then the result should be adjusted.*    If the 2H is a game try then the
auction is normal, and would presumably have been the same without the
insufficient bid.

*Cannot a partner ignore the bid that says quit and bid on if he is so inclined??? Should responder then alert that he is not playing our system????  ;-)) Wouldn't a game try bid have to be alerted and conventional?    Nancy
--
 
 
  --------------081BB844C0B3E43FD8643FA7-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 14:34:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:34:11 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 OAA06996 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:34:04 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11741 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 21:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805210434.VAA11741@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 21:32:29 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N/2H was a > game invitation in hearts. You either learned it as a drop dead bid or from > some teachers as a Jacoby transfer. I don't think any of my cats would > consider the sequence invitational, and not one of them yet has a full > master point. How about Goren? Quote: "There are many hands on which the responder has the high-card requirements of a raise to 2 No Trump, but the hand contains a five-card major and perhaps a short suit, and the responder feels there is a chance that the hand might possibly play better in a suit. In order to give partner a choice responder bids 2 spades or 2 hearts and opener is expected to bid again unless he has a rock-bottom opener. If he supports the suit, responder will go to four. If opener rebids 2 No Trump responder expects to take him to three." The quote is from *The Standard Book of Bidding*, 1947 edition. This approach was quite standard until duplicate players decided that passing 1NT with a very weak hand and six-card major was not a good idea. At least in the West, by the early 50s players were saying that any two-level response to 1NT should usually be passed. This same book had some new gadgets in a final chapter called Modern Expert Variations. One of these was a Stayman-like convention used by the Four Aces (Schencken, Gottlieb, Burnstine, Jacoby), in which a 2C or 2D response to 1NT was forcing, asking for a four-card major. Not artificial, since the bidder was supposed to have something in the suit. Goren commented: "This type of response is very much like other conventional responses to No Trump bids which have been offered from time to time. Practically all these methods have their merits, but the fact remains that the introduction ofr arbitrary bidding conventions leads to partnership misunderstandings and it is wise to use only such conventional bids as you really need, and then only when you are sure you can handle them." Then came Stayman, and the rest is history. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 15:01:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:01:43 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 PAA07052 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:01:35 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA14692; Wed, 20 May 1998 22:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805210501.WAA14692@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 21:59:58 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > Craig Senior wrote: > > > Even if one concedes, for purposes of argument, that the 4S bid WAS an LA > > suggested by the slow pass, where is the damage? Wrong terminology, Craig. If 4S was *demonstrably* suggested by the slow pass, then North can't bid 4S if pass is an LA. The AC decided, rightly most believe, that pass was not an LA with that hand, and besides the slow pass did not demonstrably suggest a 4S bid (South could have been thinking of doubling with a heart stack). That's two reasons to accept the 4S bid, take your pick. > > The NOS has been whisked > > from a negative to a positive score by the phantom sac. The action would > > surely not be so egregious to warrant a PP, and rolling back to 4H down one > > certainly doesn't redress the situation. Was the deposit retained? Or was > > the appellant's argument that they did not get an opportunity to benefit > > from gross defensive error and somehow bring in 4H? . . . > > The hand: > > > > > S- KQJT86 > > H- 3 > > D- 63 > > C- KQ83 > > > > S- A7 S- 54 > > H- T964 H- AKJ2 > > D- AKJ32 D- 84 > > C- J2 C- T9764 > > > > S- 932 > > H- Q875 > > D- QT97 > > C- A5 E-W did not realize that 4H would not make. If there was a screener at Dallas NABC, s/he should have caught this, and maybe the appeal would have been dropped right then. The AC didn't look into the prospects of a 4H contract, because the question was moot once they decided that the 4S bid was allowable. The deposit was not retained, and from what the AC write-up says, that seems reasonable to me, but it was a close question. Retaining a deposit should be a unanimous decision of the AC, which could not be obtained in this case. Incidentally, most of the casebook panelist comments concerned this subject rather than the tempo matter. > > Does it really take a gross defensive error to let 4H make? Say North > leads the spade king; West wins, enters dummy with a trump, takes > three diamond tricks, pitching a spade from dummy, ruffs a spade, and > leads a club off dummy. It doesn't seem unreasonable for South to win > and return a club, leading to this position with North to lead: > > QJT > -- > -- > Q8 > -- -- > T96 KJ > 32 -- > -- T97 > 9 > Q87 > Q > -- > > I believe that West can now always take four of the last five tricks. > (E.g. on a spade continuation, ruff in dummy, club overruff, diamond > ruff, trump coup.) *Coup en passant*, that would be. We are told to lead trumps when a cross-ruff is threatened. South has to lead a heart right into the KJ when he wins the ace of clubs. Then he ruffs in with the queen of hearts on the third round of clubs and leads another heart. Down one. Panelists in the casebook thought this defense was obvious, but I'm not so sure. However, if you contend you would have played a hand double-dummy, then it must be assumed that the opponents will defend well. It was understandable that E-W did not figure all this out, as the hand came up in the evening session and they didn't have a lot of time to analyze it. Anyway, it doesn't matter what would happen to 4H if the 4S bid is allowed. > > I'm taking it on faith that 4H can't be made double-dummy, if NS > defend perfectly. I haven't analyzed the whole hand, so I don't know > what defense would beat it. Nor have I tried to run the hand through > GIB. But it sure seems that 4H can make with a good guess by declarer > and normal less-than-perfect defense. > Considerably less-than-perfect, I would say. They might make it against me, but I'm not a good defender. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 16:38:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 16:38:45 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA07208 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 16:38:39 +1000 Received: from modem87.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.87] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ycP0b-0001iG-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:39:21 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 08:39:04 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 18 May 1998 02:41 > > In article , > Laurie Kelso writes > > > >Dear BLMLers > > > >Here is a situation which seemed to polarize my fellow directors into two > >diametrically opposed groups. > > > >Flighted Teams (0-99 masterpoints section) Result: NS +450 > > \x/ \x/ >After the hand is over, EW ask for an adjustment back to 2H. Is this > >really a 27B1(b) situation? Has the "insufficient bid conveyed > >information as to damage the non-offending side" or is this just a rub of > >the green? > > > >Personally I don't see how North's actions have conveyed any extra > >information to South. However I will also concede that without the > >original insufficient bid, North's 2H would probably end the auction. > +++ [I do not believe 'rub of the green' is an issue in a case like this. The Director is required to judge whether the insuff bid did or did not provide information the pair would not otherwise have obtained and which assisted their judgement of the contract. Did they have the mechanism to identify the values; would they have used that mechanism?] ++Grattan+++ Grattan ++++ this site at home:workplace site still gester etc ++++ (I am flexible about bridge law; equally happy to use axe, rope, chair, gun or poison - and my cat has nine tails.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 17:13:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA07262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 17:13:04 +1000 Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA07257 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 17:12:57 +1000 Received: from ts20-11.ott.istar.ca (default) [198.53.6.154] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 0ycPa4-0006BO-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 03:16:01 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980521031203.007a44e0@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 03:12:03 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: A hesitation situation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello panel, You hold: S - KTxx H - AKxx D - 9xx C - xx Pard RHO You LHO ---------------------------- P P 1C 1H x P 1S P ? Over your negative double, partner hesitated for about 20 seconds before bidding 1S. My teammate thought that 1NT with this hand should not be allowed. My contention was that 1NT should show 4S plus about 8-10 HCP, and as such was the proper bid. He did not think much of my decision (but did not appeal the director's ruling that the result should stand - i.e. 1NT making) but did send an email to Gary Blais at the ACBL. He was told that based on the information given that the result should be changed to 2S -1. Your partner has: Jxx QT plus some stuff in the minors (I cannot remember the exact hand). My point to my teammate was that there are many ways to bid hands that have spade support: i.e. 1S = minimum hand with 4S or any near minimum hand with a flaw (e.g. only 3S) 2S = good 14ish+ hand (e.g. KJxx xx Kx AQxxx) 3S = about 16-17 support points with 4S (e.g. AQxx xx Kx AQxxx) 4S = a very distributional hand with not many HCP which may make 4S (e.g. AJxx xx x AQJxxx) 2H = many types of hands, one of which is a strong HCP type of raise in S (e.g. AQxx KQx Ax KJxx) ...and as such, a negative double follwed by 1NT over opener's 1S bid should show 8-10 with good stuff in H, plus 4S. He agreed but thought that the H stuff should be more like QJxx and that such a prime hand should bid 2 or 3S. Comments? Dave Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 18:58:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:15 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07516 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:06 +1000 Received: from modem105.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.105] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ycRBX-000376-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:58:48 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Robin Barker" , Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:13:35 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation > Date: 18 May 1998 16:03 > > ++++ [The one great advantage to the Herman method is that what he says is certain to include some misinformation; so if anything turns out badly for them his opponents will inevitably be given a favourable ruling and he an unfavourable ruling. Maybe that is what you said?]++++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 18:58:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:23 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07532 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:12 +1000 Received: from modem105.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.105] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ycRBd-000376-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:58:54 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:48:23 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 20 May 1998 18:36 > > CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > >Sorry if I am introducing the ridiculous here, > >but sometimes you have to try to remember the > >faulty knowledge you had when you were a > >novice. \x/ \x/ > > No, there's no fix here. If the 2H is a signoff, the normal method, > then the result should be adjusted. If the 2H is a game try then the > auction is normal, and would presumably have been the same without the > insufficient bid. +++ [David: no argument with what you say; however, I think one should also be allowing that if the partnership did happen to have a method of making a trial bid in this position - say 2C, 2D enforced response, any at min level - one has to allow that the bid might not have been 2H in an untroubled auction and to consider whether the player would have used his device and got there.]+++ Grattan ++++ this site at home:workplace site still gester etc ++++ (I am flexible about bridge law; equally happy to use axe, rope, chair, gun or poison - and my cat has nine tails.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 18:58:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:21 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07533 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:14 +1000 Received: from modem105.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.105] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ycRBf-000376-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:58:55 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:53:30 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal On Mon, 18 May 1998 13:03:15 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, what do you do then ? A pair scores 60% in a normal manner, but >the AC decides they should get A+. Let's suppose this is correct. > >Now all the other pairs that had 60% with the same score, suddenly get >61% ! Is this fair ? \x/ \x/ \x/ In other words, I am not willing to "suppose this is correct" - because it is _not_ correct. -- +++ [I would suggest that the final sentence in 12C2 is largely there so that before awarding an assigned score consideration will be given to the most convenient method of doing it.] ++ +Grattan+++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 18:58:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:15 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07515 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:05 +1000 Received: from modem105.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.105] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ycRBc-000376-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:58:53 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:54:07 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation > Date: 20 May 1998 11:00 > > mike dodson wrote: > > >I am a relatively new > > Any cats? ++++[How many tails do they have?]++++ Grattan ++++ this site at home:workplace site still gester etc ++++ (I am flexible about bridge law; equally happy to use axe, rope, chair, gun or poison - and my cat has nine tails.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 18:58:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:31 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07522 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:10 +1000 Received: from modem105.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.105] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ycRBZ-000376-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:58:49 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:23:40 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #1 (was Reno) > Date: 19 May 1998 04:53 > > Grattan wrote: > > Hirsch Davis wrote; > \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ > > But, but, but (sputter, sputter) L12C3 is not valid in ACBL-land! ++++[ I was really referring to the word 'equity' as used anywhere in the laws, more than to Law 12C3. However, it is not for me to argue the ACBL decisions on its options in the laws; I do, however, comment on the basis of the laws promulgated by the WBF.] ++++ Grattan++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 18:58:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:11 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07514 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 18:58:04 +1000 Received: from modem105.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.105] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ycRBb-000376-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:58:51 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:51:03 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation > Date: 20 May 1998 09:49 > > \x/ \x/ \x/ > > I simply won't accept that the Laws force me to express doubts to > opponents, even if I do have doubts. >> \x/ \x/ \x/ ++++ The laws do not give room for not knowing your agreements or being doubtful about them. They just say that you are required to tell them to opponents. If you are not able to do that, plainly and without introducing doubts, then you have to accept that if opponents are misled when you have failed them the ruling will go against you. It is also the case that when a partnership creates a situation at the table by its doubts about what they have agreed, or forgetting it, the pair has to accept all the disadvantages - UI and so on - of the conditions it has created at the table. ++++ ++ Grattan ++ Grattan ++++ this site at home:workplace site still gester etc ++++ (I am flexible about bridge law; equally happy to use axe, rope, chair, gun or poison - and my cat has nine tails.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 20:32:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:32:32 +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 UAA07711 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:32:26 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ycSew-0006uz-00; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:33:15 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:32:30 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:32:28 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > From: Craig Senior > > I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N-2H > was a > > game invitation in hearts. > > Quite a few old-timers played it as natural and forcing. I understand > that is still the non-alerted meaning in the EBU. (I don't know any > authorities who recommend this agreement, but it used to be popular.) > > > ####### No. In EBUland, the unalerted meaning of 1NT=2H is a drop > dead sign off. What you may be thinking of is the auction 1NT=2C > where , perversely, no alert is required if 2C is *not* Stayman *and* > is natural and forcing. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 21:54:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 21:54:37 +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 VAA07998 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 21:54:30 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-103.uunet.be [194.7.9.103]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27414 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:55:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3563F539.8EACFF23@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:34:49 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final 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 (as usual, very sound comments) : > > It is actually quite difficult to see how E/W were damaged. Still, I > presume the interest in this hand is the procedure rather than the > judgement so I shall go along with the notion of damage. My instinct, > however, is that the result should stand because of lack of damage. > The double over 2Di was given as if over a weak two, but actually explained as over a major two-suiter. The player did explain to the AC that this affected their bidding. > >knew that if we explained this to the players at the table - two > >directors among them - they would appeal on principle anyway) > > I take it that you are really asking whether it was correct to send it > to appeal under the 1997 Laws. > That is indeed what I asked. > There is a principle that is accepted globally: you cannot ask for a > ruling at another table, and you cannot appeal a ruling at another > table. This is not easy to prove as a matter of Law [unless I have > missed something] where rulings are concerned, but L92A makes it clear > that appeals are for the players concerned. > I know the principle. > Of course, sometimes people will suffer from this , but it is > considered a rub of the green matter. No doubt if you lose a major > event by 0.03% it would be to your advantage to review every ruling at > every table - and even ask for rulings on matters you hear about. > Eventually you might find something that adjusts the scores slightly, > and there is your win! To allow it would put an intolerable burden on > TDs and ACs since the BLs would have a field day fighting the decisions > at the other tables. > > As a practical decision we do not allow this. Therefore it would be > extremely unfair to allow TDs to do it for the players when they are not > allowed to themselves. In the quoted case did you review *every* other > decision made in the event and send them all to appeal if any judgement > was involved? It is not fair to send one and only one such decision to > appeal. > > It is clear that TDs should not send a matter to appeal when the > players were unable to do so because [a] it is against the general > principles accepted and [b] because it is totally biased and unfair > unless they send every ruling in the whole tournament to appeal. > This was the last round of a long day. Both pairs were tired and would not have bothered. We felt our decision (6Sp) was far too harsh on offenders that we did not want to let this stand. Besides, the TD's also had a long day and were not able to review the bidding at that time. That is also a reason why we called in the AC. > > >b) do you agree with the artificial score ? > > Do I really need to answer this? The AC did not understand L12C2 or > L12C3. > I think the AC has a right by L12C3 to adjust to a 70% score. They clearly felt that this pair should get something more than 60%, but not a top. Seems like some sort of equity to me ! (and another reason to send it to the AC by ourselves) > >c) when the board is recalculated, the score for the other E-Ws in -680 > >becomes 12.2, but the AAS is only 12 (60%). The chairman of the AC then > >decided to award 70% to EW. Do you agree with that ? > > If I have understood you then a decision was made by the AC and > changed by a single person when he discovered the effect. I would put > in a report about the Chairman to the Belgian equivalent of our Laws & > Ethics Committee. This sounds absolutely horrible, and I hope I have > misunderstood you. I can think of no justification whatever to this > completely illegal change of AC decision, and trust that a hearing was > held to find out why it happened. > Let's just say that if the Chairman had reconsulted, they would have agreed. Besides, this being the Open Pairs final, the Chairman of the AC was the 'chairman of the L&E'. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 21:54:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 21:54:48 +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 VAA08007 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 21:54:42 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-103.uunet.be [194.7.9.103]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27424 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3564034B.5B34CE82@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:34:51 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Do not read this X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear BLML'ers, do NOT read this post ! In here you will find the rantings of a raving lunatic who will 'redundantly repeat and reiterate' his falsehoods. This post is directed at David Stevenson only. Judging from his amount of mail, he can probably spend some more time on my rantings. But the rest of you, if you have anything else you can waste your time on, do that. So unless you are desperate, do not read on : --- Dear David, You have succeeded in one thing. You have almost silenced me. The lack of positive comments from the rest of the world make me draw one of three conclusions : 1) I am wrong and the only one to have these delusions 2) I am right and everyone else is mad (my vanity actually allows for this to be a possibility - sorry) 3) I may be right or wrong, but the NO camp have so far succeeded in crowding the airwaves, and doubters have chosen to remain on the sidelines. Whatever the truth, I am not one to leave this issue. If I am wrong, I want to be convinced of this. One thing is certain, I will not be convinced by a lack of support. I want to be put right and am willing to listen to your arguments. So please do not interpret this posting as an attempt to convert you, but rather as a question where I go wrong ? One more thing before I start. I am not alone. When talking about this issue to friends, directors, they frequently agree wih me. So this may be a widespread Flemish misapprehension. So, here goes. Allow me to use my favourite tool : the story. Below is a story, told three times. The story is not complete and will not enable you to give a firm ruling. What I am interested in, is in which way the rulings will change from one story to the next. The first story is about a player named David. His partner has just made a call and RHO asks what the call means. David responds something three minutes long, which can be condensed to: "I believe this means A, but I am not certain, it could also be B". The opponents take the call to mean A, and base their next calls on that premise. They get a very bad score, and when the actual meaning of the call turns out to be B, they call the director. David repeats to the TD the statement he made to his opponents. The TD does not blame the opponents for interpreting the bidding to mean A (*) and rules there has been misinformation and damage, and awards an AS. The regulations in force do not provide for automatic penalties for misinformation and that settles it. (*) this is a valid point that Robin made. Sometimes opponents should be able to work out that the explanation A is incorrect. If they do follow that blindly, this could be a reason for not ruling damage. I think this is a side issue however and hope we can deal with that one later, when all the dust is settled on this main problem. Do you agree that in general, opponents are not wrong to assume meaning A, when they are told something like "probably A, might also be B" ? Now let's move on to a second player, let's call him Steve. Steve's partner has just made the same call, and in response to opponents' questions, Steve replies "A". Opponents bid on in that belief, get a bad result and the TD is called, who determines the actual meaning was B. Same AS, same (no) penalty against Steve for the misinformation. Now we have the third player, let's call him Herman. The story is absolutely equal to Steve's. However, when giving the ruling (the same ruling as Steve), Herman admits to the TD and the table that he was uncertain at the time of his response. "Why did you not tell the opponents this ?" asks the TD "Because a director at home in Flanders told us we did not have to" responds Herman. Now we come to the difficult questions : - is there any reason to treat the MI of Herman's differently than the other two cases ? I don't think so. - is there any reason to give a PP to Herman ? I don't think so. Please David, enlighten me as to what difference there is between Herman and Steve. If you punish Herman, might you not be punishing the wrong guy ? After all, Steve got it wrong as well, and his statement later that he simply forgot might just be self serving, in order to get away from your PP ? The Laws at many places very carefully stay away from the thoughts of players. ('could have known', not 'knew'). By punishing Herman and not Steve, you are introducing a variable you have no control over : players' thoughts. Very dangerous. You might get away with punishing Herman more lightly : "don't ever do that again". But if he does, can you really punish someone for something you find no Law over, except L90B8, failure to comply ? Or do you think there should be a different treatment between David and Steve ? If opponents believe David that it is A, then is his mention of B, or simply of uncertainty of any use to them ? The point I am trying to make is that although there is no reason to scold David for telling too much (and I myself would also volunteer this information) there can equally be no reason to scold Herman. You call this lying to opponents. I don't believe it is. It is not telling them something they have no right to know. When playing with a beautiful girl against your wife and mistress, you will not tell them you plan to cheat on them both later that night, do you ? This may well be called lying, and unethical, but it is not against the Laws of Bridge. I got scolded before in a case where there is room for doubt. I myself have doubted (before working it through) the statements of the De Wael school, where a player is actively lying. I have tried to reduce the problem in stages. This problem is the first stage. I had never thought I would get so much flack. All I am saying, is that both David AND Herman have a valid solution to a problem that sometimes plagues a player : he is in doubt as to the meaning of partner's call. I am not saying David's solution is wrong. However : - Herman gets exactly the same message accross. To the opponents, the mention of doubt is frequently just ballast. They can disregard this (most of the time) without losing their right to redress. - Herman does this in a shorter amount of time. - Herman does not give AI to opponents. They do not benefit from their knowledge that there is doubt in Herman's mind. - Herman does not give UI to partner. In a normal case, this is not really important, as partner is to disregard this UI anyway. All I am saying David is, that I do not see why you are so against players using Herman's tactic of not informing opponents of his own doubts. I do not believe L75C includes doubts. L75C just tells both David and Herman to explain the system A in full. I will be glad to hear from you where I got it wrong. Herman. --- Other BLML readers who did get this far are of course free to give their comments. But if you think this was not worth your time, do not say you were not warned ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 22:39:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:39:11 +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 WAA08104 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:39:06 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:39:08 +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 NAA28331 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:37:08 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:35:11 +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 Martin wrote: > > ####### No. In EBUland, the unalerted meaning of 1NT=2H is a drop > > dead sign off. What you may be thinking of is the auction 1NT=2C > > where , perversely, no alert is required if 2C is *not* Stayman *and* > > is natural and forcing. ######## Is the rationale for this that the "expected meaning" (i.e., Stayman) is forcing and you have to alert non-conventional bids if they are "forcing or non-forcing in a way the opponents may not expect" (or whatever the exact words of the Orange Book are)? I would have thought it was more sensible to interpret this as meaning "... may not expect, given a failure to alert". By the way, I was told recently that (in EBUland again) there is NO unalertable meaning for a 2C opening bid. Can any expert on EBU alerting regulations confirm this? And if so, why is an old-fashioned natural and forcing 2C opening alertable? Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 21 22:57:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:57:55 +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 WAA08135 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:57:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2017599; 21 May 98 12:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:16:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <3563AFBC.39DD98E@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> No, there's no fix here. If the 2H is a signoff, the normal method, >> then the result should be adjusted.* If the 2H is a game try then the >> auction is normal, and would presumably have been the same without the >> insufficient bid. >> *Cannot a partner ignore the bid that says quit and bid on if he is so >> inclined??? Should responder then alert that he is not playing our >> system???? ;-)) Wouldn't a game try bid have to be alerted and >> conventional? If there is no infraction then a player can do what they like. However, when a player raises to game [not just tries] over a signoff AND there is some sort of UI - in this case using the information from the insufficient bid - then there should be an adjustment. In the normal case there is no problem. If you open 1NT playing with me for the first time, and I bid 2H signoff, and you decide to bid 3H, so what? Perfectly legal, no alert required, no problem. -- 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 May 21 22:58:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:58:00 +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 WAA08141 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:57:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2017580; 21 May 98 12:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:18:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <199805202313.TAA28083@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Craig Senior >> I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N-2H was a >> game invitation in hearts. > >Quite a few old-timers played it as natural and forcing. I understand >that is still the non-alerted meaning in the EBU. (I don't know any >authorities who recommend this agreement, but it used to be popular.) *coff* Pardon? Natural and forcing requires an alert. -- 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 May 21 22:58:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:58:29 +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 WAA08164 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:58:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2017577; 21 May 98 12:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:11:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final In-Reply-To: <199805202310.TAA28076@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> It is clear that TDs should not send a matter to appeal when the >> players were unable to do so because [a] it is against the general >> principles accepted and [b] because it is totally biased and unfair >> unless they send every ruling in the whole tournament to appeal. > >Oh, come! Most of David's message makes good sense, but [b] does not. >In fact, from the rest of his post, I think David meant something >slightly different. > >For most rulings, TD's should do the best they can and be satisfied >with the results. The players can decide whether to appeal or not. >The approach should not change for a particular ruling just because it >might affect the outcome of the event. We agree so far. > >However... it is perfectly reasonable for a TD to decide that a >specific ruling depends on a subtle matter of bridge judgment that >would be better decided by an AC. (This may be more popular in North >America than elsewhere.) If so, the normal procedure should be for the >TD to send this ruling to appeal. This is in no way biased or unfair; >it is simply the TD doing his best in each case. > >Now the question arises, if the TD wishes to send a ruling to an AC for >the reason above, and the players show no interest, should the TD >persist, or should he drop the appeal? The latter clearly makes >practical sense, and I suspect most of us would agree with it, but >_this_ is what introduces bias and may be unfair. Still, this bias and >unfairness may be tolerable in the practical interest of finishing the >competition. It is less tolerable if it may affect the top finishers. Do you think that if there was such a case in the first session between two bottom finishers that it should now be sent to appeal even if out of time? >Bottom line: each SO (or chief TD, if the SO doesn't) should establish >a policy on when rulings should be referred to an AC. If David wishes >to adopt "never" (and his SO agrees), that's fine. If others want to >adopt a different policy, that's fine too. Bias comes in when you >depart from the adopted policy, whatever it is. Anyway, I don't think this is what was meant by Herman's post. If it is, well, I did not answer it correctly. I think that in Herman's case they had what they considered an arguable decision, and sent it to appeal ***because*** it could affect the final result: I say that *must* never happen. You are talking of cases where the TDs send it to appeal ***because*** that was part of their decision. That is acceptable, but Herman discovered the final score and *then* decided to send it to appeal. In other words, I agree with what you say but do not think it relevant to this thread. -- 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 May 21 23:06:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:06:49 +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 XAA08209 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:06:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2017601; 21 May 98 12:55 GMT Message-ID: <4llJLbB76BZ1Ewwg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:31:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Recorder MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A suggestion has been made to institute a National Recorder for the Welsh Bridge Union. Any information about the advantages and methods of the recorder system would be appreciated. I would prefer answers here on BLML unless they are totally non- contentious so that pros and cons could be discussed. However, if there is anything to say that should not be public emails are welcome, of course [but not *both*, please]. -- 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 May 21 23:08:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:08:25 +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 XAA08227 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:08:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2017578; 21 May 98 12:55 GMT Message-ID: <2lGK7TB32BZ1Ewwa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:27:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Careless or irrational In-Reply-To: <199805210335.NAA03846@pegasus.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Penny & Jane Stapleton wrote: >By claiming WITHOUT stating any line of play, West has failed to give the >opponents their rights under Law which, if he'd specified the line I've >suggested, would have led to the "one trick to the oppos" ruling - and that >should be the ruling regardless of any consideration of "bridge psychology". > >"Bridge psychology", in my view, applies to cases where declarer makes the >same sort of claim, holding S.AQJ9, and a defender tries to claim one trick >because he holds S.10 (the one outstanding spade) and argues that: "If he >thought all his trumps were high he could have - carelessly - led S9 first >....". "Bridge psychology" in this case says that declarer will lead the >outstanding spades, starting with SA, not S9. That is reasonable. But when declarer has winning trumps and winning outside cards I think we should always accept that the winning trumps may come last. How many declarers do you play against who, having drawn trumps, don't ever cash another even when they have plenty to spare. Careful souls like me "check for lurkers" but many players don't. To put it another way, if you gave the hand to 10 different declarers and told them to play it out, I would bet that at least four would cash the diamonds first. -- 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 May 21 23:32:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:32:26 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08311 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:32:19 +1000 Received: from default (client8709.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.9]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA30221; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:33:00 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:29:56 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd84bc$8bc7ff20$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 Stevenson/Willner extracts: : \x/ \x/ > I do not think your approach to the meaning of Convention is going to >help the game very much. Furthermore, I think the definition of >convention is sufficiently vague and confusion that we cannot be sure >that your interpretation is correct. So, I think we should follow the >somewhat more obvious interpretation. > \x/ \x/. > > For now, I suggest we do not look for unhelpful interpretations of >Convention, since I think most of us agree the Definition is not crystal >clear. > +++ If it is 'not crystal clear' C says the intention of C in producing it shall prevail. C did not consider that opening 1H because it was no shorter than any other suit should be deemed to say anything about the other suits. [I know of no rule by which a player bidding One Heart, 'naturally' as they say, may never have as many cards in Spades or Clubs or Diamonds (say five).] ++++ Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 00:04:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:04:35 +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 AAA08414 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:04:28 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA13652; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:04:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.52) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma013612; Thu May 21 09:04:15 1998 Received: by har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD849F.A719E300@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 21 May 1998 10:03:07 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD849F.A719E300@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Steve Willner'" Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:02:59 -0400 Encoding: 27 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think one version of Culbertson used strong threes that were even stronger than strong twos, but I would not expect to find this in an ACBL 99'er game. Most new players have read the gospel according to Silverman or Grant or even Hardy...or their teachers have. There was no indication that the pair involved were recently converted party bridge players from the era of the Bennett case. If they play what most new players have in the U.S, in the past quarter century, this meaning would be highly confusing to them and most unlikely to have been adopted. As for EBU, perhaps one of our many erudite men-of-the-lime can elucidate. Is 1N/2M really game invitational and non-alertable? Is this considered standard Acol? ---------- From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 7:13 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > From: Craig Senior > I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N-2H was a > game invitation in hearts. Quite a few old-timers played it as natural and forcing. I understand that is still the non-alerted meaning in the EBU. (I don't know any authorities who recommend this agreement, but it used to be popular.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 00:20:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:20:35 +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 AAA10814 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:20:29 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA18494 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:20:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.52) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018458; Thu May 21 09:20:14 1998 Received: by har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD84A1.E07AFEC0@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 21 May 1998 10:19:02 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD84A1.E07AFEC0@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:19:01 -0400 Encoding: 83 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 12:32 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Craig Senior wrote: > I have never heard of a system at the novice level where 1N/2H was a > game invitation in hearts. You either learned it as a drop dead bid or from > some teachers as a Jacoby transfer. I don't think any of my cats would > consider the sequence invitational, and not one of them yet has a full > master point. How about Goren? Quote: "There are many hands on which the responder has the high-card requirements of a raise to 2 No Trump, but the hand contains a five-card major and perhaps a short suit, and the responder feels there is a chance that the hand might possibly play better in a suit. In order to give partner a choice responder bids 2 spades or 2 hearts and opener is expected to bid again unless he has a rock-bottom opener. If he supports the suit, responder will go to four. If opener rebids 2 No Trump responder expects to take him to three." The quote is from *The Standard Book of Bidding*, 1947 edition. #####Please note the copyright. I sincerely doubt that most of the players in a novice game today learned bridge in 1947...and have never learned anything since. Players with such a casual interest in the game do not play duplicate. (Good players, of course, would not still be novices after 50 years. Players that bad usually take up other interests or improve. Bridge is for enjoyment, not pure masochism. A half century of consistent losing does not commend a sport to the participant. Golfers with 50+ handicaps usually take lessons if they keep playing.)##### This approach was quite standard until duplicate players decided that passing 1NT with a very weak hand and six-card major was not a good idea. At least in the West, by the early 50s players were saying that any two-level response to 1NT should usually be passed. #####This was true in the eastern U.S. as well by 1951 when I first took the game somewhat more seriously than slapjack and old maid.##### This same book had some new gadgets in a final chapter called Modern Expert Variations. One of these was a Stayman-like convention used by the Four Aces (Schencken, Gottlieb, Burnstine, Jacoby), in which a 2C or 2D response to 1NT was forcing, asking for a four-card major. Not artificial, since the bidder was supposed to have something in the suit. Goren commented: "This type of response is very much like other conventional responses to No Trump bids which have been offered from time to time. Practically all these methods have their merits, but the fact remains that the introduction ofr arbitrary bidding conventions leads to partnership misunderstandings and it is wise to use only such conventional bids as you really need, and then only when you are sure you can handle them." Then came Stayman, and the rest is history. #####As always, your history lessons are entertaining recollections Marv. Thanks. :-) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 00:51:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:51:34 +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 AAA11019 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:40:45 +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 PAA14362; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:39:56 +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 PAA15481; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:39:55 +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 PAA15743; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:39:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 21 May 98 15:39:53 BST Message-Id: <2634.9805211439@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: EBU alerting, RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Putting myself up as "any expert on EBU alerting regulations" :-) The basic rules are you must alert a call if: A. it is not 'natural' [see 4C]. {in 4C: 'natural' is defined basically in terms of suit lengths} B. it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. C. it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Jeremy writes: > Is the rationale for this that the "expected meaning" (i.e., Stayman) is > forcing and you have to alert non-conventional bids if they are "forcing > or non-forcing in a way the opponents may not expect" (or whatever the > exact words of the Orange Book are)? I would have thought it was more > sensible to interpret this as meaning "... may not expect, given a > failure to alert". > > By the way, I was told recently that (in EBUland again) there is NO > unalertable meaning for a 2C opening bid. Can any expert on EBU alerting > regulations confirm this? And if so, why is an old-fashioned natural > and forcing 2C opening alertable? Briefly: Yes!, Yes, No, and it is isn't. So 1NT=2C is alertable if non-forcing, because the opponents are likely to expect 2C to be Stayman, which is forcing, so (B.) applies. This is bizarre (IMHO), logical, and not very helpful. Your suggestion: e.g. "... are unlikely to expect, given the failure to alert" (or "... are unlikely to expect, given the call is natural"), makes more sense. However, I think it only really affects this one sequence, so perhaps we should live with the consequence; for 1NT=2x (nat, sign-off): 2C is to be alerted, 2D/H/S is not to be alerted. The argument that 1NT=2C (stayman) is to be alerted, if only to teach newcomers that conventions are to be alerted, has merit. 1NT=2C (nat, F) does not meet A., B., or C. (above); so is not alertable. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 00:57:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:57:09 +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 AAA11148 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:56:51 +1000 Received: from mercury by hermes.dur.ac.uk id (8.8.8/ for dur.ac.uk) with SMTP; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:57:35 +0100 (BST) Received: from deneb by mercury id ; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:57:34 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:57:33 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Is this conventional ? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is fairly common among a range of US players, to regularly open 1H/S on 5-6 hands with a 6 card minor. Does this make the 1H/S opener alertable ? More importantly, would it be conventional ? After all, if I regularly open 4-5 hands 1H/S as opposed to 1C/D, that would be alertable. I do not seek to clarify the ACBL/EBU/etc positions on this, but rather what the attitude should be. It seems silly to make it conventional/alertable just because some minute fraction of the time it will not be quite standard. But I could be wrong. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 00:59:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:59:13 +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 AAA11170 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:59:06 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA07989; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:59:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.52) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007947; Thu May 21 09:58:39 1998 Received: by har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD84A7.405D40A0@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 21 May 1998 10:57:31 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD84A7.405D40A0@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'Herman De Wael'" Subject: RE: Do not read this Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:57:29 -0400 Encoding: 42 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Herman De Wael[SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 6:34 AM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Do not read this Dear BLML'ers, do NOT read this post ! In here you will find the rantings of a raving lunatic who will 'redundantly repeat and reiterate' his falsehoods. #####Herman, since it's my attempt at humour you've quoted, let me clarify. I do not consider your opinions a "waste of time" or the "ravings of a lunatic". I have found your posts interesting and educational. I just disagree with you that it can EVER be right to lie or break the law by intent. You obviously feel strongly on this matter and have a belief that your approach is a right one. The thread has been growing long, however. My suggestion is not to abandon the argument, but to give it a rest for a few months and then revisit it. Too many of us on the list are developing a mindset on the subject that makes your minority position less tenable not on its merits but on its perceived intransigence. Let us agree to disagree for a time, then revisit the issue when time has given us all a little more perspective and tolerance for opposing views. This matter will no more go away than the question of heart signals in Argentina. We can talk later. (snipping interesting post for dws that I admit I peeked at)##### When playing with a beautiful girl against your wife and mistress, you will not tell them you plan to cheat on them both later that night, do you ? #### I recall a similar story. The two men NS at table three look down the room and both do double takes. One says to the other "Omigosh, that's my wife at 5EW...and she's playing with my mistress." The other replies "What a coincidence...I was about to say the same thing."##### From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 01:46:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 01:46:13 +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 BAA11335 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 01:40:51 +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 PAA14362; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:39:56 +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 PAA15481; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:39:55 +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 PAA15743; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:39:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 21 May 98 15:39:53 BST Message-Id: <2634.9805211439@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: EBU alerting, RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Putting myself up as "any expert on EBU alerting regulations" :-) The basic rules are you must alert a call if: A. it is not 'natural' [see 4C]. {in 4C: 'natural' is defined basically in terms of suit lengths} B. it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. C. it is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Jeremy writes: > Is the rationale for this that the "expected meaning" (i.e., Stayman) is > forcing and you have to alert non-conventional bids if they are "forcing > or non-forcing in a way the opponents may not expect" (or whatever the > exact words of the Orange Book are)? I would have thought it was more > sensible to interpret this as meaning "... may not expect, given a > failure to alert". > > By the way, I was told recently that (in EBUland again) there is NO > unalertable meaning for a 2C opening bid. Can any expert on EBU alerting > regulations confirm this? And if so, why is an old-fashioned natural > and forcing 2C opening alertable? Briefly: Yes!, Yes, No, and it is isn't. So 1NT=2C is alertable if non-forcing, because the opponents are likely to expect 2C to be Stayman, which is forcing, so (B.) applies. This is bizarre (IMHO), logical, and not very helpful. Your suggestion: e.g. "... are unlikely to expect, given the failure to alert" (or "... are unlikely to expect, given the call is natural"), makes more sense. However, I think it only really affects this one sequence, so perhaps we should live with the consequence; for 1NT=2x (nat, sign-off): 2C is to be alerted, 2D/H/S is not to be alerted. The argument that 1NT=2C (stayman) is to be alerted, if only to teach newcomers that conventions are to be alerted, has merit. 1NT=2C (nat, F) does not meet A., B., or C. (above); so is not alertable. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 01:52:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 01:52:34 +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 BAA11382 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 01:49:12 +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 QAA15986; Thu, 21 May 1998 16:46:11 +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 QAA24649; Thu, 21 May 1998 16:46:10 +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 QAA16338; Thu, 21 May 1998 16:46:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 21 May 98 16:46:08 BST Message-Id: <2653.9805211546@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rts48u@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior > [snip] As for EBU, perhaps one of our many > erudite men-of-the-lime can elucidate. Is 1N/2M really game invitational > and non-alertable? Is this considered standard Acol? The short answer is "No": 1NT=2M invitational is not normal in EBUland. Very few people now what is "standard Acol" these days. I doubt many ever did, with the possible exception of those who designed the system. I think "natural and sign-off" is "considered standard Acol", even if more tournament "Acol" players play transfers. But I think "game invitational" is not alertable: it is natural, non-forcing (according to expectation), and (probably) not affected by other agreements. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 01:57:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 01:57:03 +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 BAA11425 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 01:56:57 +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 LAA15190 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:02:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: "You turned that card wrong" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have recently been asked the same question by a number of people, who have apparently been given different answers by tournament directors in ACBL land. In turning the card played to the just-completed trick, declarer points it in the wrong direction, towards the side that lost the trick. Is dummy allowed to tell declarer that the card is pointed the wrong way? People have been given three different answers: 1. Dummy must never do this. 2. Dummy may do this, but only immediately. 3. Dummy may do this later, so long as it is not at a critical juncture of the play (ie, so long as dummy is not directly suggesting a line of play to declarer). Those in favour of 2 (or the rather impractical 3) argue that Law 42B allows dummy to keep count of tricks won and lost and Law 43B allows dummy to try to prevent declarer's irregularity (turning the card the wrong way violates both Law 65B and Law 65C). Those in favour of 1 argue that Law 43A prevents dummy calling attention to an irregularity during play, and Law 43B prevents dummy from communicating anything about the play to declarer. Also, and most significantly, Law 74C3 says that calling attention to the number of tricks needed to fulfill the contract violates correct procedure (although if declarer wins a trick without realising it, sooner or later someone will have to say "It's your lead"). Is there an official ACBL position on this? How do other NCBO's handle it? Is it any different for defenders? _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 02:12:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:12:57 +1000 Received: from cosmos1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos1.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11645 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:12:48 +1000 Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca) by cosmos1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02209; Thu, 21 May 98 12:14:13 EDT Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id MAA02809 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 May 1998 12:13:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199805211613.MAA02809@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: A hesitation situation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:13:05 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980521031203.007a44e0@magi.com> from "David Kent" at May 21, 98 03:12:03 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Kent writes: > > Hello panel, > > You hold: > > S - KTxx > H - AKxx > D - 9xx > C - xx > > Pard RHO You LHO > ---------------------------- > P P > 1C 1H x P > 1S P ? > > Over your negative double, partner hesitated for about 20 seconds before > bidding 1S. My teammate thought that 1NT with this hand should not be > allowed. My contention was that 1NT should show 4S plus about 8-10 HCP, > and as such was the proper bid. He did not think much of my decision (but > did not appeal the director's ruling that the result should stand - i.e. > 1NT making) but did send an email to Gary Blais at the ACBL. He was told > that based on the information given that the result should be changed to 2S > -1. > > Your partner has: Jxx QT plus some stuff in the minors (I cannot remember > the exact hand). > > My point to my teammate was that there are many ways to bid hands that have > spade support: i.e. > > 1S = minimum hand with 4S or any near minimum hand with a flaw (e.g. only 3S) > 2S = good 14ish+ hand (e.g. KJxx xx Kx AQxxx) > 3S = about 16-17 support points with 4S (e.g. AQxx xx Kx AQxxx) > 4S = a very distributional hand with not many HCP which may make 4S (e.g. > AJxx xx x AQJxxx) > 2H = many types of hands, one of which is a strong HCP type of raise in S > (e.g. AQxx KQx Ax KJxx) > > ...and as such, a negative double follwed by 1NT over opener's 1S bid > should show 8-10 with good stuff in H, plus 4S. He agreed but thought that > the H stuff should be more like QJxx and that such a prime hand should bid > 2 or 3S. I don't know here. I know David to be both an excellent player and a very ethical one. I don't like the ACBL tell us how to bid. (As it happens, I agree with your teammate's bridge judgement, but to me that doesn't seem to me to be the point here.) And yet to allow 1NT here feels wrong. It's a lot more likely that he has only 3S. i.e. the UI is pointing towards the winning decision. I'm not sure that I agree that 1NT shows 4S here either. I've seen MSC problems where the consensus answer was a ND on only 3S. (I've even done it myself.) Does an ND promise unconditionally 4S in your partership? Put me down as agreeing with Gary Blais. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 02:31:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:31:44 +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 CAA11692 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:31:38 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA06491; Thu, 21 May 1998 11:31:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.52) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006446; Thu May 21 11:31:10 1998 Received: by har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD84B4.2D67D0C0@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 21 May 1998 12:30:02 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD84B4.2D67D0C0@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" , "'David Martin'" Subject: RE: Two CCs on the Table Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:30:01 -0400 Encoding: 54 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In England, you never advertised for years that once you acquired the rank of life master you would no longer have to pay dues. The ACBL did. Marv became a life master. He does not have to pay dues. He chooses not to pay service fees...but they are not for membership but for services he does not require. He does pay for the services he uses: i.e. entry fees. It is rather like having a life subsription to a magazine (such as TBW). You expect not to pay annually to keep your subscription. You may, of course, urge others to subscribe, and do other business with the magazine company. But you should not have to pay for your subscription again. Life master originally meant life membership sans dues as well as being an honour. That many others have reduced the honour as masterpoint inflation has paralleled German currency circa 1920, should not remove the free life membership. While I disagree with Marv's decision not to pay service fees, he is certainly within his rights. He is and should be a member, and as such is free to criticise and seek to improve the ACBL. The delay in online publication of the American version of the laws WAS shameful. There will be plenty of copies of the convenient, low priced book to cover its cost without this. (Who wants to carry a laptop or an awkward printout to the table to make a ruling. And a director who rules without TFLB right at hand is foolishly reducing both his authority and his accuracy.) As for the casebooks, Marv has probably done more good for their sales by making people aware of them than any 10 people at ACBL HQ. I by no means always agree with him...but let's be fair and give him his due! ---------- From: David Martin[SMTP:DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:55 PM To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Subject: RE: Two CCs on the Table Jon Brissman wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote, inter alia: > > > > > The ACBL sends out a copy of the CC instructions, just one, with any > > purchase of CCs. Additional copies are available for $1.00 each. > > Anything for a buck these days. > > This comment is Marvin's latest in a litany critical of the ACBL's > finances and/or revenue-raising schemes. Part of the reason that the > ACBL needs to pursue funds is that a portion of their membership > refuses > to pay their annual dues (or Life Master Service Fees). Marvin, you > haven't paid your ACBL dues in years; how do you have standing to > criticize? People who pay no taxes should not be critical of tax > policies. > > ######### In England, if you don't pay you are not allowed to play. > Simple really! ########## From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 02:53:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:53:43 +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 CAA11730 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:53:37 +1000 Received: from default (client1206.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.6]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA16211; Thu, 21 May 1998 17:54:22 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd84c5$6f82aaa0$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 Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final \X/ \X/ \X/ >Bottom line: each SO (or chief TD, if the SO doesn't) should establish >a policy on when rulings should be referred to an AC. If David wishes >to adopt "never" (and his SO agrees), that's fine. If others want to >adopt a different policy, that's fine too. Bias comes in when you >depart from the adopted policy, whatever it is. > ++++ [ This worries me a little, or more precisely a lot. I would not want to restrict the freedom of Directors to judge when they might wish to refer a subject under Law 81C9. Law 81 deals with the duties and powers of Tournament Directors and my philosophy is that SOs should restrain themselves from gratuitous intervention in matters under this law. ++++ Grattan ++++] From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 02:53:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:53:46 +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 CAA11731 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 02:53:40 +1000 Received: from default (client1206.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.12.6]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA16218; Thu, 21 May 1998 17:54:24 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Do not read this Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:17:44 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd84d3$fc854440$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Herman says: >Whatever the truth, I am not one to leave this issue. ++ Herman, I believe you.++ >If I am wrong, I want to be convinced of this. ++ Well, I *did* believe you. ++ >One thing is certain, I will not be convinced by a lack of support. > ++ And this you did not need to tell us. What I think we actually need, if you are to be convinced, is to return to Genesis Chap. 7.11 where it says the windows of heaven were opened - and we should go on reading until we get to that bit which asks "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" ++ ++++Grattan++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 03:05:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:05:31 +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 DAA11785 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:05:25 +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 NAA28378 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA28836; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:06:23 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805211706.NAA28836@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +++ If it is 'not crystal clear' C says the intention of C in producing it > shall prevail. Fair enough, but I don't see how this applies. The convention definition seems crystal clear to me. The problem is that the result is so astonishing that nobody believes what the definition says. > C did not consider that opening 1H because it was > no shorter than any other suit should be deemed to say anything > about the other suits. This, on the other hand, is less than pellucid. I gather it means C's intent was that opening one's longest suit (or any of one's longest suits when holding equal lengths) should not be conventional. I agree that this is a reasonable intent. It's too bad C adopted a definition that says something else. (To be fair, defining 'convention' is very hard, as we on BLML know from past discussions.) > [I know of no rule by which a player bidding > One Heart, 'naturally' as they say, may never have as many cards in > Spades or Clubs or Diamonds (say five).] ++++ Grattan +++ If you really have "no rule" (i.e. no agreement), then of course the bid isn't a convention. Real bidding systems do have rules, like "with equal length, open the higher ranking." Thus (almost) any (opening) bid says something about lengths in other suits. This is not included in the list of non-conventional meanings. Perhaps the convention definition ought to be on C's agenda before 2007. Or perhaps not... the practical definition "I know one when I see one" may be satisfactory to all but purists who believe the Laws ought to be taken seriously. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 03:08:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:08:34 +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 DAA11801 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:08:27 +1000 Received: from crane.bu.edu (CRANE.BU.EDU [128.197.10.209]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id NAA23295; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:09:12 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by crane.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id NAA17175; Thu, 21 May 1998 13:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805211709.NAA17175@crane.bu.edu> Subject: How to punish a psych(e) (Was Re: Self Explanations) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:09:43 -0400 (EDT) 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-- Robin Michaels wrote: [abstracted: full text appears at end] >>If opponents psych in a non-documented auction, and you suspect it, by >>asking about the bid, you can generate a >>misunderstanding/misexplanation situation, where, through lack of >>documentation, the psycher will be accused of misexplanation (and hence >>usually get a bad result). >> >>I'm not very happy with this tactic, but it seems it should work. >>Can someone suggest why it wouldn't or how to overcome it ? [relevant law: L75, example 2: "...the director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary" I think that in practice this trick won't work. In my experience in the ACBL, even at the flight A regional and national level, in many such situations actual documentation is not necessary to establish mistaken bid or psyche. Usually bridge judgement is sufficient. I cant really speak for the EBU et. al., but I suspect that, Grattan to the contrary, similar principles apply. For example, if a player with 5H,4S and 11-15 hcp opens 2D, asked and explained as natural and weak, and the opponents go wrong as a result, I think it is clear that either the bid was misexplained or it was a misbid. In neither case do I feel that the bidder was attempting anything nefarious or psychic. In the absence of any evidence either way, I would apply L75, and rule misexplanation. On the other hand, if a player holding x Kxxxx Qxx xxxx, hearing the auction 1H-(dbl), bids 1S, asked and explained as natural, I think that it is pretty clear that our 1S bidder knew he was misdescribing his hand, and even if the pair could not provide any written evidence that 1S was indeed natural by agreement, I would find it easy to rule that this was their agreement, and rule "mistaken bid," or psych{e}. I think that in the vast majority of cases, psychic bids are usually pretty blatant (a posteriori), and it would be unlikely that one might be confused with a forgotten agreement. The cases which walk the line, admittedly, might be problematic. An obscure example might be a pair which is known to play high level asking bids in certain slam-going auctions psyching a qbid in a situation where their asking bids do not apply, and the situation looking like a failure to alert an asking bid. If the pair cannot produce either some documentation or consistent explanation as to why this is not an asking bid situation, they might be stuck. But even in this situation, I would expect that a verbal description of their agreements might well reveal why neither partner was in any doubt that this was not an asking bid sequence (e.g. "they only apply in auctions where we jump to the 5 level"), and this could be construed as "sufficient evidence to the contrary." -- David Metcalf Robin Michaels wrote: >>From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri May 15 08:54:18 1998 >>Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:46:04 +0100 (BST) >>From: Robin Michaels >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Subject: How to punish a psych(e) (Was Re: Self Explanations) >>In-Reply-To: >>Message-ID: >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >>Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Precedence: bulk >> >>Suppose you are Vun v Non-Vun, and you hear an auction like: >> >>P (1H) x (2D) >>P (2S) ? >>Holding something like: AKJxxxx Kx A AQJ >> >>(Ok, so this is a little contrived- the principle is the main thing >>I think better examples of the same principle could be constructed) >> >>And you are playing with a rather unimaginative partner. >> >>It is pretty likely that RHO has psyched, based on D support, and maybe a >>subminimum opening, and there is now a risk that you partner will not work >>this out, and have problems interpretting the auction if it continues: >> x (P) >>P (3D) 3/4S >> >>How can you deal with this ? >>ASK LHO what 2S shows, and you will be told that it is natural. >> >>Then, later, if things go wrong, and when RHO shows up with a S singleton, >>you can claim misinformation, and becuause there is no documentation of >>this auction, and the agreed meaning of this 2S bid, oppo don't have a leg >>to stand on. Of course, if you have been misinformed, and opponents have >>an undisclosed agreement about the 2S bid, they gat their wrists slapped, >>and the score maybe adjusted. >> >>There is almost a general principle lurking here. >>If opponents psych in a non-documented auction, and you suspect it, by >>asking about the bid, you can generate a >>misunderstanding/misexplanation situation, where, through lack of >>documentation, the psycher will be accused of misexplanation (and hence >>usually get a bad result). >> >>I'm not very happy with this tactic, but it seems it should work. >>Can someone suggest why it wouldn't or how to overcome it ? >> >>cheers, >>Robin >> >> >> From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 03:09:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:09:58 +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 DAA11819 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:09:52 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-026.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.31]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA19339; Thu, 21 May 1998 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <35631319.C1C@lightspeed.net> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:30:01 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John R. Mayne" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A hesitation situation References: <3.0.1.32.19980521031203.007a44e0@magi.com> <35630E95.687D@lightspeed.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Kent wrote: > > Hello panel, > > You hold: > > S - KTxx > H - AKxx > D - 9xx > C - xx > > Pard RHO You LHO > ---------------------------- > P P > 1C 1H x P > 1S P ? > > Over your negative double, partner hesitated for about 20 seconds before > bidding 1S. My teammate thought that 1NT with this hand should not be > allowed. I agree vigorously with your teammate. Apart from my thoughts on your structure (which I think is inferior), it's a question of whether 1) the long pause suggested a certain bid or bids, and then 2)if so, whether the 1N bidder had an LA not suggested by the tank. Step 1: The long pause could show one of two problem types: Either partner has insufficient spades, or partner is overstrength. (I can figure out some other problems partner might have, but these two probably comprise 98% of the cases.) In either case, 1NT will be successful, while in the first case some number of spades will be unsuccessful. I believe a 3S bid now is a substantial overbid, but there's a reasonable argument that 2S is suggested over 3S by the pause. So, since 1NT is suggested over other bids, are there LAs? Step 2: Yes, there are clear LAs. I think 2S is a standout with the prime cards. There is a reasonable argument that *3S* should be forced, but I think it isn't a slam dunk that 3S is suggested over 2S (although I think it is) and it may not be a logical alternative, depending on the SO and level of play (but I think it may be.) I could be convinced either way, but I'm not letting 1N survive. If you could somehow convince me your structure required you to bid 1NT on all 8-10 point hands, I'd rule differently, as my dislike for it should not carry substantial weight as far as a ruling. However, that would take some convincing! Playing a standard or near-standard style, 1NT caters too well to a 3-card spade suit. Short version: Partner tanked and hanged you. Now you can't bid 1NT, even if you think it right. Bid 2S, and tell pard not to hang you next time. A few comments on the bidding style interspersed below. --JRM > > My contention was that 1NT should show 4S plus about 8-10 HCP, > > and as such was the proper bid. He did not think much of my decision (but > > did not appeal the director's ruling that the result should stand - i.e. > > 1NT making) but did send an email to Gary Blais at the ACBL. He was told > > that based on the information given that the result should be changed to 2S > > -1. > > > > Your partner has: Jxx QT plus some stuff in the minors (I cannot remember > > the exact hand). > > > > My point to my teammate was that there are many ways to bid hands that have > > spade support: i.e. > > > > 1S = minimum hand with 4S or any near minimum hand with a flaw (e.g. only 3S) Or: AQxx xx xxx AKJx. Hey, 3S by pard ain't so bad, eh? 1NT, suggesting slow values, opposite this hand, and you are mired in 2S, missing the good game. > > > 2S = good 14ish+ hand (e.g. KJxx xx Kx AQxxx) > No, that's not enough. Because playing it this way leads to playing 3S as you say. Remember, partner won't pass 1S unless it's right to do so; if partner bids 2S, as expected, over one, you can now intelligently probe for game. > > > 3S = about 16-17 support points with 4S (e.g. AQxx xx Kx AQxxx) > And needlessly going down when partner makes an effort on Txxx xxx QJx Kxx. > > > 4S = a very distributional hand with not many HCP which may make 4S (e.g. > > AJxx xx x AQJxxx) > Nah. Bid 4C on the 6-4s. Much better. Reserve 4S for big semi-balanced hands. > > 2H = many types of hands, one of which is a strong HCP type of raise in S > > (e.g. AQxx KQx Ax KJxx) > Splinters should apply here. > > > > > ...and as such, a negative double follwed by 1NT over opener's 1S bid > > should show 8-10 with good stuff in H, plus 4S. He agreed but thought that > > the H stuff should be more like QJxx and that such a prime hand should bid > > 2 or 3S. > Bing bing bing --teammate is the winner! If NT is right, it should probably be played from the other hand. And, if partner has hedged on a 3-bagger, bidding spades might get you to the right contract -- spades. Opposite AQx x Jxxx AQxxx, what strain do you want to play in? And, pray tell, is partner really going to pull NT? Thanks for the problem. --JRM > > > > > Comments? > > > > Dave Kent > > david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 03:20:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:20:42 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 DAA11851 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 03:20:31 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04679 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805211720.KAA04679@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Is this conventional ? Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:17:36 -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 Robin Michaels wrote: > > It is fairly common among a range of US players, to regularly open 1H/S on > 5-6 hands with a 6 card minor. > Does this make the 1H/S opener alertable ? > More importantly, would it be conventional ? > After all, if I regularly open 4-5 hands 1H/S as opposed to 1C/D, that > would be alertable. > > I do not seek to clarify the ACBL/EBU/etc positions on this, but rather > what the attitude should be. > > It seems silly to make it conventional/alertable just because some minute > fraction of the time it will not be quite standard. But I could be wrong. > My impression of general U. S. practice is to open 5=6 hands major=minor (or major=major) with the higher-ranking suit only when the two suits are touching and opener does not consider the hand strong enough to reverse. Even then, the five-card suit should not be very weak compared to the lower suit (e.g., 1D gets the vote with S-x H-J9xxx D-AQJxxx C-A). Since partners will assume that the higher suit is as long or longer than the lower when it is bid first, there is no reason to Alert. However, if the partnership agreement is to open 5=6 hands routinely by bidding the higher suit, then that would call for an Alert. The ACBL Alert Procedure says to Alert "bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them." I don't think U. S. players would in general expect this treatment, so it should be Alerted. The explanation of the Alert would be, "Could have a longer minor." The same principle applies to 4=5 hands. I open 1H with S-x H-AKJx D-Q10xxx C-Qxx, but my partner will expect my hearts to be as long or longer than diamonds when I rebid 2D, so no Alert. If I always opened 1H with 4=5 hearts=diamonds, that would be Alertable. As to the 5=6 hands, it could be argued that an Alert should not be necessary until the second suit has been bid, or until the auction is over (for declarer). Why waste a lot of time Alerting 1H/1S openings when opener would seldom have a longer minor? However, defenders cannot explain their auction until play is over (unless asked), and declarer might be very interested to know that an opponent who opened 1H or 1S could have an unbid six-card minor. Therefore, I believe that the Alert should come with the opening bid. If there were a policy, which I would favor, of allowing a defender to say to declarer before the opening lead, "You might want to ask about our auction," then the early Alert could probably be omitted. I think this is legal now per Laws and regs, but I'm not sure. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 04:04:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 04:04:48 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11976 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 04:04:41 +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 OAA17756 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 14:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805211803.OAA29883@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Non-offender's obligation after insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is the obligation of a non-offender under Law 27B1(b) (information from an insufficient bid causing damage)? The law sems similar to the UI rules in the nature of the situation. Does this mean that the non-offenders obligations to call attention are as under Law 16C? My situation: W N E S 1D 2C 1S Director! 2S P P West has just passed a bid which by partnership agreement shows at least 11 points and is nearly a game force, which suggests that he is acting on the information from the 1S bid that partner may only have 6 points. Must South call the Director at this point (since the ACBL does not allow reserving rights), or when West comes down as dummy with a balanced minimum, or can he wait until the end of the hand? If it had been UI, South would have to call the Director immediately. On the actual hand, there was no damage because the opponents were in the wrong suit; West could have bid a normal 3D and made five rather than going down three in 2S. -- 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 May 22 05:44:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 05:44:51 +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 FAA12321 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 05:44:44 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027940; 21 May 98 19:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:00:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final In-Reply-To: <3563F539.8EACFF23@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Let's just say that if the Chairman had reconsulted, they would have >agreed. >Besides, this being the Open Pairs final, the Chairman of the AC was the >'chairman of the L&E'. Are you trying to tell me that he would be above disciplinary action? -- 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 May 22 05:49:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 05:49:21 +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 FAA12355 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 05:49:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2027941; 21 May 98 19:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:03:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >David Martin wrote: > >> > ####### No. In EBUland, the unalerted meaning of 1NT=2H is a drop >> > dead sign off. What you may be thinking of is the auction 1NT=2C >> > where , perversely, no alert is required if 2C is *not* Stayman *and* >> > is natural and forcing. ######## >Is the rationale for this that the "expected meaning" (i.e., Stayman) is >forcing and you have to alert non-conventional bids if they are "forcing >or non-forcing in a way the opponents may not expect" (or whatever the >exact words of the Orange Book are)? Correct. > I would have thought it was more >sensible to interpret this as meaning "... may not expect, given a >failure to alert". Now you have a circular argument. If you are defining when to alert a natural call as whether it is forcing or not if unalerted, then you are saying that if it does not need an alert then it does not need an alert. True, but unhelpful. >By the way, I was told recently that (in EBUland again) there is NO >unalertable meaning for a 2C opening bid. Can any expert on EBU alerting >regulations confirm this? Not true. > And if so, why is an old-fashioned natural >and forcing 2C opening alertable? It isn't. -- 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 May 22 08:43:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:43:34 +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 IAA12821 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:43:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018726; 21 May 98 22:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:11:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <01BD849F.A719E300@har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >I think one version of Culbertson used strong threes that were even >stronger than strong twos, but I would not expect to find this in an ACBL >99'er game. Most new players have read the gospel according to Silverman or >Grant or even Hardy...or their teachers have. There was no indication that >the pair involved were recently converted party bridge players from the era >of the Bennett case. If they play what most new players have in the U.S, in >the past quarter century, this meaning would be highly confusing to them >and most unlikely to have been adopted. As for EBU, perhaps one of our many >erudite men-of-the-lime can elucidate. Is 1N/2M really game invitational >and non-alertable? Is this considered standard Acol? No, none of these. The 2H as a game try was a NAmerican suggestion, and is nothing to do with us! -- 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 May 22 08:45:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:45:04 +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 IAA12838 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:44:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018729; 21 May 98 22:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:22:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Is this conventional ? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Michaels wrote: >It is fairly common among a range of US players, to regularly open 1H/S on >5-6 hands with a 6 card minor. >Does this make the 1H/S opener alertable ? >More importantly, would it be conventional ? >After all, if I regularly open 4-5 hands 1H/S as opposed to 1C/D, that >would be alertable. > >I do not seek to clarify the ACBL/EBU/etc positions on this, but rather >what the attitude should be. > >It seems silly to make it conventional/alertable just because some minute >fraction of the time it will not be quite standard. But I could be wrong. Whatever the correct answers to your questions are I believe you have made the issue *much* more complex by treating alertable and conventional together. Both the EBU and ACBL decisions as to whether the quoted arrangement is alertable have nothing to do with whether they are conventional per 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 Fri May 22 08:52:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:52:26 +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 IAA12871 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 08:52:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018728; 21 May 98 22:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:27:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don Kersey wrote: >I have recently been asked the same question by a number of people, who >have apparently been given different answers by tournament directors in >ACBL land. In turning the card played to the just-completed trick, declarer >points it in the wrong direction, towards the side that lost the trick. Is >dummy allowed to tell declarer that the card is pointed the wrong way? >People have been given three different answers: > >1. Dummy must never do this. >2. Dummy may do this, but only immediately. >3. Dummy may do this later, so long as it is not at a critical juncture of >the play (ie, so long as dummy is not directly suggesting a line of play to >declarer). > >Those in favour of 2 (or the rather impractical 3) argue that Law 42B >allows dummy to keep count of tricks won and lost and Law 43B allows dummy >to try to prevent declarer's irregularity (turning the card the wrong way >violates both Law 65B and Law 65C). Note the word prevent. Dummy may warn declarer he is putting it down the wrong way, but once it is down dummy is too late to prevent an irregularity and should keep quiet. >Those in favour of 1 argue that Law 43A prevents dummy calling attention to >an irregularity during play, and Law 43B prevents dummy from communicating >anything about the play to declarer. Also, and most significantly, Law 74C3 >says that calling attention to the number of tricks needed to fulfill the >contract violates correct procedure (although if declarer wins a trick >without realising it, sooner or later someone will have to say "It's your >lead"). > >Is there an official ACBL position on this? How do other NCBO's handle it? >Is it any different for defenders? This is a matter of Law, so it should not be an official ACBL position: you are not permitted to tell declarer he has a trick the wrong way once it is quitted, but you may warn him as he is putting it down. Defenders do not have any rights to warn each other, which would be illegal communication, so defenders should never mention a card the wrong 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 May 22 09:32:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 09:32:57 +1000 Received: from krypton.tip.nl (krypton.tip.nl [195.18.64.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12984 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 09:32:46 +1000 Received: from marian by krypton.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0ycet1-0014S6C; Fri, 22 May 1998 01:36:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980522013047.008a3d50@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t701321@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:30:47 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final In-Reply-To: References: <199805202310.TAA28076@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:11 PM 21-05-98 +0100, you wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> It is clear that TDs should not send a matter to appeal when the >>> players were unable to do so because [a] it is against the general >>> principles accepted and [b] because it is totally biased and unfair >>> unless they send every ruling in the whole tournament to appeal. >> >>Oh, come! Most of David's message makes good sense, but [b] does not. >>In fact, from the rest of his post, I think David meant something >>slightly different. >> >>For most rulings, TD's should do the best they can and be satisfied >>with the results. The players can decide whether to appeal or not. >>The approach should not change for a particular ruling just because it >>might affect the outcome of the event. We agree so far. >> >>However... it is perfectly reasonable for a TD to decide that a >>specific ruling depends on a subtle matter of bridge judgment that >>would be better decided by an AC. (This may be more popular in North >>America than elsewhere.) If so, the normal procedure should be for the >>TD to send this ruling to appeal. This is in no way biased or unfair; >>it is simply the TD doing his best in each case. >> >>Now the question arises, if the TD wishes to send a ruling to an AC for >>the reason above, and the players show no interest, should the TD >>persist, or should he drop the appeal? The latter clearly makes >>practical sense, and I suspect most of us would agree with it, but >>_this_ is what introduces bias and may be unfair. Still, this bias and >>unfairness may be tolerable in the practical interest of finishing the >>competition. It is less tolerable if it may affect the top finishers. > > Do you think that if there was such a case in the first session >between two bottom finishers that it should now be sent to appeal even >if out of time? > >>Bottom line: each SO (or chief TD, if the SO doesn't) should establish >>a policy on when rulings should be referred to an AC. If David wishes >>to adopt "never" (and his SO agrees), that's fine. If others want to >>adopt a different policy, that's fine too. Bias comes in when you >>depart from the adopted policy, whatever it is. > > Anyway, I don't think this is what was meant by Herman's post. If it >is, well, I did not answer it correctly. I think that in Herman's case >they had what they considered an arguable decision, and sent it to >appeal ***because*** it could affect the final result: I say that *must* >never happen. You are talking of cases where the TDs send it to appeal >***because*** that was part of their decision. That is acceptable, but >Herman discovered the final score and *then* decided to send it to >appeal. > > In other words, I agree with what you say but do not think it relevant >to this thread. >__________ sorry, i dont understand what you really mean. I think the laws are very clear; the TD (chief) has the right to appeal whatever his reasons are. No SO can stop him i think. In the second place, i think this rule was installed because there have been lots of occasions where non-opffenders didnt appeal, (their ranking wouldnt be inproved, money problems and AC problems) not for ethical reasons. The fact that the new laws give the TD the power to appeal if others wont, are fully to the descretion of the TD and no one else i think. He doent have to clarify his reasons to the AC, he just appeals. I hope this point of view will be universal regards, anton witzen \______ >-- >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 ~ > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 10:32:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 10:32:30 +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 KAA13112 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 10:32:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026493; 22 May 98 0:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:46:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980522013047.008a3d50@pop1.tip.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >sorry, i dont understand what you really mean. >I think the laws are very clear; the TD (chief) has the right to appeal >whatever his reasons are. No SO can stop him i think. >In the second place, i think this rule was installed because there have >been lots of occasions where non-opffenders didnt appeal, (their ranking >wouldnt be inproved, money problems and AC problems) not for ethical >reasons. The fact that the new laws give the TD the power to appeal if >others wont, are fully to the descretion of the TD and no one else i think. >He doent have to clarify his reasons to the AC, he just appeals. >I hope this point of view will be universal The danger with this approach is that it will be inconsistent. While I agree we do not want the SO to completely take the power away from the TD in charge, it is not unreasonable to provide guidelines, and not unreasonable to discuss such guidelines here. You have said that the reason for this rule is where players could not be bothered to appeal. Fine, but unless you are going to make sure that every ruling is appealed, then you are going to have to have some basis for doing so, and I think that taking a ruling to appeal because it occurs to the TD that it may affect the result of the event is not a good enough reason: every ruling given may do so. As for what I said, let me explain it in a different way: 1 If the TD decides that a particular ruling is one that ought to be appealed, then he might consider taking it to appeal. 2 If the TD decides that a particular ruling affects who wins that is not a sufficient reason to take it to appeal. 3 If the TD decides that a particular ruling affects who wins, but they were not at the table and it is not the type of ruling the TD would normally take to appeal, then a TD should not take it to 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 Fri May 22 15:05:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:05:48 +1000 Received: from mtigwc05.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA24828 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:05:41 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.69.2.210]) by mtigwc05.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA17473 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 05:05:59 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Recorder Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:01:06 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd853e$a09f4160$d202450c@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 -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, May 21, 1998 9:19 AM Subject: Recorder David Stevenson wrote: > A suggestion has been made to institute a National Recorder for the >Welsh Bridge Union. Any information about the advantages and methods of >the recorder system would be appreciated. There are several advantages and disadvantages to having a National Recorder. With permission, I will list both with the advantages first. Advantages: Central office for information on all conduct matters Improved communication between local authorities Potential communication to bridge playing public Disadvantages: Increased reliance on abilities of one person Increased scope for abuse of individual rights Increased costs Discussion: My concern over an National Recorder is the need to pick the right person. In ACBL we have had experience with excellent and less-than-excellent national recorders. I must point out that every person appointed as ACBL Recorder was an excellent person at the time they were appointed. However, there is an old saying: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This was proven true even within the limited experience here in ACBL. Good people making choices and then, over time, having their judgment influenced negatively. The potential gains are so obvious there is no need to expound on them. The potential for abuse is less obvious, and people may sometimes overlook this aspect in their optimism. I suggest that the solution to the question lies in the way the office is created. Duties have to be spelled out, and the recorder must be given authority and the means to carry out those duties. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the office must be made accountable and certain limits placed on those powers. I suggest the Recorder must be formally approved by the governing body, and for a limited term. He should be required to file written reports with either the President or a three-person committee chosen by the President, none of whom may hold any other bridge office during their tenure. Also, none of these people should be eligible to be Recorder for at least one year following their service in this office. The purpose of this is to establish ACCOUNTABILITY. If there is nothing else that comes out of this thread, let it be that the office be created in such a way that a mediocre person cannot do great damage. A great person will always find a way to go a great job. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 17:26:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 17:26:27 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 RAA29322 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 17:26:20 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA07095 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:26:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805220726.AAA07095@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:24:50 -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 Craig Senior wrote; > I think one version of Culbertson used strong threes that were even > stronger than strong twos, but I would not expect to find this in an ACBL > 99'er game. No, no, not Culbertson. Strong threes were part of the Official System, compiled by a group of experts who wanted to challenge Culbertson's near-monopoly of contract bridge bidding methods at the time (1931). In that system, a two-level opening was strong but not forcing, while a three-level opening was forcing to game. A game-forcing artificial 2C opening was a system option, however. Some of the famous names sponsoring the Official System were Sydney Lenz, Cdr Winfield Liggett, Shepard Barclay, F. Dudley Courtenay, Capt Fred French (no relation), George Reith, Wilbur Whitehead, Milton C. Work (originator of 4-3-2-1 count, used by this system), Madelaine Kerwin, and E. V. Shepard. Culbertson challenged the Official System group to a match of 150 rubbers, well-documented in the ACBL's *The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*. Culbertson played with his wife Josephine for 88 rubbers, and 62 rubbers with other partners: Gottlieb, Lightner, Von Zedtwitz, and Schencken. The Official System was represented by Sydney Lenz, partnered by Oswald Jacoby for 103 rubbers, and Winfield Liggett for the rest. The 8,980 point margin of victory was a triumph for the Culbertson System, and the Official System faded away after that. P. Hal Sims was another rival of Culbertson's, also trounced in a match. Sims played forcing two bids, but his three bids were solid eleven-trick hands, asking for aces. This is probably the system that Craig is referring to. Sims' wife Dorothy Rice Sims invented the psychic bid, and coined that term, which players later shortened to "psych." (Foreigners, evidently confusing this with the two-syllable word "psyche," made a one-syllable "psyche" out of it.) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 18:55:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 18:55:44 +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 SAA29509 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 18:55:38 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-80.uunet.be [194.7.9.80]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA05852 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 10:56:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356457D6.504AC8E6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:35:34 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final 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: > > > Do you think that if there was such a case in the first session > between two bottom finishers that it should now be sent to appeal even > if out of time? > If this happens near the start of the tournament then the pair feeling damaged would probably appeal. Only in the last round can you have a pair seemingly badly done by, and not appealing anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 19:22:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:22:44 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29629 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:22:40 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p44-m1-wg1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.107.236]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA14882 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:22:54 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <35651E2E.60C2CEAB@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:41:50 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Careless or irrational References: <199805210335.NAA03846@pegasus.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Penny & Jane Stapleton wrote: > "Bridge psychology", in my view, applies to cases where declarer makes the > same sort of claim, holding S.AQJ9, and a defender tries to claim one trick > because he holds S.10 (the one outstanding spade) and argues that: "If he > thought all his trumps were high he could have - carelessly - led S9 first > ....". "Bridge psychology" in this case says that declarer will lead the > outstanding spades, starting with SA, not S9. > I don't agree with this logic. *If* it is irrational to lead the S9 because it is lower ranking than the SA etc then surely it is irrational to lead an side suit before leading a trump. This is because the only reason to lead the SA before the S9 when holding S AQJ9 is that someone just might hold the SK or ST (that you have missed). The same argument applies to leading any (high) trump before a side suit - someone just might hold a trump that you have in error not accounted for. Trumps are really just a different form of higher ranking card - S2 (trump) beats HA in just the same way that SK beats S9 - it is higher ranking. The corollary to this is that the claimer should always take the care to state that high cards are played before low cards and that trumps are played before non-trumps. Unless of course you can take from the statement "My hand is high" that the claimer will play higher ranking cards before lower ranking cards and trumps before non-trumps. To my mind the unqualified statement "My hand is high" allows for the careless play of a lower ranking card or a non-trump before a trump. -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 19:28:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:28:57 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29653 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:28:41 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 May 1998 10:29:20 +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 KAA06069 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 10:25:14 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:23:17 +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: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > >David Martin wrote: > > > >> > ####### No. In EBUland, the unalerted meaning of 1NT=2H is a drop > >> > dead sign off. What you may be thinking of is the auction 1NT=2C > >> > where , perversely, no alert is required if 2C is *not* Stayman *and* > >> > is natural and forcing. ######## > > >Is the rationale for this that the "expected meaning" (i.e., Stayman) is > >forcing and you have to alert non-conventional bids if they are "forcing > >or non-forcing in a way the opponents may not expect" (or whatever the > >exact words of the Orange Book are)? > > Correct. > > > I would have thought it was more > >sensible to interpret this as meaning "... may not expect, given a > >failure to alert". > > Now you have a circular argument. If you are defining when to alert a > natural call as whether it is forcing or not if unalerted, then you are > saying that if it does not need an alert then it does not need an alert. > True, but unhelpful. I expressed myself badly. I should have said "... given that it is not alertable for any other reason" or, as Robin suggested, "... given that it is natural". Anyway, alerting a non-forcing bid so that your opponents don't confuse it with a forcing artificial bid (which you would also alert) seems bloody daft to me. I can't remember the last time I played against anybody who played a 2C response to 1NT as natural and non-forcing, so this is all rather academic. A more practical example is a 2C opening bid, where it would clearly be in the opponents' interest if a natural non-forcing Precision 2C and an artificial forcing 2C were distinguished by only one of them being alertable. > >By the way, I was told recently that (in EBUland again) there is NO > >unalertable meaning for a 2C opening bid. Can any expert on EBU alerting > >regulations confirm this? > > Not true. > > > And if so, why is an old-fashioned natural > >and forcing 2C opening alertable? > > It isn't. Good. I thought I understood the EBU alerting regulations fairly well, but this had shaken my self-confidence. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 19:37:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:37:38 +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 TAA29682 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:37:28 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-7.uunet.be [194.7.13.7]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA07199 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:38:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3565447A.667B9A8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:25:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final 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: > > >He doent have to clarify his reasons to the AC, he just appeals. > >I hope this point of view will be universal > > The danger with this approach is that it will be inconsistent. While > I agree we do not want the SO to completely take the power away from the > TD in charge, it is not unreasonable to provide guidelines, and not > unreasonable to discuss such guidelines here. > It is reasonable to provide guidelines. However, I agree with other posters that it is not up to AC or SO to provide these guidelines. It is up to the TD. So a forum of directors should provide the basis which will let the TD decide whether or not to appeal. Best forum I can think of : blml. > You have said that the reason for this rule is where players could not > be bothered to appeal. Fine, but unless you are going to make sure that > every ruling is appealed, then you are going to have to have some basis > for doing so, and I think that taking a ruling to appeal because it > occurs to the TD that it may affect the result of the event is not a > good enough reason: every ruling given may do so. > True indeed. > As for what I said, let me explain it in a different way: > > 1 If the TD decides that a particular ruling is one that ought to be > appealed, then he might consider taking it to appeal. > Of course. > 2 If the TD decides that a particular ruling affects who wins that is > not a sufficient reason to take it to appeal. > Agreed. But if they are at the table, they will undoubtedly appeal themselves. > 3 If the TD decides that a particular ruling affects who wins, but > they were not at the table and it is not the type of ruling the TD would > normally take to appeal, then a TD should not take it to appeal. > Agreed. But 4 if the TD decides that a particular ruling is one that ought to be appealed, but he finds out that it will not affect any of the important places, then he should not consider taking it to appeal. So although affecting the final standings should not be enough for taking it into appeal himself, he should still look to it. Mind you, someone criticised me for looking at the result before deciding. I did not, I only asked about the difference between one and two, without knowing who was in first or second (I did know which two pairs it were, not who had won) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 21:03:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:03:38 +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 VAA29835 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:03:23 +1000 Received: from mercury by hermes.dur.ac.uk id (8.8.8/ for dur.ac.uk) with SMTP; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:48:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from deneb by mercury id ; Fri, 22 May 1998 11:48:18 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:48:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: mlfrench@writeme.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this conventional ? In-Reply-To: <199805211720.KAA04679@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 21 May 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > Robin Michaels wrote: > > > > It is fairly common among a range of US players, to regularly open > 1H/S on > > 5-6 hands with a 6 card minor. > > Does this make the 1H/S opener alertable ? > > More importantly, would it be conventional ? > > After all, if I regularly open 4-5 hands 1H/S as opposed to 1C/D, > that > > would be alertable. [snip]> > > My impression of general U. S. practice is to open 5=6 hands > major=minor (or major=major) with the higher-ranking suit only when > the two suits are touching and opener does not consider the hand > strong enough to reverse. Even then, the five-card suit should not be > very weak compared to the lower suit (e.g., 1D gets the vote with S-x > H-J9xxx D-AQJxxx C-A). Since partners will assume that the higher > suit is as long or longer than the lower when it is bid first, there > is no reason to Alert. WRONG If you have an agreement that you may open 1H or _certain_ 6-5 hands, _even_ if you don't make use of it, then it is alertable, or at least disclosable to oppo. Consider the analogy that I tend to open 1S on hands like Jxxx Qxx Kxx xxx or Kxxx x Axxxxx xx in 3rd seat. EVEN if my partner always bids as if I have a standard 1S opening, there is an 'implicit' agreement that oppo have a right to know about. The case of the 10 or 9 hcp balanced hand opening a mini-NT is a contentious area for discussion of this approach in ACBLand, but it is clear that it is _what_you_do_ rather than what partner is going to play you for, that what makes an agreement. I'm not sure I agree with this, but this is certainly the way things are. Now can we have an arguement about whether opening 1N with a singleton on hands like AQxx AQxx Qxxx K is an agreement, implicit, explicit, conventional, or whatever, please ? :-)))) > However, if the partnership agreement is to open 5=6 hands routinely > by bidding the higher suit, then that would call for an Alert. The Whether it is _all_ or just some 5-6 hands, oppo have a right to know that it is a possibility, do they not ? > ACBL Alert Procedure says to Alert "bids that, by agreement, convey > meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning > ascribed to them." I don't think U. S. players would in general > expect this treatment, so it should be Alerted. The explanation of > the Alert would be, "Could have a longer minor." Bit if you have an agreement that hands like KQxxx x AKxxxx x open 1S then you still have to alter and say 'longer minor possible', don't you ? Or is it just easier to keep quiet about the possibility to keep the game going smoothly, and not bother to infrom oppo ? > The same principle applies to 4=5 hands. I open 1H with S-x H-AKJx > D-Q10xxx C-Qxx, but my partner will expect my hearts to be as long or > longer than diamonds when I rebid 2D, so no Alert. If I always opened > 1H with 4=5 hearts=diamonds, that would be Alertable. > > As to the 5=6 hands, it could be argued that an Alert should not be > necessary until the second suit has been bid, or until the auction is > over (for declarer). Why waste a lot of time Alerting 1H/1S openings > when opener would seldom have a longer minor? However, defenders Because the Laws say that you have to ? > cannot explain their auction until play is over (unless asked), and > declarer might be very interested to know that an opponent who opened > 1H or 1S could have an unbid six-card minor. Therefore, I believe > that the Alert should come with the opening bid. Good. > If there were a policy, which I would favor, of allowing a defender > to say to declarer before the opening lead, "You might want to ask > about our auction," then the early Alert could probably be omitted. I > think this is legal now per Laws and regs, but I'm not sure. You hold a nice H one suiter, and the auction goes: (1H)-P-(1S) ? Don't you want to know if the 1H bid might only hold 4H and a longer minor? You have a right to know that, surely ? Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 21:07:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:07:28 +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 VAA29855 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:07:22 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h14.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id PAA02492; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:08:07 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3565F723.3316@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:07:31 -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: Non-Conventional Insufficiency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Chyah was right when wrote that we have to try to remember how we had bid while had been novice. And we should remember that TD should rule - not teach:) One more example - a novice-player opened out-of-turn 1 Club (Precision). I (as TD) was summoned and ruled: pd (opener) should pass, then the player would bid whatever he would want. After Dclr and RHO passed (I was still at the table) I repeated the rulling and explain to the player once more that his pd would pass in any case. The player said he understood the problem. Then he thought - and opend 1 Club (Precision)... The novice's logics is unpredicted. That's why I think that David's (and other disputants') argument (3 Hearts bid was right - and only then the OS might legally bid 4 Hearts) is wrong: novice might see no difference between 3 Hearts and 4 Hearts. And we (as TD) should not teach him an invitation principle. TD should make it clear (for himself) why the player made that bid - and the novice would sincere answer (I am sure in his sincerety) - that he wanted to bid and win the game with 5 card in Heart at pd's hand:)) So - no damage, no adjusting, just some additional explanation about bridge ethics. For future purposes only:) There were posts about conventions and I'd like to say several words too. Steve wrote that player (with two 4-card suits) make his choice to open under the agreement, not the logics. Cause m-r Craig have already reminded Culbertson - I'll dare to use ideas of Ely the Great too. With two 4-card suits (and not too strong hand: 12-15 HP in modern evaluation) Ely adviced to bid first the suit, below dubleton - according with Princple of Preparation. Yeah, modern mathemathicians named it at their topic: the tail wags the dog:) Great Ely created 5 main (more exactly - 4 main, cause fifth was created later) and 3 additional Princples of Natural Bidding. At that time these princples might be estimated as Conventions (in modern sense) - but now we call them "common bridge logics". It seems to me that Steve is ready rename that Principles again as Conventions:) Then Steve also should name new-suit-forcing (created by Lightner and adopted by Ely to his system) as conventional bid, etc. Long way to establish origin clear-cut natural bid:) Guess it may provide us to Vint (russian origin of Bridge). I guess that our bridge heritage such as "common bridge sense" should be extracted from attempts to estimate them as conventions. Maybe one will re-publish it for nowadays bridge-player?:) Thank you for reading and sorry for for too long post. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 22:05:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:05:27 +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 WAA29980 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:05:21 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA09049 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 12:05:56 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980522080752.0068c8a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:07:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table In-Reply-To: <199805180557.WAA05832@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:55 PM 5/17/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >"TWO IDENTICAL COPIES: Each player is required to have a Convention >Card legibly filled out and on the table throughout the session. Both >cards of a partnership must be identical. > >"COMPLETE CARD: If a director determines that neither player has a >substantially completed card, the partnership may only play the >conventions listed on the *ACBL Limted Conventions* chart and may >only play standard carding. This restriction may be lifted by the >director at the beginning of the next round once two completed cards >have been approved by the director. Beginning with the second round >after being notified about inadequately filled-out cards, the >director will impose penalties. If only one substantially completed >card Convention Card is produced by a partnership, the director may >give warnings or penalties at his/her discretion." How odd. The rules say you must have two (identical) CCs, but then go on to say that the director should treat you as in compliance if you have one. Is it any wonder that players don't take this rule seriously? 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 May 22 22:20:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:20:01 +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 WAA00156 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:19:55 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ycqoX-0001n6-00; Fri, 22 May 1998 13:20:45 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 22 May 1998 13:20:15 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Two CCs on the Table Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:20:12 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ####### I had not realised that this was the point being made when I replied to this thread. I believe that the EBU has honouary positions, eg Vice-Presidents, and that these individuals are accorded certain privileges and are not expected to pay subs but then I would argue that they owe nothing in that case. ######## > In England, you never advertised for years that once you acquired > the > rank of life master you would no longer have to pay dues. The ACBL > did. > Marv became a life master. He does not have to pay dues. He chooses > not to > pay service fees...but they are not for membership but for services he > does > not require. He does pay for the services he uses: i.e. entry fees. > > > > > ######### In England, if you don't pay you are not allowed to > play. > > Simple really! ########## > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 22 22:32:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:32:33 +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 WAA00198 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:32:28 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA09475 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 12:33:03 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980522083459.006e8670@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:34:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <35602363.DD9167A7@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:02 PM 5/18/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Let's first deal with type 4) answers. When presented with an opponent >who does not give just one answer, what do you do ? >You press for one answer, and if he does not comply, you call the TD, >who shall ask for 1 answer. What an insult! I have already said that I don't know the answer, and now the opponents and the TD are insisting that I must. I would be sorely tempted to take out a coin, announce "heads, I'm right; tails, partner's right", and flip. Does anyone seriously think that my opponents would be better served if I did this as a pure thought experiment without letting them know I was doing 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 Fri May 22 22:38:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:38:08 +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 WAA00214 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:38:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023226; 22 May 98 12:31 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:26:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >Anyway, alerting a non-forcing bid so that your opponents don't confuse >it with a forcing artificial bid (which you would also alert) seems >bloody daft to me. When we consider English alerting rules, there are two things that *everyone* is agreed on: [A] The rules should be simpler. [B] There should be more rules. The English alerting rules are designed with simplicity in mind, and whenever anyone proposes a special exception [as you do here] it makes those rules more complicated. -- 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 May 22 22:58:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:58:43 +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 WAA00236 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:58:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023227; 22 May 98 12:31 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:21:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final In-Reply-To: <356457D6.504AC8E6@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> Do you think that if there was such a case in the first session >> between two bottom finishers that it should now be sent to appeal even >> if out of time? >> > >If this happens near the start of the tournament then the pair feeling >damaged would probably appeal. >Only in the last round can you have a pair seemingly badly done by, and >not appealing anyway. Many of my judgement decisions do not get appealed at any stage of a tournament. Anyway, it only takes one non-appeal to unbalance the approach. -- 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 May 22 22:59:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:59:44 +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 WAA00250 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:59:38 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA09967 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 13:00:14 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980522090210.006e626c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:02:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) In-Reply-To: <199805190604.XAA03290@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:01 PM 5/18/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >This 4S was set one trick. The TD allowed the 4S bid, and E-W >appealed, reasonably thinking they could make 4H (which they could >not, even double dummy, according to the casebook panel). OK, the NOs weren't damaged, so there can be no score adjustment. Easy ruling. >Anyway, after discussion the AC agreed with the TD that 4S should >stand. The difference between this and Case #1 is that South's slow >pass gives no indication as to what he was thinking about, , whereas >in Case #1 South was obviously in doubt about doubling. Also, passing >4H would not be logical for North (as opposed to passing a double of >4H, which would be logical even if not the best call). Given the above, why did the AC even bother thinking about this? 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 May 23 00:24:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 00:24:03 +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 AAA02780 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 00:23:56 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:24:25 +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 PAA11905 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:24:07 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:22:12 +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: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > >Anyway, alerting a non-forcing bid so that your opponents don't confuse > >it with a forcing artificial bid (which you would also alert) seems > >bloody daft to me. > > When we consider English alerting rules, there are two things that > *everyone* is agreed on: > > [A] The rules should be simpler. > [B] There should be more rules. > > The English alerting rules are designed with simplicity in mind, and > whenever anyone proposes a special exception [as you do here] it makes > those rules more complicated. I am totally in favour of simplicity, even at the expense of the occasional absurdity. I wasn't proposing a special exception. In fact, I don't think I was proposing anything ... I was just mocking the daftness of this particular example. If I were to make a proposal, it would be that the general rule about unexpectedly forcing/non-forcing bids be changed to something like "You must alert a natural call if it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to anticipate given the information that it is natural." Although this seems more complicated than the existing rule, I would claim that it isn't really, since the existing rule (as written in the Orange Book) is ambiguous, with what I have written being the sensible interpretation and the EBU's actual rule being the Alice Through the Looking Glass interpretation: Alice: Why did you alert 2C? Humpty Dumpty: So that you'd know it wasn't forcing. Alice: Why would I think it was forcing? Humpty Dumpty: You might think we play Stayman. Alice: But wouldn't you have alerted 2C in that case? Humpty Dumpty: Of course, because it would have been conventional. Alice: So if you hadn't alerted, why would I think you play Stayman? Humpty Dumpty: Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but I've got to *alert* you to the fact that we don't. Alice: What if you don't alert? Humpty Dumpty: Then it is forcing. Alice: How do I know that? Humpty Dumpty: Because you might assume it's Stayman, which is forcing. Alice: But if it were Stayman, you'd have alerted. Humpty Dumpty: Yes, you're being very slow, I have to alert Stayman because it's conventional. Alice: But what does the alert *mean*? Humpty Dumpty: When *I* alert, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less. Aside from the question of simplicity, you do agree it's bloody daft, don't you? ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 00:33:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 00:33:55 +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 AAA02819 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 00:29:13 +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 PAA10322 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:29:20 +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 PAA01123 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:29:19 +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 PAA23817 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:29:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 22 May 98 15:29:17 BST Message-Id: <2755.9805221429@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >He doent have to clarify his reasons to the AC, he just appeals. > > >I hope this point of view will be universal > > > > The danger with this approach is that it will be inconsistent. While > > I agree we do not want the SO to completely take the power away from the > > TD in charge, it is not unreasonable to provide guidelines, and not > > unreasonable to discuss such guidelines here. > > > > It is reasonable to provide guidelines. > > However, I agree with other posters that it is not up to AC or SO to > provide these guidelines. It is up to the TD. So a forum of directors > should provide the basis which will let the TD decide whether or not to > appeal. > I expect that for the TD to appeal he will need the approval of the TDiC: partly because I would discuss such a step with TDiC, and accept his recommendation, if I wanted to continue in the SO's employment; and because, at a practical, level the TDiC will be organising the AC. Furthermore, I expect the SO will develop criteria for TDs to appeal based on case history, where TDs did/did not appeal and SO (e.g. EBU L&E) disagreed. I also expect that where a TD does appeal, the AC will comment on the appropriateness of the TD's grounds for deciding to appeal. Robin I will foll Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 00:56:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 00:56:55 +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 AAA02886 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 00:56:48 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA01199 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 May 1998 15:57:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 May 98 15:56 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Careless or irrational To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980521112527.006cb768@ozemail.com.au> > Someone gave me this simple situation. West is declarer in spades, and > holds S AQJ9 D 109. The diamonds are winners. North is on lead, and > dithering. West says "It doesn't matter what you lead, the rest are > mine" > making no claim about drawing trumps. North has the one outstanding > trump > (the S6), and can ruff a diamond lead from West. Is North enitled to his > trump trick? It seems likely that West has forgotten about the > outstanding > trump. > > I have always adopted the policy in thse situations that, if West > believes > all his remaining cards are equals, he may carelessly cash his side suit > winners first and lose a trick to the outstanding trump. If his diamonds > were the AK, I would so rule. Do you agree so far, or am I being unduly > rigid? > > However, even though the D10 and D9 are winners, it seems to go against > bridge psychology to expect West, even carelessly, to cash his small > winners before cashing his high cards. I would probably rule in this > situation that to play on diamonds first would be irrational. Opinions > please. > > Reg Busch. > No playing diamonds first is not irrational, if that is the crux of your decision. Personally I didn't get past L70C2. While I could be convinced that West was "probably unaware of trump" I am much more likely to believe that West knows about it and its location (ie also knows that North can't give South a ruff) and has made a slightly careless claim, obviously the play to this point and standard of player would influence my judgement. On reflection it probably *would* be irrational for a novice to play on diamonds since they are much more likely to worry about miscounting trumps. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 02:30:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:30:26 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 CAA03244 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:30:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA07318 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 09:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805221630.JAA07318@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:28:37 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:01 PM 5/18/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: > > >This 4S was set one trick. The TD allowed the 4S bid, and E-W > >appealed, reasonably thinking they could make 4H (which they could > >not, even double dummy, according to the casebook panel). > > OK, the NOs weren't damaged, so there can be no score adjustment. Easy > ruling. > > >Anyway, after discussion the AC agreed with the TD that 4S should > >stand. The difference between this and Case #1 is that South's slow > >pass gives no indication as to what he was thinking about, , whereas > >in Case #1 South was obviously in doubt about doubling. Also, passing > >4H would not be logical for North (as opposed to passing a double of > >4H, which would be logical even if not the best call). > > Given the above, why did the AC even bother thinking about this? > I don't think they thought for a very long time, and believe that most of any discussion concerned whether the AC should keep the $50 E-W deposit. If there was a screener, and I presume there was, s/he should have tried to stop the appeal at that point. That's what screeners are for. May s/he did try, I dunno. I would be in favor of having a screener's input become part of the AC process, *after* the AC has decided on the case. What input? Whether or not the screener gave an opinion to the appellant as to the reasonableness of the appeal. This could help an AC decision in regard to keeping deposits. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 02:33:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:33:05 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03287 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:32:58 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-52-151.s151.tnt1.brd.erols.com [207.172.52.151]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA15355 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 12:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805221633.MAA15355@smtp1.erols.com> Reply-To: From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: A hesitation situation Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:33:10 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980521031203.007a44e0@magi.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 David Kent > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 3:12 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: A hesitation situation > > > Hello panel, > > You hold: > > S - KTxx > H - AKxx > D - 9xx > C - xx > > Pard RHO You LHO > ---------------------------- > P P > 1C 1H x P > 1S P ? > > Over your negative double, partner hesitated for about 20 seconds before > bidding 1S. My teammate thought that 1NT with this hand should not be > allowed. My contention was that 1NT should show 4S plus about 8-10 HCP, > and as such was the proper bid. He did not think much of my decision (but > did not appeal the director's ruling that the result should stand - i.e. > 1NT making) but did send an email to Gary Blais at the ACBL. He was told > that based on the information given that the result should be > changed to 2S > -1. [snip] > ...and as such, a negative double follwed by 1NT over opener's 1S bid > should show 8-10 with good stuff in H, plus 4S. Exactly so. The difference between a direct 1N and a negative double followed by 1N should be a four card spade suit. >He agreed but > thought that > the H stuff should be more like QJxx and that such a prime hand should bid > 2 or 3S. > Partner is right, the heart stuff should be soft. Unfortunately you weren't dealt that. And while you have prime values, most of them are in the wrong suit. Since you can bid 1N to show 4 spades and values with a heart stop, if you raise spades directly, partner is likely to play you for little in hearts. This implies you have some help in the minors, and pard may make an aggressive game try when it is wrong. Partner has not shown extra values, and you do not know if you are scrambling for the right part score (likely) or headed toward game (less likely after partner's minimum rebid). The best call is the one that best describes your hand and passes the decision back to partner. IMO that call is 1N. Others have commented that NT may wind up being played from the wrong hand if partner can advance over 1NT. OTOH, since partner has made a minimum rebid, the likelihood of this hand heading for game is fairly small. 1NT may well be the right spot, and I can't see any auction that let's partner play it after he bids 1S :) For that matter, it is rather difficult to construct an auction that lets NT be played by partner even at the game level, particularly if cue bids by you would ask for stop, rather than show one). > Comments? > > Dave Kent > david@magi.com > Actually, there is not enough information given to comment on the ruling. We need more info on bidding style. In my partnerships, where 2S would deny heart values, it is not an LA, and 1N is the only logical call. (As an aside, I have also played that the 1S rebid after the negative double *denies* four spades, showing exactly three spades, no heart stop, minimum values, and nothing else to say. A useful treatment for hands like this, and one that *requires* a 1N call from the negative doubler at his next bid on the hand you held). I'm with the TD who let the score stand. However, I do think the hesitation provided UI, greatly increasing the likelihood that partner has only 3 spades. If I could be convinced that your bidding structure made an immediate spade raise a logical alternative, I would change my vote and go with Gary Blais. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 02:40:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:40:21 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03314 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:40:14 +1000 Received: from default (client15e2.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.226]) by sand2.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA05952; Fri, 22 May 1998 17:40:59 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:37:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd859f$eb066100$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 Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final >David Stevenson wrote: \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ > >Mind you, someone criticised me for looking at the result before >deciding. I did not, I only asked about the difference between one and >two, without knowing who was in first or second (I did know which two >pairs it were, not who had won) > ++++ [ an appeal is solely a question of bridge judgement, merit and law; its effects upon results of the competition have no place in deciding whether an appeal should go forward nor in the treatment it receives when it is heard. It horrifies me that any Director - or AC member - should seek to know anything about the results of the event before making any decision about an appeal. He/she simply should not want to know and should regret it if they happen to hear the information. Justice should not be distorted by external considerations. What is more the Director or AC member who goes out of his way to have prior knowledge of the effects of the outcome of an appeal is always open to accusations of bias and prejudice, and is diminished by the inquiry. ++ ++++ Grattan ++++ ] From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 02:40:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:40:24 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03315 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 02:40:14 +1000 Received: from default (client15e2.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.15.226]) by sand2.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA05947; Fri, 22 May 1998 17:40:56 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:41:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8587$5e7a6280$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 Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency >Fair enough, but I don't see how this applies. The convention >definition seems crystal clear to me. The problem is that the result >is so astonishing that nobody believes what the definition says. > ++++ [ I think you are going to extremes. The arrows they launch at me are usually the ones that say as a legislator I am brother- in-law to the bridge lawyer. Now I find myself defending the liberal interpretation of the law against a highly sophisticated and cultured bridge lawyer's argument. 1. The 'normal' natural opening of One of a Suit says 'I hold this suit and have values to open the bidding'. There may be expectations as to suit length by comparison with other suits held, but nothing is guaranteed and it is not a breach of any agreement if you happen to have a longer suit. There may be partnership practices but they are not absolute and the flexibility available to the opener to judge what hand he will make that opener on means that the only certain thing shown - apart from hand value - is possession of the named suit. There cannot be said to be an agreement that the bid will define anything about holdings in other suits and system allows the player judgement of what to open. I have no difficulty in asserting that such openers are not 'conventional'; and I think such bids only become conventional where it is agreed they *will* show a side holding. 2. I agree with a view that for two prime requirements of the laws (Laws 27 and 40D) it is likely to work well if the law does not rely on the definition of 'convention' but instead specifies the area applicable by a descriptive statement of characteristics. {I am quietly contemplating whether, sooner rather than later, C might promulgate such a statement in order to give the sophists a new topic. :-)) :-( } +++ Grattan++++] From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 05:16:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 05:16:50 +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 FAA03864 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 05:16:43 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1026903; 22 May 98 19:17 GMT Message-ID: <3yKmZAAbhKZ1Ewhh@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:19:07 +0100 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final In-Reply-To: <355EA702.CAE352A7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <355EA702.CAE352A7@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Penultimate Board : > >board 20 - (W/All) > >\ KJ west north east south > \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He > \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass > \ - >A3 \ T987654 >AKQ7 \ 4 >T9 \ - >954 \ AQ642 > Q2 \ > 98652 \ > AJ4 \ > J87 \ > > Labeo: Oh, well done, Herman ......... I am polarized ...........with mirth...........do think up some more funny stories like this. Mind you, no-one actually behaves like this, do they? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 06:15:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 06:15:39 +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 GAA04089 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 06:15:29 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18723 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 20:16:04 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980522161802.006980a0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:18:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Careless or irrational In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980521112527.006cb768@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 AM 5/21/98 +1000, Reg wrote: >Someone gave me this simple situation. West is declarer in spades, and >holds S AQJ9 D 109. The diamonds are winners. North is on lead, and >dithering. West says "It doesn't matter what you lead, the rest are mine" >making no claim about drawing trumps. North has the one outstanding trump >(the S6), and can ruff a diamond lead from West. Is North enitled to his >trump trick? It seems likely that West has forgotten about the outstanding >trump. North gets his trump. This seems to me to be the universal interpretation of L70C. >I have always adopted the policy in thse situations that, if West believes >all his remaining cards are equals, he may carelessly cash his side suit >winners first and lose a trick to the outstanding trump. If his diamonds >were the AK, I would so rule. Do you agree so far, or am I being unduly rigid? Correct so far. >However, even though the D10 and D9 are winners, it seems to go against >bridge psychology to expect West, even carelessly, to cash his small >winners before cashing his high cards. I would probably rule in this >situation that to play on diamonds first would be irrational. Opinions please. It shouldn't matter. The psychological point is rather subtle, and, even if correct, doesn't go to the issue of "rationality". Besides, although I don't believe it's relevant, I can't resist pointing out that, if anything, the psychology/rationality factor actually points in the opposite direction. Psychologically speaking, it shouldn't matter to us whether West is claiming with AQJ9/-/109/- or with A/-/109/-; surely we should rule the same way in either case. But consider the latter position. West has indicated in his claim that he believes that (a) there are no trump outstanding, and (b) the D109 are high. If he is wrong about (a) and plays his diamonds first, he will lose a trick. But if he is wrong about (b) and plays his SA first, he will lose two tricks. So, if anything, it would be more "rational" to play on diamonds first. Whereas if he held A/-/AK/-, it would always be right to play the SA first. 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 May 23 06:41:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 06:41:14 +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 GAA04193 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 06:41:07 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA19104 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 20:41:42 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980522164341.006d5494@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:43:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Is this conventional ? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:57 PM 5/21/98 +0100, Robin wrote: >It is fairly common among a range of US players, to regularly open 1H/S on >5-6 hands with a 6 card minor. >Does this make the 1H/S opener alertable ? >More importantly, would it be conventional ? >After all, if I regularly open 4-5 hands 1H/S as opposed to 1C/D, that >would be alertable. > >I do not seek to clarify the ACBL/EBU/etc positions on this, but rather >what the attitude should be. > >It seems silly to make it conventional/alertable just because some minute >fraction of the time it will not be quite standard. But I could be wrong. Since Robin asked for personal opinions (mine, I'm sure, has little to do with the ACBL's, or anyone else's, official position), mine is: It depends. If a player with 5-6 uses their judgment, taking into account the relative strengths of the suits, prospective rebid situations, "state of the match", etc., I don't think this meets the "convention test". If over time you develop an implicit partnership agreement that you will always open 1H on x/AKQxx/Qxxxxx/x, I would neither consider that conventional nor require an alert if I were writing the alert rules. But if you're playing Washington Standard(*), which requires that a five-card or longer major always be opened in preference to a longer minor, that would be conventional, and should require an alert. (*) From "Washington Standard", by Steve Robinson, p.82: "...opener should open one-of-a-major whenever opener holds a five-card major, even if opener has a longer minor ... opener's minor-suit opening denies an outside five-card or longer major ... open one spade with S65432/H-/D-/CAKQJ5432." 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 May 23 08:05:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:05:32 +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 IAA04408 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:05:24 +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 RAA24395 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 17:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980522180408.50f7c47a@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:04:08 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <01bd8587$5e7a6280$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:41 PM 5/22/98 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: >{I am quietly contemplating whether, sooner rather than later, >C might promulgate such a statement in order to give the >sophists a new topic. :-)) :-( } +++ Grattan++++] Who (what) is this C? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 08:47:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:47:04 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04514 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:46:54 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-175.access.net.il [192.116.204.175]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA12122; Sat, 23 May 1998 01:45:39 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35660106.C4F05279@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 01:49:42 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Careless or irrational References: <3.0.1.32.19980522161802.006980a0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi fellows I don't understand why should we find some very ...... peculiar ideas . When the declarer plays , he can play even the Club played 4 tricks ago >!?????~^&% ......brrrrrrr . , Just remember - at table the game is for players , not for very well-educated and polite TDs....... Dany Eric Landau wrote: > > At 11:25 AM 5/21/98 +1000, Reg wrote: > > >Someone gave me this simple situation. West is declarer in spades, and > >holds S AQJ9 D 109. The diamonds are winners. North is on lead, and > >dithering. West says "It doesn't matter what you lead, the rest are mine" > >making no claim about drawing trumps. North has the one outstanding trump > >(the S6), and can ruff a diamond lead from West. Is North enitled to his > >trump trick? It seems likely that West has forgotten about the outstanding > >trump. > > North gets his trump. This seems to me to be the universal interpretation > of L70C. > > >I have always adopted the policy in thse situations that, if West believes > >all his remaining cards are equals, he may carelessly cash his side suit > >winners first and lose a trick to the outstanding trump. If his diamonds > >were the AK, I would so rule. Do you agree so far, or am I being unduly > rigid? > > Correct so far. > > >However, even though the D10 and D9 are winners, it seems to go against > >bridge psychology to expect West, even carelessly, to cash his small > >winners before cashing his high cards. I would probably rule in this > >situation that to play on diamonds first would be irrational. Opinions > please. > > It shouldn't matter. The psychological point is rather subtle, and, even > if correct, doesn't go to the issue of "rationality". > > Besides, although I don't believe it's relevant, I can't resist pointing > out that, if anything, the psychology/rationality factor actually points in > the opposite direction. Psychologically speaking, it shouldn't matter to > us whether West is claiming with AQJ9/-/109/- or with A/-/109/-; surely we > should rule the same way in either case. But consider the latter position. > > West has indicated in his claim that he believes that (a) there are no > trump outstanding, and (b) the D109 are high. If he is wrong about (a) and > plays his diamonds first, he will lose a trick. But if he is wrong about > (b) and plays his SA first, he will lose two tricks. So, if anything, it > would be more "rational" to play on diamonds first. Whereas if he held > A/-/AK/-, it would always be right to play the SA first. > > 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 May 23 09:21:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 09:21:24 +1000 Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA04583 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 09:21:16 +1000 Received: from ts50-04.ott.istar.ca (default) [198.53.4.115] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 0yd1Al-0007ly-00; Fri, 22 May 1998 19:24:24 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980522192022.007b05f0@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 19:20:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: Re: A hesitation situation In-Reply-To: <35631319.C1C@lightspeed.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19980521031203.007a44e0@magi.com> <35630E95.687D@lightspeed.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:30 20-05-98 -0700, John R. Mayne wrote: >David Kent wrote: > > > > > Hello panel, > > > > You hold: > > > > S - KTxx > > H - AKxx > > D - 9xx > > C - xx > > > > Pard RHO You LHO > > ---------------------------- > > P P > > 1C 1H x P > > 1S P ? > > > > Over your negative double, partner hesitated for about 20 seconds >before > > bidding 1S. My teammate thought that 1NT with this hand should not be > > allowed. Perhaps I unintentionally misrepresented the situation somewhat here. I was sitting in the same seat as the 1NT bidder, but (obviously) at the other table. My teammate was upset and wanted to call a committee. I told him that I thought that 1NT was the correct bid (although not perfect) with this hand. For the record, the auction at our table was P-P-1C-1H-1S-P-P-P, just making. Mt partner and I play that a negative double in this situation denies 4 spades. > > I agree vigorously with your teammate. Apart from my thoughts on your > structure (which I think is inferior), it's a question of whether 1) > the long pause suggested a certain bid or bids, and then 2)if so, >whether the 1N bidder > had an LA not suggested by the tank. > > Step 1: The long pause could show one of two problem types: Either > partner has insufficient spades, or partner is overstrength. (I can > figure out some other problems partner might have, but these two >probably > comprise 98% of the cases.) In either case, 1NT will be successful, >while > in the first case some number of spades will be unsuccessful. I believe >a > 3S bid now is a substantial overbid, but there's a reasonable argument > that 2S is suggested over 3S by the pause. I disagree vigorously with you in this regard. Playing standard negative doubles, partner cannot have an overstrength hand - he would have bid 2S. If, in your system, 2S shows huge extra values as opposed to just a good opener with 4S, I think you should rethink your agreements with regard to this auction. As was stated by Hirsch Davis in another post, he often plays that 1S by opener DENIES 4S. I am not quite so restrictive (when I play negative doubles showing 4S). I play that it shows only 3S or it is a minimum opener - responder needs considerable extra values to contemplate bidding on. > > So, since 1NT is suggested over other bids, are there LAs? > > Step 2: Yes, there are clear LAs. I think 2S is a standout with the >prime > cards. There is a reasonable argument that *3S* should be forced, but I > think it isn't a slam dunk that 3S is suggested over 2S (although I >think > it is) and it may not be a logical alternative, depending on the SO and > level of play (but I think it may be.) I could be convinced either way, > but I'm not letting 1N survive. > I disagree with the premise that 1NT is suggested over other bids - I think it is the best bid with the hand that I hold. i.e. about 8-10 HCP with much of my strength in H, with exactly 4S. Admittedly I would prefer to have a hand such as Kxxx KJ9x Qxx xx, but I have to play what the great shuffler dealt me. I obviously must have 4S on this auction since if I had 8-10 without 4S but with H values, I would have already bid 1NT - there would have been no need to make a "fake" negative double in the first place. >If you could somehow convince me your structure required you to bid 1NT >on all 8-10 point hands, I'd rule differently, as my dislike for it >should not carry substantial weight as far as a ruling. However, that >would take some convincing! Playing a standard or near-standard style, >1NT caters too well to a 3-card spade suit. > Exactly. The reason for that is that it often IS a 3 card suit. > Short version: Partner tanked and hanged you. Now you can't bid 1NT, >even > if you think it right. Bid 2S, and tell pard not to hang you next time. > >A few comments on the bidding style interspersed below. > > --JRM >> >> My contention was that 1NT should show 4S plus about 8-10 HCP, >> > and as such was the proper bid. He did not think much of my decision (but >> > did not appeal the director's ruling that the result should stand - i.e. >> > 1NT making) but did send an email to Gary Blais at the ACBL. He was told >> > that based on the information given that the result should be changed to 2S >> > -1. >> > >> > Your partner has: Jxx QT plus some stuff in the minors (I cannot remember >> > the exact hand). >> > >> > My point to my teammate was that there are many ways to bid hands that have >> > spade support: i.e. >> > >> > 1S = minimum hand with 4S or any near minimum hand with a flaw (e.g. only 3S) > > Or: AQxx xx xxx AKJx. Hey, 3S by pard ain't so bad, eh? 1NT, suggesting > slow values, opposite this hand, and you are mired in 2S, missing the > good game. Not a chance. With the example hand I bid a happy 2S - shows 4S plus a solid opening bid. If you opened 1C, your partner bid 1S (i.e. no opposition bidding) wouldn't you raise to 2S and feel that you have something in reserve. Why should I bid only 1S over 1C-(1H)-Dbl-P? >> >> > 2S = good 14ish+ hand (e.g. KJxx xx Kx AQxxx) >> No, that's not enough. Because playing it this way leads to playing 3S >as > you say. Remember, partner won't pass 1S unless it's right to do so; if > partner bids 2S, as expected, over one, you can now intelligently probe > for game. >> That is plenty for 2S as I have previously mentioned. >> > 3S = about 16-17 support points with 4S (e.g. AQxx xx Kx AQxxx) >> And needlessly going down when partner makes an effort on Txxx xxx QJx > Kxx. >> Why would I want to bid over 3S with this schleck? >> > 4S = a very distributional hand with not many HCP which may make 4S (e.g. >> > AJxx xx x AQJxxx) >> Nah. Bid 4C on the 6-4s. Much better. Reserve 4S for big semi-balanced > hands. Wrong theory again. 4C should show C headed by the A and K plus the J at least. Some even play that it promises the A, K and Q. >> > 2H = many types of hands, one of which is a strong HCP type of raise in S >> > (e.g. AQxx KQx Ax KJxx) >> Splinters should apply here. >> Agreed. But the big semi-balanced hands (i.e. 4-2-2-5) should be cue-bidding 2H, not bidding 4S. >> > >> > ...and as such, a negative double follwed by 1NT over opener's 1S bid >> > should show 8-10 with good stuff in H, plus 4S. He agreed but thought that >> > the H stuff should be more like QJxx and that such a prime hand should bid >> > 2 or 3S. >> Bing bing bing --teammate is the winner! If NT is right, it should > probably be played from the other hand. And, if partner has hedged on a > 3-bagger, bidding spades might get you to the right contract -- spades. > Opposite AQx x Jxxx AQxxx, what strain do you want to play in? And, pray > tell, is partner really going to pull NT? > Occasionally when one makes a negative double of 1H, you own 4D. Partner is allowed to bid 2D on this hand, showing 3S, shortness in H, and 4D - that sounds like 3-1-4-5 just like your example hand. Responder should now have a pretty good idea what to do, regardless of the 1NT bid. > Thanks for the problem. > --JRM >> Dave Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 10:16:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 10:16:41 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04723 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 10:16:35 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26af.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.175]) by sand2.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA11696 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 01:17:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Law80G Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 01:18:21 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd85e0$4b4f5220$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 Hello all Herman is excersising his new right to take rulings to appeal, with great enthusiasm, and it would appear at every opportunity. This is not the only change in the 1997 Laws as far as appeals are concerned. How do members of the list see Law 80G has changed the approach of SOs? Is "make suitable arrangements for appeals to be heard" being interpreted as "make sure the venue is booked until midnight", or make sure there is a suitable person available, if not present to be "Chairman of Appeals". IMO this Law should be interpreted as meaning the latter, and for suitable I would expect a non-competitor in all but club games. In my experience it is more difficult to convene a "suitable" Appeals Committee in Area games than in National Finals and I had hoped that this law would remove the responsibility from the DIC. I do not however see much evidence of change. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 15:18:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:18:09 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA05206 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:18:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA13888 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805230518.WAA13888@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Two CCs on the Table Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:14:36 -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: > mlfrench wrote: > > >"TWO IDENTICAL COPIES: Each player is required to have a Convention > >Card legibly filled out and on the table throughout the session. Both > >cards of a partnership must be identical. > > > >"COMPLETE CARD: If a director determines that neither player has a > >substantially completed card, the partnership may only play the > >conventions listed on the *ACBL Limted Conventions* chart and may > >only play standard carding. This restriction may be lifted by the > >director at the beginning of the next round once two completed cards > >have been approved by the director. Beginning with the second round > >after being notified about inadequately filled-out cards, the > >director will impose penalties. If only one substantially completed > >card Convention Card is produced by a partnership, the director may > >give warnings or penalties at his/her discretion." > > How odd. The rules say you must have two (identical) CCs, but then go on > to say that the director should treat you as in compliance if you have one. > > Is it any wonder that players don't take this rule seriously? > This looks like a "Goldman clause," inserted to relieve the TD of the necessity to penalize influential players who may come to the table with no convention card. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 15:30:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:30:51 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA05235 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:30:45 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA15169; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805230530.WAA15169@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Robin Michaels" , Cc: Subject: Re: Is this conventional ? Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:27:31 -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 Robin, you wrote: > > On Thu, 21 May 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Robin Michaels wrote: > > > > > > It is fairly common among a range of US players, to regularly open > > 1H/S on > > > 5-6 hands with a 6 card minor. > > > Does this make the 1H/S opener alertable ? > > > More importantly, would it be conventional ? > > > After all, if I regularly open 4-5 hands 1H/S as opposed to 1C/D, > > that > > > would be alertable. > [snip]> > > > My impression of general U. S. practice is to open 5=6 hands > > major=minor (or major=major) with the higher-ranking suit only when > > the two suits are touching and opener does not consider the hand > > strong enough to reverse. Even then, the five-card suit should not be > > very weak compared to the lower suit (e.g., 1D gets the vote with S-x > > H-J9xxx D-AQJxxx C-A). Since partners will assume that the higher > > suit is as long or longer than the lower when it is bid first, there > > is no reason to Alert. > > WRONG > If you have an agreement that you may open 1H or _certain_ 6-5 hands, > _even_ if you don't make use of it, then it is alertable, or at least > disclosable to oppo. If I treat a 5=6 touching-suit hand as if it were a 5=5 or 6=5 hand, I do not think my partner should Alert this possibility. If the opponents are interested, they can inquire as to our style. > Consider the analogy that I tend to open 1S on hands like Jxxx Qxx Kxx xxx > or Kxxx x Axxxxx xx in 3rd seat. EVEN if my partner always bids as if I > have a standard 1S opening, there is an 'implicit' agreement that oppo > have a right to know about. I agree, but this is an unusual practice. > The case of the 10 or 9 hcp balanced hand opening a mini-NT is a > contentious area for discussion of this approach in ACBLand, but it is > clear that it is _what_you_do_ rather than what partner is going to play > you for, that what makes an agreement. > I'm not sure I agree with this, but this is certainly the way things are. > > Now can we have an arguement about whether opening 1N with a singleton on > hands like AQxx AQxx Qxxx K is an agreement, implicit, explicit, > conventional, or whatever, please ? :-)))) If partner assumes a balanced hand, no Alert, no problem. > > > However, if the partnership agreement is to open 5=6 hands routinely > > by bidding the higher suit, then that would call for an Alert. > > Whether it is _all_ or just some 5-6 hands, oppo have a right to know that > it is a possibility, do they not ? The inferences related to such hands come from "general knowledge and experience," and so do not have to be disclosed (L75C) > > > ACBL Alert Procedure says to Alert "bids that, by agreement, convey > > meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning > > ascribed to them." I don't think U. S. players would in general > > expect this treatment, so it should be Alerted. The explanation of > > the Alert would be, "Could have a longer minor." > > Bit if you have an agreement that hands like KQxxx x AKxxxx x open 1S > then you still have to alter and say 'longer minor possible', don't you ? > Or is it just easier to keep quiet about the possibility to keep the game > going smoothly, and not bother to infrom oppo ? Opening 1S with that hand is unusual, Alertable if a possibility. However, opening 1S with S-KQJxx H-Qxxxxx D-A C-x, as I did today in a sectional, is normal practice and hence not Alertable nor disclosable. > > > The same principle applies to 4=5 hands. I open 1H with S-x H-AKJx > > D-Q10xxx C-Qxx, but my partner will expect my hearts to be as long or > > longer than diamonds when I rebid 2D, so no Alert. If I always opened > > 1H with 4=5 hearts=diamonds, that would be Alertable. > > > > As to the 5=6 hands, it could be argued that an Alert should not be > > necessary until the second suit has been bid, or until the auction is > > over (for declarer). Why waste a lot of time Alerting 1H/1S openings > > when opener would seldom have a longer minor? > Because the Laws say that you have to ? I take back "it could be argued." If a higher 5=6 suit is opened as a matter of general practice by most good players, no Alert. If it is like your S-KQxxx H-x D=AKxxxx C-x, which no good player would open with 1S, then Alert. > > > However, defenders cannot explain their auction until play is over (unless asked), and > > declarer might be very interested to know that an opponent who opened > > 1H or 1S could have an unbid six-card minor. Therefore, I believe > > that the Alert should come with the opening bid. > > Good. > > > If there were a policy, which I would favor, of allowing a defender > > to say to declarer before the opening lead, "You might want to ask > > about our auction," then the early Alert could probably be omitted. I > > think this is legal now per Laws and regs, but I'm not sure. > > You hold a nice H one suiter, and the auction goes: > (1H)-P-(1S) ? > Don't you want to know if the 1H bid might only hold 4H and a longer > minor? > You have a right to know that, surely ? Not if it is a general practice for people playing four-card majors, as it sometimes is (example above). It comes from "general knowledge and experience," so not disclosable. If 1H is opened with S-xx H-AQxx D-xx C-KQJxx, this is not general practice and should be Alerted. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 15:55:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:55:04 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA05288 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:54:58 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17591 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 22:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805230555.WAA17591@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Hint by Defender Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:53:27 -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 Suppose a defender feels that there was something in the auction conducted by his/her side that a declarer might want to know about. It was nothing Alertable, nothing extraordinary, but the defender is a little uneasy because he knows something that the declarer does not know about the partnership's bidding practices. For instance, I open 1H, Alice responds 1NT, and an opponent buys the contract at three of a minor, doubled. Alice could have four weak spades in a 4=3=3=3 hand, which is not Alertable according to the ACBL Alert Procedure. Why not? Probably because some influential Flannery bidder persuaded the Alert Procedure author(s) that this unusual treatment should not be Alertable, as most major suit bypass sequences are. We don't play Flannery, but we do sometimes bypass a weak spade suit. Declarer is never going to be able to count the hand accurately if he figures Alice cannot have four spades, but the defending side is not allowed to say anything about a bid that partner makes until play is over. My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our auction"? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 16:41:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA05396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:51 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA05375 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:40 +1000 Received: from modem24.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.152] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yd80j-0002fI-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 07:42:29 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 21:42:04 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------> > Anton Witzen wrote: > > >sorry, i dont understand what you really mean. > >I think the laws are very clear; the TD (chief) has the right to appeal > >whatever his reasons are. No SO can stop him i think. > ++++ [That is how I would want it to be. But we did manage to slip the weasel word 'normally' into Law 81C and it only needs a small gap for the thief to slip his hand in.] ++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 16:41:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA05395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:50 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA05374 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:40 +1000 Received: from modem24.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.152] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yd80i-0002fI-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 07:42:28 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 21:24:32 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final > > > > > There is a principle that is accepted globally: you cannot ask for a > > ruling at another table, and you cannot appeal a ruling at another > > table. This is not easy to prove as a matter of Law [unless I have > > missed something] where rulings are concerned, but L92A makes it clear > > that appeals are for the players concerned. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 16:41:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA05399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:53 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA05376 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:41 +1000 Received: from modem24.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.152] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yd80h-0002fI-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 07:42:27 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 20:55:08 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Eric Landau > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > > . So *if* you believe that absent the original insufficient bid > South would have passed 2H, you should adjust. > ++++ [And if you believe that if he had heard the bidding he would not have bid 2H but would have possessed systemically a way to explore?] ++++ Grattan ++++ this site at home:workplace site still gester etc ++++ (I am flexible about bridge law; equally happy to use axe, rope, chair, gun or poison - and my cat has nine tails.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 16:41:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA05397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:52 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA05377 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 16:41:41 +1000 Received: from modem24.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.152] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yd80k-0002fI-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 07:42:31 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Robin Barker" , Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 07:37:15 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Robin Barker > Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation > \x/ \x/ > I don't real understand the point of these questions: players should do > there best to explain there methods (as much as they are able), they > should not be penalized for doing so.> \x/ \x/ ++++ I am unclear as to what you are saying here. What the law says is that if you have a partnership agreement it shall be disclosed and, if they ask about it, fully explained to opponents. If you have the agreement it makes no matter that you, or your partner, have forgotten it or got it wrong: if for this or any reason opponents are not given the explanation without confusion about it, you are liable for any damage they may suffer in consequence. You will not be penalized for doing your best to explain but you will suffer the consequences of having failed to give an adequate explanation of the agreement as the law requires. ++++Grattan ++++ [I would say that if you refer them to the CC and the information there is adequate then you will have found a port in a storm.] From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 17:01:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA05452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 17:01:00 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA05447 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 17:00:54 +1000 Received: from modem18.taz.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.146] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yd8JM-0002tm-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:01:45 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 07:49:28 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Tim Goodwin > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 22 May 1998 19:04 > > At 02:41 PM 5/22/98 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >{I am quietly contemplating whether, sooner rather than later, > >C might promulgate such a statement in order to give the > >sophists a new topic. :-)) :-( } +++ Grattan++++] > > Who (what) is this C? > ++++ C = WBF Laws Committee [ Square brackets denote my personal comments] The above since I have been asked to distinguish what I say based on Laws Committee minutes and notes and what are my personal ramblings. + Grattan+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 18:21:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 18:21:16 +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 SAA05524 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 18:21:10 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-98.uunet.be [194.7.9.98]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA17501 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 10:21:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356584E9.71E506ED@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:00:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980522083459.006e8670@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 02:02 PM 5/18/98 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >Let's first deal with type 4) answers. When presented with an opponent > >who does not give just one answer, what do you do ? > >You press for one answer, and if he does not comply, you call the TD, > >who shall ask for 1 answer. > > What an insult! I have already said that I don't know the answer, and now > the opponents and the TD are insisting that I must. Just one example : 1NT - (2Di) explanation : I forgot, it's either natural or hearts. Now next bidder wants to know if partner has spades : over 2Di natural : 3Cl = asking for majors 3Di = transfer hearts but over 2Di = transfer : 3Cl = transfer diamonds 3Di = asking for spades How do you suggest non-offenders bidding on without pressing for one answer ? > I would be sorely > tempted to take out a coin, announce "heads, I'm right; tails, partner's > right", and flip. You'd have 50% of getting it right ! In stead of 100% chance of getting ruled against. Or do you consider 'I don't know' a correct information ? > Does anyone seriously think that my opponents would be > better served if I did this as a pure thought experiment without letting > them know I was doing it? > Yes, I would. Fo one thing, your partner would not know you had any doubts and he would not have to deal with UI. Sometimes it is very hard for the TD to actively screen against the use of UI. Suppose in the above example it goes 1NT - (2Di) - pass - (2H) pass - 3Di Without showing doubt, overcaller has no problem whatsoever. With the doubt, TD will have to decide if 3Di is allowed. Why can some of you not agree that giving one answer, without showing doubt is at least as good as all the things you are suggesting. Me too, I'm getting fed up with this thread. Please don't think my relative silence is any sign of giving up. You're all wrong, all of you ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 18:21:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 18:21:11 +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 SAA05518 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 18:21:05 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-98.uunet.be [194.7.9.98]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA17486 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 10:21:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3565830A.981CB982@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:52:10 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final 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: > > > >If this happens near the start of the tournament then the pair feeling > >damaged would probably appeal. > >Only in the last round can you have a pair seemingly badly done by, and > >not appealing anyway. > > Many of my judgement decisions do not get appealed at any stage of a > tournament. Anyway, it only takes one non-appeal to unbalance the > approach. > Probably because they were right. In the last round of a tournament, it can very well be that a competitor is not happy with the ruling, but does not appeal anyway. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 19:53:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 19:53:48 +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 TAA05746 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 19:53:42 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-139.uunet.be [194.7.13.139]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20625 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 11:54:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35669A0D.555EBA89@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 11:42:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd859f$eb066100$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: actually, this bit was mine : (sorry David) > > > >Mind you, someone criticised me for looking at the result before > >deciding. I did not, I only asked about the difference between one and > >two, without knowing who was in first or second (I did know which two > >pairs it were, not who had won) > > > ++++ [ an appeal is solely a question of bridge judgement, merit and law; > its effects upon results of the competition have no place in deciding > whether an appeal should go forward nor in the treatment it receives > when it is heard. It horrifies me that any Director - or AC member - > should seek to know anything about the results of the event before > making any decision about an appeal. He/she simply should not want to > know and should regret it if they happen to hear the information. Justice > should not be distorted by external considerations. What is more the > Director or AC member who goes out of his way to have prior knowledge > of the effects of the outcome of an appeal is always open to accusations > of bias and prejudice, and is diminished by the inquiry. ++ > ++++ Grattan ++++ ] Very true words. But a TD who feels he wants to send this into appeal, for good reasons, but against the wishes of the players involved (only because they are tired), and without it affecting anything important, will only result in causing adverse reactions with the players waiting for teh final results. My only reason for asking about the final result (and only the difference, not the exact order) was to see if the appeal would make a difference. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 23 19:53:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 19:53:52 +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 TAA05750 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 19:53:46 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-139.uunet.be [194.7.13.139]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA20631; Sat, 23 May 1998 11:54:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35669A38.AD04ABB6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 11:43:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labeo , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3yKmZAAbhKZ1Ewhh@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > > In message <355EA702.CAE352A7@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Penultimate Board : > > > >board 20 - (W/All) > > > >\ KJ west north east south > > \ JT3 1Cl 2Di Dbl 4He > > \ KQ876532 Dbl 5Di 5Sp all pass > > \ - > >A3 \ T987654 > >AKQ7 \ 4 > >T9 \ - > >954 \ AQ642 > > Q2 \ > > 98652 \ > > AJ4 \ > > J87 \ > > > > > Labeo: Oh, well done, Herman ......... I am polarized > ...........with mirth...........do think up some more funny > stories like this. Mind you, no-one actually behaves like > this, do they? > -- Labeo Every word is absolutely true. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 02:10:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 02:10:39 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 CAA08948 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 02:10:32 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25752; Sat, 23 May 1998 09:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805231610.JAA25752@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 09:06:58 -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 I can't make out who wrote this, but it looks right to me: > > > > > There is a principle that is accepted globally: you cannot ask for a > > > ruling at another table, and you cannot appeal a ruling at another > > > table. This is not easy to prove as a matter of Law [unless I have > > > missed something] where rulings are concerned, but L92A makes it clear > > > that appeals are for the players concerned. This underscores the need for some way to formally object to a TD's action that has not occurred at one's table. A "Director Memo" analogous to the ACBL's Player Memo would satisfy that need. If players are to be tracked by an underground network, why not TDs? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 02:17:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 02:17:52 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 CAA08977 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 02:17:46 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA27121 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 09:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805231618.JAA27121@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 09:15:55 -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 Grattan wrote: > ---------- > > Robin wrote: > \x/ \x/ > > > I don't real understand the point of these questions: players should do > > there best to explain there methods (as much as they are able), they > > should not be penalized for doing so.> > \x/ \x/ > > ++++ I am unclear as to what you are saying here. What the law says > is that if you have a partnership agreement it shall be disclosed and, > if they ask about it, fully explained to opponents. If you have the > agreement it makes no matter that you, or your partner, have forgotten it > or got it wrong: if for this or any reason opponents are not given the > explanation without confusion about it, you are liable for any damage > they may suffer in consequence. You will not be penalized for doing > your best to explain but you will suffer the consequences of having > failed to give an adequate explanation of the agreement as the law > requires. ++++Grattan ++++ [I would say that if you refer them > to the CC and the information there is adequate then you will have > found a port in a storm.] BL's prefer to obtain the CC information orally, hoping there might be some contradiction, some little confusion by a momentarily befuddled opponent, that can be used to advantage. I have asked Alice not to give oral answers that are plainly provided on the CC (that is its purpose, whatever BLs say to the contrary) unless the opponents have a visual problem, and to call the TD if they insist on an oral response. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 04:21:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 04:21:05 +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 EAA09205 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 04:20:57 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA08496 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 13:21:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca1-05.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.37) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008489; Sat May 23 13:20:49 1998 Message-ID: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 11:18:19 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix7.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: Careless or irrational II Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edgar Kaplan wrote in his "Ruling the Game" pamphlet many years ago about interpretation of the terms careless or irrational. He gave an example: S - void H - 32 D - 32 C - 2 S - 3 S - void H - 54 H - 76 D - 54 D - 76 C - void C - 3 S - AKQJ2 H - void D - void C - void Spades are trumps, and South claims. Kaplan said that if the lead was in the South hand, all tricks are awarded to South. However, if the lead was in the North hand, a careless declarer could lead the club deuce and ruff with the spade deuce, subjecting himself to an overruff, and thus one trick should be awarded to E/W. I disagree with the ruling that E/W should be awarded a trick. I could find a monkey at the zoo (or maybe one of David's cats) who could be taught to select any one of the five cards from the North hand and any one of the five cards from the South hand to comprise the next trick. The monkey would get this situation right 24 times out of 25. If a creature without bridge knowledge would go wrong only 4% of the time, it's reasonable to assume that a bridge player might do somewhat better. It seems to me that the threshhold for giving the claim disputers protection ought to be higher than a one in twenty-five chance. I recognize that wherever the threshhold is drawn, it will be somewhat arbitrary. All will likely agree that one chance in a thousand is too small for protection, and that one chance is two clearly deserves protection. I would like to see it placed about one time in six. Several top players with whom I have discussed this were reluctant to propose where the threshhold should be drawn, but all agreed that Kaplan's example should be below it (E/W not entitled to a trick). Comments? Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 05:29:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 05:29:04 +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 FAA09339 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 05:28:57 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-70-110.s110.tnt11.brd.erols.com [207.172.70.110]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA26682 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 15:29:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805231929.PAA26682@smtp2.erols.com> Reply-To: From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: Careless or irrational II Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 15:29:12 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> 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 Jon C. > Brissman > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 1998 2:18 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Careless or irrational II > > > Edgar Kaplan wrote in his "Ruling the Game" pamphlet many years ago > about interpretation of the terms careless or irrational. He gave an > example: > S - void > H - 32 > D - 32 > C - 2 > S - 3 S - void > H - 54 H - 76 > D - 54 D - 76 > C - void C - 3 > S - AKQJ2 > H - void > D - void > C - void > > Spades are trumps, and South claims. Kaplan said that if the lead was > in the South hand, all tricks are awarded to South. However, if the > lead was in the North hand, a careless declarer could lead the club > deuce and ruff with the spade deuce, subjecting himself to an overruff, > and thus one trick should be awarded to E/W. > [snip] > > Several top players with whom I have discussed this were reluctant to > propose where the threshhold should be drawn, but all agreed that > Kaplan's example should be below it (E/W not entitled to a trick). > > Comments? > > Jon C. Brissman > I agree with Kaplan's distinction. In running a suit from hand, normal play is from the top. However, in ruffing, normal play is the low trump unless there is a need to ruff high to protect against an overruff. With no indication that S is aware of the outstanding trump, a club ruff and overruff would be careless but not irrational, and should be considered a normal line of play. If lead is in N, one trick to E/W. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 05:33:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 05:33:04 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA09369 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 05:32:55 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-166.access.net.il [192.116.204.166]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA02799; Sat, 23 May 1998 22:32:06 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35672529.6A55A9B6@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 22:36:09 +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: Belgian Pairs final References: <3565447A.667B9A8@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman First : I think there is no reason to be afraid to check scores before you rule !!! As much as I remember (don't remember the Law's number by heart) you check a player's action relative to what about 75% of players of his level should do .( I assume that at this tournament all were almost top level players ..) If have not enough time but enough players played that board , I think it is very helpful to check the scores ; BUT never consider the results of specific other pairs - it would be very unethical and producing rumor of maybe non existing prejudices...... Second : As a TD I consider the well-know Kaplan's three "was there ?" In this case , I don't think there was damage , but I can't deny the possibility that that pair - and only that pair - would find the way to slam !!!!! Because of these both doubts I don't like the 1430 result - I am very unhappy with it and unhappy with an artificial score , based on a a calculation of 25% 1430 and 75% 680 (or some kind of percentage ) which is a logical alternative for a TD. So ,, ??? go to "fourth" please and make life hard for some more people ..... Third : The way choosed by the AC's chairman is the worst IMHO , because he was influenced by the ranking in that contest or tried himself to "adjust" the final ranking , not the score !!!!! Fourth: The CTD (chief TD ) should decide to refer the very delicate bridge & field decision for the result to an AC . Usually , at a great tournament the TDs consult the other colleagues and the CTD . I suggest that BLML would decide to propose to all federations this will be the way to use Law 83C : The CTD will decide either to delegate a TD to appeal his own any decision or to enforce him not to do it . (As told, I did it 4 month ago this way with Ton Kooijman CTD). When only one TD -> he will decide to do it or not . Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >He doent have to clarify his reasons to the AC, he just appeals. > > >I hope this point of view will be universal > > > > The danger with this approach is that it will be inconsistent. While > > I agree we do not want the SO to completely take the power away from the > > TD in charge, it is not unreasonable to provide guidelines, and not > > unreasonable to discuss such guidelines here. > > > > It is reasonable to provide guidelines. > > However, I agree with other posters that it is not up to AC or SO to > provide these guidelines. It is up to the TD. So a forum of directors > should provide the basis which will let the TD decide whether or not to > appeal. > > Best forum I can think of : blml. > > > You have said that the reason for this rule is where players could not > > be bothered to appeal. Fine, but unless you are going to make sure that > > every ruling is appealed, then you are going to have to have some basis > > for doing so, and I think that taking a ruling to appeal because it > > occurs to the TD that it may affect the result of the event is not a > > good enough reason: every ruling given may do so. > > > > True indeed. > > > As for what I said, let me explain it in a different way: > > > > 1 If the TD decides that a particular ruling is one that ought to be > > appealed, then he might consider taking it to appeal. > > > > Of course. > > > 2 If the TD decides that a particular ruling affects who wins that is > > not a sufficient reason to take it to appeal. > > > > Agreed. But if they are at the table, they will undoubtedly appeal > themselves. > > > 3 If the TD decides that a particular ruling affects who wins, but > > they were not at the table and it is not the type of ruling the TD would > > normally take to appeal, then a TD should not take it to appeal. > > > > Agreed. > > But > > 4 if the TD decides that a particular ruling is one that ought to be > appealed, but he finds out that it will not affect any of the important > places, then he should not consider taking it to appeal. > > So although affecting the final standings should not be enough for > taking it into appeal himself, he should still look to it. > > Mind you, someone criticised me for looking at the result before > deciding. I did not, I only asked about the difference between one and > two, without knowing who was in first or second (I did know which two > pairs it were, not who had won) > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 08:57:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 08:57:39 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA09703 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 08:57:30 +1000 Received: from modem85.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.85] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ydNEn-00002l-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 23:58:15 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Hint by Defender Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 20:55:30 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > > Subject: Hint by Defender > My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer > after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our auction"? > ++++ [If there is something that regularly happens that you think opponents might want to know about, would you perhaps have it on your CC?] ++++Grattan++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 10:15:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 10:15:47 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09817 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 10:15:35 +1000 Received: from modem35.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.163] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ydOSf-0008NI-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 01:16:26 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 00:25:58 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Jon C. Brissman > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Careless or irrational II > Date: 23 May 1998 19:18 > > Edgar Kaplan wrote in his "Ruling the Game" pamphlet many years ago > about interpretation of the terms careless or irrational. He gave an > example: > S - void > H - 32 > D - 32 > C - 2 > S - 3 S - void > H - 54 H - 76 > D - 54 D - 76 > C - void C - 3 > S - AKQJ2 > H - void > D - void > C - void > \x/ \x/ \x/ > > I disagree with the ruling that E/W should be awarded a trick. I could > find a monkey at the zoo (or maybe one of David's cats) who could be > taught to select any one of the five cards from the North hand and any > one of the five cards from the South hand to comprise the next trick. > The monkey would get this situation right 24 times out of 25. If a > creature without bridge knowledge would go wrong only 4% of the time, > it's reasonable to assume that a bridge player might do somewhat better. > It seems to me that the threshhold for giving the claim disputers > protection ought to be higher than a one in twenty-five chance. > \x/ \x/ > Comments? > [++++ 20 times out of 25 ? ++++ g.] Grattan ++++ this site at home: workplace site still gester etc ++++ My cat has nine tails. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 13:19:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:19:40 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA10121 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:19:33 +1000 Received: from modem115.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.243] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ydRKh-0003kj-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 04:20:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Recorder Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 02:13:57 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Recorder > Date: 21 May 1998 13:31 > > > A suggestion has been made to institute a National Recorder for the > Welsh Bridge Union. Any information about the advantages and methods of > the recorder system would be appreciated. > [++++ I would find it abhorrent and contrary to principles of natural justice if a system were established that allowed of secret accusations. Players of whom something noxious is alleged should have the right to deal with the accusation in open confrontation when it is made. It should not be stored up and used against them at some later date, being unproven and unsafe information; indeed any who were the victims of such methods would be well advised to obtain legal representation. The UK is not a police state. There is a need to verify the statements and to hear the accused before the record is created. +++ Grattan ++++] From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 15:30:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 15:30:39 +1000 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA10315 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 15:30:33 +1000 Received: from tripack (p53-max20.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.212.240.117]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA13207 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 16:32:27 +1200 Message-Id: <199805240432.QAA13207@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: Subject: Recorder Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:24:27 +1200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not know what are a Recorders duties and powers in other parts of the world, but thought you may be interested in methods used here in New Zealand. The Recorder is a person to whom you can report players whose ethics/ conduct you are unhappy with, but don't feel warrant a formal accusation to the Laws and Ethics Committee. The Recorders duties are to make a note of the complaint. If several complaints are received from different sources, then the Recorder approaches the player/ partnership and speaks to them about the matter. We have never had a matter progress further than this, and have also had no complaints with regard to the system. Although the complainants are anonymous, this requires more than one person/ pair complaining. In the event that the Recorder is still unhappy then the matter is then referred to the Official Committee. We have a current membership of approx 18000 in New Zealand at the moment, which probably allows us a fairly informal system rather than something more structured like the ACBL. Julie Atkinson NZCBA Management Committee. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 19:29:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 19:29:38 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10647 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 19:29:34 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p34-m1-wg1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.107.226]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07356 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 21:29:57 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <3567E6E8.550AC67C@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 21:22:48 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Weekend Misinformation (2) References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> <3567E2B2.4EDF95BB@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Session 2 Brd 10 98 All Vul AJT64 Dealer E A984 T9 KJ752 Q4 92 K873 52 JT3 AKQ4 8532 AT63 Q5 KQ76 J76 W N E S P 1D 1S 2H P P P 2H was unalerted and was non-forcing. I believe that it is generally accepted that non-forcing new suits by non-passed hands should be alerted, although this is not explicitly stated in NZCBA alerting procedures. It is covered by a catch-all - You chould alert any bids that the opponents cannot be reasonably expected to understand. At the end of the hand West claimed that she passed because she thought that 2H was forcing and that south had made a mistake. The director ruled that the contract should be changed to 2S making. This went to appeal and the committee upheld the directors ruling. My opinion is that West is in possession of conflicting information (1) that 2H is unalerted and therefore forcing and (2) that South has just passed 2H and therefore (perhaps) 2H was non-forcing, and therefore West should protect herself by asking about the 2H bid. Coincidently the auction developed in precisely the same way at my table (including the non-alert) and before calling in the West seat I enquired about 2H, found it was non-forcing, made a takeout double and eventually defended 3D. Does west have the right to take this double shot, pass now to see if that works out well and if not get an adjustment to 2S? > -- > Wayne Burrows > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > http://www.juggle.org/wjd -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 19:31:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 19:31:33 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10663 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 19:31:29 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p34-m1-wg1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.107.226]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07702 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 21:31:52 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 21:25:31 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Weekend Misinformation (1) References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've just returned from a weekend of bridge in the Central North Island, New Zealand, resort town of Taupo. I managed to make the most of the weekend by fitting in a round of golf on Sunday afternoon, after the third and final session of bridge on Sunday morning. Of course out cats had to fend for themselves for the weekend but they are getting good at that - cat doors are wonderful things. Two hands that involved misinformation caught my attention. I've posted one here and another in a separate post ( Weekend Misinformation (2) ) so that they can be commented on separately. Session 1 Brd 11 K542 Nil Vul 643 Dealer S 9754 J2 J963 AT Q95 AJT8 T2 KQJ QT75 K963 Q87 K72 A863 A84 W N E S 1NT P P Dbl P P 2D* P 2H P P X P 2S P 2NT P P P Dbl was penalties 16+ pts 2D was alerted and before West's third pass explained as a transfer to hearts ( an initial 2D response would have been the start of a Game Force relay not a transfer). This was not the correct agreement. The correct agreement was that 2D was natural. The contract made 10 tricks. At the end of play West called the director and claimed that his third pass was based on misinformation and that had he been told that 2D was natural he would have made a takeout double which East could leave in for penalties. The director ruled that the table result stood. The hand went to appeal and the committee upheld the directors decision. In their ruling the committee commented that N/S would get to 3D which would be -2 (compared with 2H -4) this score was only 1 matchpoint (1/2 mp US) better than 180 in 2NT so they would not change the score. Comments please? -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 19:31:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 19:31:43 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10669 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 19:31:39 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p34-m1-wg1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.107.226]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07723 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 21:32:02 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <3567E795.1829ECA0@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 21:25:41 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Weekend Misinformation (2) References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> <3567E2B2.4EDF95BB@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Session 2 Brd 10 98 All Vul AJT64 Dealer E A984 T9 KJ752 Q4 92 K873 52 JT3 AKQ4 8532 AT63 Q5 KQ76 J76 W N E S P 1D 1S 2H P P P 2H was unalerted and was non-forcing. I believe that it is generally accepted that non-forcing new suits by non-passed hands should be alerted, although this is not explicitly stated in NZCBA alerting procedures. It is covered by a catch-all - You chould alert any bids that the opponents cannot be reasonably expected to understand. At the end of the hand West claimed that she passed because she thought that 2H was forcing and that south had made a mistake. The director ruled that the contract should be changed to 2S making. This went to appeal and the committee upheld the directors ruling. My opinion is that West is in possession of conflicting information (1) that 2H is unalerted and therefore forcing and (2) that South has just passed 2H and therefore (perhaps) 2H was non-forcing, and therefore West should protect herself by asking about the 2H bid. Coincidently the auction developed in precisely the same way at my table (including the non-alert) and before calling in the West seat I enquired about 2H, found it was non-forcing, made a takeout double and eventually defended 3D. Does west have the right to take this double shot, pass now to see if that works out well and if not get an adjustment to 2S? > -- > Wayne Burrows > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > http://www.juggle.org/wjd -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 20:50:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 20:50:17 +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 UAA10741 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 20:50:11 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-209.uunet.be [194.7.9.209]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28027 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 12:51:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3567EA06.512D2C26@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:36:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Belgian Pairs final X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3565447A.667B9A8@village.uunet.be> <35672529.6A55A9B6@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Hi Herman > > First : I think there is no reason to be afraid to check scores > before you rule !!! As much as I remember (don't remember the > Law's number by heart) you check a player's action relative to what > about 75% of players of his level should do .( I assume that > at this tournament all were almost top level players ..) > If have not enough time but enough players played that board , > I think it is very helpful to check the scores ; BUT never > consider the results of specific other pairs - it would be very > unethical and producing rumor of maybe non existing prejudices...... > I'll let someone else answer that one. However, it is a reason to go see the scores on one board, not the final result. > Second : As a TD I consider the well-know Kaplan's three "was there ?" > In this case , I don't think there was damage , but I can't > deny the possibility that that pair - and only that pair - > would find the way to slam !!!!! Because of these both doubts > I don't like the 1430 result - I am very unhappy with it and > unhappy with an artificial score , based on a a calculation > of 25% 1430 and 75% 680 (or some kind of percentage ) which is a > logical alternative for a TD. So ,, ??? go to "fourth" please > and make life hard for some more people ..... > We were unhappy with 1430 and 680, and as TD we cannot give anything in between. That's why the AC is needed ! So we gave 1430, expecting the other pair to appeal. Which in the end they did (after I explained I could not yet do it myself - under the new laws, the player would not have appealed, I would have) > Third : The way choosed by the AC's chairman is the worst IMHO , because > he was influenced by the ranking in that contest > or tried himself to "adjust" the final ranking , not the score !!!!! > He was not influenced by the ranking, he never got to see that. Only my computer man knew the final ranking, only I knew there was a very small difference. The chairman noticed that the AS, when scored as 60%, did not compensate the pair, as they were now even lower than the 680 they had before. I believe the AC, in their search for equity, can award 70% if they so seem fit. The fact that the chairman did not consult his AC (to my knowledge), is his problem. I am sure he did not do anything his co-members would not have agreed upon. For all I know, he did consult them after giving his directions to the computer room. > Fourth: The CTD (chief TD ) should decide to refer the very > delicate bridge & field decision for the result to an AC . > Usually , at a great tournament the TDs consult the other > colleagues and the CTD . I suggest that BLML would decide > to propose to all federations this will be the way to use > Law 83C : The CTD will decide either to delegate a TD to > appeal his own any decision or to enforce him not to do it . > (As told, I did it 4 month ago this way with Ton Kooijman CTD). > When only one TD -> he will decide to do it or not . > I agree with most posters that the TD should only call in the AC in unusual circumstances, such as when he feels that a pair would appeal, but for their lack of enthusiasm at the end of the tournament. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 23:03:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:03:34 +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 XAA12085 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:03:19 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ydaQn-0001WD-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:03:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:36:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) In-Reply-To: <3567E6E8.550AC67C@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3567E6E8.550AC67C@xtra.co.nz>, Wayne Burrows writes >Session 2 >Brd 10 98 >All Vul AJT64 >Dealer E A984 > T9 >KJ752 Q4 >92 K873 >52 JT3 >AKQ4 8532 > AT63 > Q5 > KQ76 > J76 > >W N E S > P 1D >1S 2H P P >P > >2H was unalerted and was non-forcing. >I believe that it is generally accepted that non-forcing new suits by >non-passed hands should be alerted, although this is not explicitly >stated in NZCBA alerting procedures. It is covered by a catch-all - You >chould alert any bids that the opponents cannot be reasonably expected >to understand. > snip in the UK I'd rule result stands - there is a possibility that 2H is non-forcing, which is non-alertable and I can protect myself. My late mother, whom I blame for many things including how I play bridge, taught me it was non-forcing. The analogy is this one 1NT 2S 3H round the table. Whether it is forcing or not is non-alertable and I would not adjust as a result of it being either forcing or non- forcing. Cheers John -- 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 Sun May 24 23:07:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:07:17 +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 XAA12101 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:05:20 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ydaQn-0001WE-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:03:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:46:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) In-Reply-To: <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz>, Wayne Burrows writes >Of course out cats had to fend for themselves for the weekend but they >are getting good at that - cat doors are wonderful things. > It's nesting season here, and Figaro who thinks I'm his mummy brought me two protesting fledglings this morning. Sad really - I could see no option but to murder them in cold blood and say thank you to Figaro. >Two hands that involved misinformation caught my attention. I've posted >one here and another in a separate post ( Weekend Misinformation (2) ) >so that they can be commented on separately. > >Session 1 >Brd 11 K542 >Nil Vul 643 >Dealer S 9754 > J2 >J963 AT >Q95 AJT8 >T2 KQJ >QT75 K963 > Q87 > K72 > A863 > A84 > >W N E S > 1NT >P P Dbl P >P 2D* P 2H >P P X P >2S P 2NT P >P P > >Dbl was penalties 16+ pts >2D was alerted and before West's third pass explained as a transfer to >hearts ( an initial 2D response would have been the start of a Game >Force relay not a transfer). This was not the correct agreement. The >correct agreement was that 2D was natural. > snips This one I don't like at all. Why should N want to pull pards 2H bid, holding 3H? and why should S want to pull N's transfer? 2H x down a few - the most favourable result likely for non-offenders. As for the AC I'm speechless. Have I missed something? -- 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 Sun May 24 23:16:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:16:41 +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 XAA12146 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:14:18 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1006660; 24 May 98 13:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:23:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Hint by Defender In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes > > >---------- >> From: Marvin L. French >> >> Subject: Hint by Defender > >> My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer >> after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our auction"? >> >++++ [If there is something that regularly happens that you think >opponents might want to know about, would you perhaps have it >on your CC?] > ++++Grattan++++ - but since it is unalertable why would the oppo consult it? I like Marv's approach and can't find anything to stop him doing it. I think it is full disclosure and as such thing it promotes harmony and is consequently a "GOOD THING" -- 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 Sun May 24 23:17:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:17:14 +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 XAA12162 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:17:09 +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 IAA22147 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 08:55:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980524091741.394f6e2c@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 09:17:41 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) In-Reply-To: <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:25 PM 5/24/98 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >The director ruled that the table result stood. The hand went to appeal >and the committee upheld the directors decision. In their ruling the >committee commented that N/S would get to 3D which would be -2 (compared >with 2H -4) this score was only 1 matchpoint (1/2 mp US) better than 180 >in 2NT so they would not change the score. Should the committee have information as to how a score adjustment will affect the MP score? I would expect not. Either a score adjustment is appropriate or not. This should be independent of any matchpoint score. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 24 23:50:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:50:02 +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 XAA12214 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:49:51 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ydaQk-0001WE-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:03:16 +0000 Message-ID: <46knsKAF7Aa1EwZg@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:12:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <356584E9.71E506ED@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <356584E9.71E506ED@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >Why can some of you not agree that giving one answer, without showing >doubt is at least as good as all the things you are suggesting. because I, for one, believe bridge is a game of full disclosure, and if I may be getting it wrong, the oppo are entitled to know. There are a number, including me, who have sympathy with your position but feel the laws preclude 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 Sun May 24 23:52:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:52:42 +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 XAA12228 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:52:36 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ydaQn-00056F-00; Sun, 24 May 1998 14:03:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:29:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II In-Reply-To: <199805231929.PAA26682@smtp2.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199805231929.PAA26682@smtp2.erols.com>, Hirsch Davis writes snip >> S - void >> H - 32 >> D - 32 >> C - 2 >> S - 3 S - void >> H - 54 H - 76 >> D - 54 D - 76 >> C - void C - 3 >> S - AKQJ2 >> H - void >> D - void >> C - void >> snip >I agree with Kaplan's distinction. In running a suit from hand, normal play >is from the top. However, in ruffing, normal play is the low trump unless >there is a need to ruff high to protect against an overruff. With no >indication that S is aware of the outstanding trump, a club ruff and >overruff would be careless but not irrational, and should be considered a >normal line of play. If lead is in N, one trick to E/W. > >Hirsch > hmm... so the monkey gets 5 tricks on the 80% line, but only 4 on the 96% line? -- 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 Mon May 25 03:02:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 03:02:07 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA15018 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 03:02:00 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-44-87.s87.tnt3.brd.erols.com [207.172.44.87]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA23801 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 13:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805241702.NAA23801@smtp1.erols.com> Reply-To: From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge-Laws@Octavia. Anu. Edu. Au" Subject: RE: Careless or irrational II Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:02:01 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 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 John (MadDog) > > Probst > > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 8:30 AM > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II > > > > > > In article <199805231929.PAA26682@smtp2.erols.com>, Hirsch Davis > > writes > > > > snip > > > > >> S - void > > >> H - 32 > > >> D - 32 > > >> C - 2 > > >> S - 3 S - void > > >> H - 54 H - 76 > > >> D - 54 D - 76 > > >> C - void C - 3 > > >> S - AKQJ2 > > >> H - void > > >> D - void > > >> C - void > > >> > > > > snip > > > > >I agree with Kaplan's distinction. In running a suit from hand, > > normal play > > >is from the top. However, in ruffing, normal play is the low > > trump unless > > >there is a need to ruff high to protect against an overruff. With no > > >indication that S is aware of the outstanding trump, a club ruff and > > >overruff would be careless but not irrational, and should be > considered a > > >normal line of play. If lead is in N, one trick to E/W. > > > > > >Hirsch > > > > > hmm... > > > > so the monkey gets 5 tricks on the 80% line, but only 4 on the 96% line? > > > > -- > > 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 > > > Yep. Kaplan based his criteria for "normal" on what bridge players actually do, not percentage chance for success. Ask yourself: In running a suit, when is the last time you started from the bottom? With all the opponent's trump pulled, when is the last time you ruffed high? Hirsch I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the message. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 03:32:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 03:32:00 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 DAA15143 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 03:31:53 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10304 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 10:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805241732.KAA10304@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 10:30:01 -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: Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >The director ruled that the table result stood. The hand went to appeal > >and the committee upheld the directors decision. In their ruling the > >committee commented that N/S would get to 3D which would be -2 (compared > >with 2H -4) this score was only 1 matchpoint (1/2 mp US) better than 180 > >in 2NT so they would not change the score. > > Should the committee have information as to how a score adjustment will > affect the MP score? I would expect not. Either a score adjustment is > appropriate or not. This should be independent of any matchpoint score. > I agree 100%, although I can see where an AC might want to see all the scores on a board when deciding on an appropriate score to assign. If no one in a huge field makes (or bids) a certain contract, then making (or bidding) it is obviously not "at all probable" or "likely." This is not to say that scores are a highly accurate assessment of probabilities, because the TD/AC must take into account the skills of the particular pairs involved in the adjustment. However, the field's scores add another tool to the AC decision process. It is only the scores that are important. The matchpoints are not important *per se*; they only serve as an indication of the apparent probability of various results. Wouldn't it be appropriate for TDs to routinely print out a copy of the recap sheet for possible use by the AC? The names and standings would of course be removed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 03:32:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 03:32:49 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA15157 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 03:32:41 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-171.access.net.il [192.116.204.171]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA27723; Sun, 24 May 1998 20:12:14 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356855E8.2ED3A3CC@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:16:24 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: jonbriss@ix7.ix.netcom.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Grattan and Jon Well , I didn't believe we"ll go on with some peculiar and/or extreme situations , but ....... First I am happy you all agree that the monkey will get it 24 from 25 !! (in spite of Grattan's question mark and grin..) and one of David's cats or mine cats will get it 25 from 25 !!! The trouble is that the human kind will get it 22 from 25 !!!! For the case described in Kaplan's pamphlet : I agree basically with Kaplan's approach , as I pointed above for the human beings statistics ......It can really happen that one will play it careless for many reasons........ The trouble isn't , IMHO , with the interpretation of "careless or irrational..." but with the implementation at table !!!! I take out my shoes in front of Kaplan's opinions but I believe that the implementation of this case is going too far . If south would have AKQx2 and west Jx .... then I can believe it was careless and very probable south ruffs 2 or x (didn't remember the trumps left or didn't pay attention to which of them were already drawn , etc......). I still believe the directorship and Laws' implementation if for PLAYERS , to let them enjoy the game , and not for the most pedant TDs (in spite of my self-graduating as one of the pedant TDs , but with this spirit of directing !!!!!! = what a modesty !?!?! ) Dany Grattan wrote: > > ---------- > > From: Jon C. Brissman > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Careless or irrational II > > Date: 23 May 1998 19:18 > > > > Edgar Kaplan wrote in his "Ruling the Game" pamphlet many years ago > > about interpretation of the terms careless or irrational. He gave an > > example: > > S - void > > H - 32 > > D - 32 > > C - 2 > > S - 3 S - void > > H - 54 H - 76 > > D - 54 D - 76 > > C - void C - 3 > > S - AKQJ2 > > H - void > > D - void > > C - void > > > \x/ \x/ \x/ > > > > I disagree with the ruling that E/W should be awarded a trick. I could > > find a monkey at the zoo (or maybe one of David's cats) who could be > > taught to select any one of the five cards from the North hand and any > > one of the five cards from the South hand to comprise the next trick. > > The monkey would get this situation right 24 times out of 25. If a > > creature without bridge knowledge would go wrong only 4% of the time, > > it's reasonable to assume that a bridge player might do somewhat better. > > It seems to me that the threshhold for giving the claim disputers > > protection ought to be higher than a one in twenty-five chance. > > > \x/ \x/ > > Comments? > > > [++++ 20 times out of 25 ? ++++ g.] > > Grattan > ++++ this site at home: workplace site still gester etc ++++ > My cat has nine tails. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 04:43:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 04:43:50 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 EAA15356 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 04:43:43 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17271; Sun, 24 May 1998 11:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805241843.LAA17271@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , , Subject: Re: Hint by Defender Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:41:56 -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 Grattan wrote: > ---------- > > From: Marvin L. French > > > > Subject: Hint by Defender > > > My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer > > after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our > >auction"? > > > ++++ [If there is something that regularly happens that you think > opponents might want to know about, would you perhaps have it > on your CC?] The example I gave was 1H-P-1NT, where the 1NT bidder could have four weak spades in a typically 4=3=3=3 hand (we play four card majors). The ACBL specifically states that this particular bypass is not Alertable, although most potential major suit bypasses by a notrump bidder must be Alerted. Our CC states, under "Major Opening," "Weak Spades Often Bypassed." Are you implying that the CC is enough disclosure, and my conscience should rest? But opponents are unlikely to look for this item. And I wouldn't say it "regularly happens," because the 1NT response to 1H with four spades is quite infrequent. Then why did I write "Often"? By that I meant that when the four spades are quite weak, they are often bypassed. I should have used an example that would have no hint on the CC, wihout violating any Alert or other disclosure regulation. You can't put every subtlety on the CC, there isn't room, but declarer should know about all such subtleties that are part of a special partnership agreement (not those that come from general knowledge and experience). My suggestion is one way of accomplishing this goal. Another way is to just take declarer aside, or send partner from the table, in order to give the former the information with no danger of the dreaded UI. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 04:57:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 04:57:06 +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 EAA15411 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 04:57:01 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA20333 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 11:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805241857.LAA20333@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: L75C - interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >Or do you consider 'I don't know' a correct information ? If you don't know, then indeed it is. Isn't that obvious? > >Fo one thing, your partner would not know you had any doubts and he >would not have to deal with UI. There are laws to handle your pard's actions in the face of UI. Therefore it is not necessary (nor allowed) for Herman to try to guess what action is in the opponents' best interest. Let the laws, the TD and ultimately the AC do their job in dealing with infractions. Herman - can't you see that it would lead to chaos if it was left to each player to try protect non-offenders? >Why can some of you not agree that giving one answer, without showing >doubt is at least as good as all the things you are suggesting. a) how about: "because we don't agree with you"? b) or: "because it would defy full disclosure"? c) or: "because we are not G-d so cannot possibly *know* what is best for the opponents"? Herman's position on this matter reminds me of typical political dictators'. They also justify their existence by claiming they alone know what is best for everybody! >Me too, I'm getting fed up with this thread. Well Herman, tell you what: It's in your power to stop it. You've made your point already, haven't added any new arguments for your views, should accept that other posters are not any less intelligent than yourself and that most seem to disagree with your conclusions, so just drop it. We will take note that this in no way means you've conceded your position, only that you have the decency to stop clogging our mailboxes with repetitive stuff. Thank you. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 06:04:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 06:04:43 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA15630 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 06:04:33 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-153.access.net.il [192.116.204.153]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA19360; Sun, 24 May 1998 22:30:52 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35687652.21909426@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 22:34:42 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hint by Defender References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think Marv's idea is right , but it should be implemented in a "non contradictory to laws" way . IMHO this agreement should appear on the CC (alertable or not , isn't relevant !!!). And it should be included in the system basic description or pre alert explanations when sitting at a table . Any other way - hint , under table kick or whatever - isn't a proper manner. Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In article 03.core.theplanet.net>, Grattan writes > > > > > >---------- > >> From: Marvin L. French > >> > >> Subject: Hint by Defender > > > >> My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer > >> after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our auction"? > >> > >++++ [If there is something that regularly happens that you think > >opponents might want to know about, would you perhaps have it > >on your CC?] > > ++++Grattan++++ > > - but since it is unalertable why would the oppo consult it? I like > Marv's approach and can't find anything to stop him doing it. I think it > is full disclosure and as such thing it promotes harmony and is > consequently a "GOOD THING" > -- > 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 Mon May 25 06:39:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 06:39:26 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA15715 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 06:39:17 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-153.access.net.il [192.116.204.153]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA25510; Sun, 24 May 1998 23:11:25 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35687FCF.CDB43133@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 23:15:11 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First for fun : I understand there is a well-known convention - Dbl = penalty ...... X = reopening/take out/ responsive ......... so e-w must digest there own bad agreement !!!!!!!! Now to work : It is a bridge judgment problem. TD - let the score stand . If east first dbl shows 16+ point then the second should show something more...... it means total penalty for me . AC - if appealed , as a member of that AC I still believe : a) there was irregularity (misinformation) b) e-w were damaged c) is any connection between the irregularity and damage ??? ......(a) if e-w good players , the AC should let the result stand ......(b) if e-w middle-down , the score will be 3Ddbl minus 2 Dany Wayne Burrows wrote: > > I've just returned from a weekend of bridge in the Central North Island, > New Zealand, resort town of Taupo. I managed to make the most of the > weekend by fitting in a round of golf on Sunday afternoon, after the > third and final session of bridge on Sunday morning. > > Of course out cats had to fend for themselves for the weekend but they > are getting good at that - cat doors are wonderful things. > > Two hands that involved misinformation caught my attention. I've posted > one here and another in a separate post ( Weekend Misinformation (2) ) > so that they can be commented on separately. > > Session 1 > Brd 11 K542 > Nil Vul 643 > Dealer S 9754 > J2 > J963 AT > Q95 AJT8 > T2 KQJ > QT75 K963 > Q87 > K72 > A863 > A84 > > W N E S > 1NT > P P Dbl P > P 2D* P 2H > P P X P > 2S P 2NT P > P P > > Dbl was penalties 16+ pts > 2D was alerted and before West's third pass explained as a transfer to > hearts ( an initial 2D response would have been the start of a Game > Force relay not a transfer). This was not the correct agreement. The > correct agreement was that 2D was natural. > > The contract made 10 tricks. > > At the end of play West called the director and claimed that his third > pass was based on misinformation and that had he been told that 2D was > natural he would have made a takeout double which East could leave in > for penalties. > > The director ruled that the table result stood. The hand went to appeal > and the committee upheld the directors decision. In their ruling the > committee commented that N/S would get to 3D which would be -2 (compared > with 2H -4) this score was only 1 matchpoint (1/2 mp US) better than 180 > in 2NT so they would not change the score. > > Comments please? > > -- > Wayne Burrows > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 08:56:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 08:56:29 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA15945 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 08:56:20 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-153.access.net.il [192.116.204.153]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA18372; Mon, 25 May 1998 01:55:23 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3568A655.288EC4B4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 01:59:33 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2)- and double shot References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> <3567E2B2.4EDF95BB@xtra.co.nz> <3567E6E8.550AC67C@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------F1BD23D738E22B83E3E2BCF5" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------F1BD23D738E22B83E3E2BCF5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi again this time no fun..........but still two items. 1- The ruling and AC decision I don't know the NZ Alert procedure , but if the players have a CC , it should be there - is 2Z Forcing or NF when the competing opp. bid at 1st level or bid at 2nd level (I know about 5 different agreements , concerning level & suits..) As much as I remember it should be mentioned in the pre-alert by the ACBL procedures. Any agreement would they have , as TD I think West has no more bid . Even in an AC I wouldn't agree anyway West has one more bid..........The life facts are that there are very wide different opinions from different levels and mentalities players , populating the AC and I don't think I"ll bully the members of those committee.. 2- The Double Shot Personally I detest this kind of conduit. But I feel I couldn't overcome two "obstacles" in order to convince everyone in the world MHO is the only right one. .....a) I didn't find any law which forbids double shot !!!! ........as Eric Landau pointed once. .....b) Kaplan once said that a player is entitled to do everything ........legal at the table in order to get the best result..... I exploit this question and attach here a message dealing with double shot , which I sent two weeks ago , but no one answered........ Dany Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Session 2 > Brd 10 98 > All Vul AJT64 > Dealer E A984 > T9 > KJ752 Q4 > 92 K873 > 52 JT3 > AKQ4 8532 > AT63 > Q5 > KQ76 > J76 > > W N E S > P 1D > 1S 2H P P > P > > 2H was unalerted and was non-forcing. > I believe that it is generally accepted that non-forcing new suits by > non-passed hands should be alerted, although this is not explicitly > stated in NZCBA alerting procedures. It is covered by a catch-all - You > chould alert any bids that the opponents cannot be reasonably expected > to understand. > > At the end of the hand West claimed that she passed because she thought > that 2H was forcing and that south had made a mistake. > > The director ruled that the contract should be changed to 2S making. > This went to appeal and the committee upheld the directors ruling. > > My opinion is that West is in possession of conflicting information (1) > that 2H is unalerted and therefore forcing and (2) that South has just > passed 2H and therefore (perhaps) 2H was non-forcing, and therefore West > should protect herself by asking about the 2H bid. Coincidently the > auction developed in precisely the same way at my table (including the > non-alert) and before calling in the West seat I enquired about 2H, > found it was non-forcing, made a takeout double and eventually defended > 3D. > > Does west have the right to take this double shot, pass now to see if > that works out well and if not get an adjustment to 2S? > > > -- > > Wayne Burrows > > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > > http://www.juggle.org/wjd > > -- > Wayne Burrows > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > http://www.juggle.org/wjd --------------F1BD23D738E22B83E3E2BCF5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined; name="double shot ..........txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="double shot ..........txt" From - Mon May 25 01:33:01 1998 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with SMTP id CAA25917 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 02:45:06 +0300 (IDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 08:48:10 +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 IAA11108 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 08:48:01 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-47.access.net.il [192.116.204.47]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA16086 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 01:47:40 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <354E464E.6FF1EEEE@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 01:50:54 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Double shot Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined X-UIDL: 60d88f194334596cd3537570a235e8de X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 Eric Landau asked a good question : where is written that "double shot" isn't legal ?? Is any bridge law which forbids it ?? I must agree that in spite of the fact I consider double shot as a very non-ethical action I don't know where from this opinion comes . Thinking about Eric's remark I considered the general line of thinking to adjust (or assign) score when an irregularity was established (Kaplan's line...): b. was there a damage ?? c. is any "connection"/"relationship" between the irregularity and the damage . These statements (b&c) may be themselves a double shot ....???? : if the NO side wasn't damage , they can choose not to summon again the TD , but if they feel damaged then they"ll try to get the most and it is a legal and "by the Law" action ! I think here is a good reason for it , but ...... what is the forum's opinion ??? Dany --------------F1BD23D738E22B83E3E2BCF5-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 09:31:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:31:48 +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 JAA16000 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:31:44 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA19463 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:32:09 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:32:08 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) In-Reply-To: <3567E6E8.550AC67C@xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 May 1998, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Session 2 > Brd 10 98 > All Vul AJT64 > Dealer E A984 > T9 > KJ752 Q4 > 92 K873 > 52 JT3 > AKQ4 8532 > AT63 > Q5 > KQ76 > J76 > > W N E S > P 1D > 1S 2H P P > P > > 2H was unalerted and was non-forcing. > I believe that it is generally accepted that non-forcing new suits by > non-passed hands should be alerted, although this is not explicitly > stated in NZCBA alerting procedures. It is covered by a catch-all - You > chould alert any bids that the opponents cannot be reasonably expected > to understand. > > At the end of the hand West claimed that she passed because she thought > that 2H was forcing and that south had made a mistake. > > The director ruled that the contract should be changed to 2S making. > This went to appeal and the committee upheld the directors ruling. I wasn't there but given the facts as stated, I would be letting the score stand. West by her own admission thought South had made a mistake by passing. This is surely a situation where a player should be expected to exercise some degree of self-protection. A simple question would have solved the problem in view of the contrary information available (the non-alert verses South's pass). She chose instead to try to capitalise on what she percieved (wrongly) as an inadvertent action. Whether 2H was alertable or not, West seems to have earnt her poor result. Two bites of the cherry is one too many. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 10:04:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 10:04:07 +1000 Received: from pm01sm.pmm.mci.net (pm01sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.150]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16083 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 10:04:02 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr2-dialup10.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM01SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27033) with SMTP id <0ETH0027HK7B6L@PM01SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 May 1998 00:04:25 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 16:59:03 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: List usage To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000d01bd876f$ef477840$4a1337a6@uymfdlvk> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD8735.416FBBE0" X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD8735.416FBBE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hirsh wrote: I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, = but not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know = that this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to = list messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the message. =20 And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? Chris ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD8735.416FBBE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hirsh wrote:
 
I am starting to lose track of how many = messages I've=20 sent to people, but
not the list, because of the way the reply = function is=20 set up.  I know that
this has been discussed before, but I would = really=20 like to see reply to list
messages generate a message to the list, = rather=20 than the author of the
message.
 
   
        = And I couldn't agree more.  How about it,=20 everyone?
 
         &nb= sp;         =20 Chris
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD8735.416FBBE0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 10:37:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 10:37:45 +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 KAA16167 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 10:37:40 +1000 Received: from acrobat (acrobat [150.203.20.55]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA29933; Mon, 25 May 1998 10:37:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980525103731.0094adb0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 10:37:31 +1000 To: Chris Pisarra , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: List usage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:59 24/05/98 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: >>>> Hirsh wrote: I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the message. And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? Chris This comes up every now and then. The issue seems to split the list into two camps, those in favour (for the reasons listed above) and those against - some worried about the increased risk of mail explosions due to email errors, and some worried about the inverse behaviour of accidentally sending personal mail to the list. Most of this latter camp point to the "reply-to-all" button featured in most/all mailreaders. The last time I polled this it was about 2:1 in favour of the current behaviour. However, the voter turnout was around 5% (yes - five percent, around 10 people). I'm happy to support either, and have had offers of extra list admins to monitor (and block) the list for explosions 24 hrs a day (the joys of a global membership), so we can tick off that concern. The rest is personal preference AFAICS. Time for another poll ? Any other issues people see ? Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 10:40:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 10:40:06 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16193 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 10:39:58 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p6-m1-wg1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.107.198]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA09074; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:39:44 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <3568BC50.3F0328CB@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 12:33:20 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> <35687FCF.CDB43133@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > First for fun : > > I understand there is a well-known convention - > Dbl = penalty ...... X = reopening/take out/ responsive ......... > so e-w must digest there own bad agreement !!!!!!!! Sorry about the inconsistency. There is no real problem at the table as using written bidding we are required to X not Dbl. > Now to work : > It is a bridge judgment problem. > > TD - let the score stand . If east first dbl shows 16+ point > then the second should show something more...... it means > total penalty for me . > > AC - if appealed , as a member of that AC I still believe : > a) there was irregularity (misinformation) > b) e-w were damaged > c) is any connection between the irregularity and damage ??? > ......(a) if e-w good players , the AC should let the result stand > ......(b) if e-w middle-down , the score will be 3Ddbl minus 2 > > Dany > Please explain why you think that the score should stand (a) ? West not East is claiming misinformation - that he would double and East could pass. East's double should have been takeout by partnership agreement so that unless West makes a t/o double on this hand EW cannot penalize 2H. West chose not to make a t/o double because of 2 small diamonds but that would not have been a problem if he knew 2D was natural. > > -- > > Wayne Burrows > > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > > http://www.juggle.org/wjd -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 12:05:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:05:50 +1000 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16376 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:05:46 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p12.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.28]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA15390 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:06:15 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:38:10 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: no agreement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk EW are a casual partnership. South opens 1C, and West bids 2C. North asks, and East says "We have no agreement'. North calls the TD. Where to from here? Does East's "We have no agreement" mean "We have no agreement about this being a conventional bid, so it must be natural"? Or does it mean "We have no agreement, so we'll all have to guess what West means"? If the first, then NS may have a case for damage if the 2C is not natural. If the latter, then the hand boils down to a guessing game. West may of course think that they do have an agreement. Should the TD send East from the table so that West may explain to NS what he thinks the agreement is. And if West agrees there was no agreemnt, where to from here? Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 12:36:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:36:22 +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 MAA16444 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:35:57 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ydn7x-0006pL-00; Mon, 25 May 1998 03:36:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 03:34:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch writes >EW are a casual partnership. South opens 1C, and West bids 2C. North asks, >and East says "We have no agreement'. North calls the TD. Where to from here? > >Does East's "We have no agreement" mean "We have no agreement about this >being a conventional bid, so it must be natural"? Or does it mean "We have >no agreement, so we'll all have to guess what West means"? If the first, >then NS may have a case for damage if the 2C is not natural. If the latter, >then the hand boils down to a guessing game. > >West may of course think that they do have an agreement. Should the TD send >East from the table so that West may explain to NS what he thinks the >agreement is. And if West agrees there was no agreemnt, where to from here? > >Reg. > I have played "no agreement" as a system with one or two partners. Each time one of you makes a bid you establish an agreement, so you end up playing eg. precision 2C, Strong 2D, Weak 2H and 2S a minor pre-empt, depending on what either of you have already opened. It's quite fun. SFAICT it's not illegal either although one is liable to get a warning letter from the club manager. Full disclosure involves explaining what we have agreed so far :) -- 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 Mon May 25 14:32:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 14:32:15 +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 OAA16774 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 14:32:09 +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 AAA07715 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 00:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980525003055.394f7fc0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 00:30:55 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: List usage In-Reply-To: <000d01bd876f$ef477840$4a1337a6@uymfdlvk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:59 PM 5/24/98 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: >Hirsh wrote: > >I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but >not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that >this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list >messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the >message. > > > > And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? > > Chris > >Attachment Converted: "C:\DOCS\BRIDGE\SALLY\Listusag.htm" At least I only have to delete something when I reply to all. When Chris sends something I have to delete his attachment even if I don't want to reply. How about not including attachments on BLML? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 16:56:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 16:56:12 +1000 Received: from pm02sm.pmm.mci.net (pm02sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA17007 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 16:56:05 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr2-dialup10.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM02SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27034) with SMTP id <0ETI00JIZ3A2AC@PM02SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 May 1998 06:56:28 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 23:51:05 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Attachments To: BLML Message-id: <010e01bd87a9$7ea7f080$4a1337a6@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 Tim Goodwin wrote: >Attachment Converted: "C:\DOCS\BRIDGE\SALLY\Listusag.htm" At least I only have to delete something when I reply to all. When Chris sends something I have to delete his attachment even if I don't want to reply. How about not including attachments on BLML? Tim Sorry campers, I didn't realize that I was attaching anything. I've reset the sender thingie, I think. Hope that this is better. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 17:32:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 17:32:32 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA17057 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 17:32:26 +1000 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 25 May 1998 09:32:32 +0200 Message-ID: <35692CB6.2D3C@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:32:54 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: List usage References: <3.0.32.19980525103731.0094adb0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was the one who initiated the last discussion I think. Im still of the opinion, that blml should be in the reply-field of the mail. Im a member of the doubl--list (a small mailing list in germany) we had once this problem with bouncing mails and the supervisor of the group was abel to fix something in it to prevent further bouncing. Of course I have von idea what he did... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 18:44:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:51 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA17210 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:40 +1000 Received: from modem48.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.176] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ydssu-0007gH-00; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:45:32 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Hint by Defender Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:17:49 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > Grattan wrote: > > ---------- > > > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > > Subject: Hint by Defender > > > > > My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer > > > after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our > > >auction"? > > > > > ++++ [If there is something that regularly happens that you think > > opponents might want to know about, would you perhaps have it > > on your CC?] > > > Our CC states, under "Major Opening," "Weak Spades Often Bypassed." > Are you implying that the CC is enough disclosure, and my > conscience should rest? But opponents are unlikely to look for this > item. And I wouldn't say it "regularly happens," > +++ [ I am not 'implying'; it is something for the regulations to order. Or not, as the SO decides (perhaps by default). But I do have in mind that some CCs contain an area for matters you feel should be drawn specially to attention and that you might judge this is one such. Opponents usually glance at the basics on a card when they meet up with you - may even be required to do so. - Grattan - ] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 18:44:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:50 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA17211 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:40 +1000 Received: from modem48.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.176] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ydssv-0007gH-00; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:45:33 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Reg Busch" Subject: Re: no agreement Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:38:02 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Reg Busch > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: no agreement > Date: 25 May 1998 00:38 > > EW are a casual partnership. South opens 1C, and West bids 2C. North asks, > and East says "We have no agreement'. North calls the TD. Where to from here? > > Does East's "We have no agreement" mean "We have no agreement about this > being a conventional bid, so it must be natural"? > ++ [ I would suggest "Since we have no agreement you and I are both left to use our general bridge knowledge to make up our minds how to treat it." More difficult is the situation when they ask the meaning of East's next call and West does not just say "We have no special agreement" ] ++ \x/ \x/ > West may of course think that they do have an agreement. Should the TD send > East from the table so that West may explain to NS what he thinks the > agreement is. And if West agrees there was no agreemnt, where to from here? ++[ How would we know what West thinks? Who has been so unwise as to ask him to speak? ] The time is not now for any correction. North/South should be getting on with the game and had no reason to call the Director in the first place. ++ Grattan ++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 18:44:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:49 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA17208 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:38 +1000 Received: from modem48.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.176] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ydssq-0007gH-00; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:45:29 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: , Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:28:55 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Dany Haimovici > To: Grattan > Cc: jonbriss@ix7.ix.netcom.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II > Date: 24 May 1998 18:16 > > Dear Grattan and Jon > > Well , I didn't believe we"ll go on with some peculiar > and/or extreme situations , but ....... > First I am happy you all agree that the monkey will get it > 24 from 25 !! (in spite of Grattan's question mark and grin..)> > > [ ++++ Yes - but only deserve it twenty times. - G.++++] From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 18:44:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:48 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA17209 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:44:38 +1000 Received: from modem48.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.176] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ydsss-0007gH-00; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:45:31 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: Hint by Defender Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:42:31 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Hint by Defender > > > >> My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer > >> after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our auction"? > >> > >++++ [If there is something that regularly happens that you think > >opponents might want to know about, would you perhaps have it > >on your CC?] > > ++++Grattan++++ > > - but since it is unalertable why would the oppo consult it? I like > Marv's approach and can't find anything to stop him doing it. I think it > is full disclosure and as such thing it promotes harmony and is > consequently a "GOOD THING" > -- ++++ Be careful. You may have stated some kind of truth but it is not a universal truth, unless you are able to cite the regulations for every competition world-wide. The key statement in the laws is "discloses the use of such a call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation". SOs are entitled to take the view that prevention of the creation of UI is to be the priority. ( David S. may be able to recall what if anything he has put in the revised EBU regulations ?) + Grattan ++++ Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 19:38:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 19:38:26 +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 TAA17333 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 19:38:18 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-142.uunet.be [194.7.14.142]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17617 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 11:39:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35693C2C.54ED7BB1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 11:38:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: L12C3 - calculation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Remember the case in the Belgian Open Pairs ? I'd like to take you through the calculation aspects of this manner. Please let's not take up again everything that has been said in the other thread and start from this story : At one table, a pair has reached 4S (+2) after a small irregularity. The TD decides to change this score to 6S=, but the matter goes to appeal. The AC decides that although there were chances of getting to 6S, these were rather slim and they award an ArtAS of 70%. Although they have seen the frequencies of the board (9 times 680, 2 times 170 = 4Cl+2) this does not affect their decision. Rather, the same cause has resulted in two effects : since the slam is difficult to bid, this causes both the huge difference in scores between 680 and 1430, and the reluctance of the AC to award an AssAS of 1430. Let's now see what this does to the scoring : A) the original board : score freq MP total +170 2 1 2 +680 9 12 108 ----- 110 B) after TD ruling score freq MP total +170 2 1 2 +680 8 11 88 +1430 1 20 20 ----- 110 C) after AC decision score freq MP total +170 2 1.2 2.4 +680 8 12.2 97.6 AS 1 10->14 10 ----- 110 My point now is, that the AC decision has raised the scores for the other pairs reaching 680, whereas the TD decision had diminished it. This is understandable if you have a grasp of how an ArtAS really works. It is af if you have a string of beads on a balancing rod . The rod has a fixed length and the beads are spread equally. If you change the position of one bead to either side, another bead must move to the other side to keep the balance. The effect of an ArtAS is to remove a bead altogether. Now if you smash one bead then all the others must be rearranged to fill up again the total balance - and keep the balance. (This looks clearer when I make a drawiing, believe me) This ruling was clearly one in which the one score has to be adjusted to one particular side, not taken out altogether ! This is why I stress that L12C3 rulings should be given as AssAS, not ArtAS. I am sure David agrees, if out of different reasons. How could we calculate this now : I would suggest that in a case like this the AC should give their ruling as xx% of 680 and (1-xx%) of 1430. For the sake of argument (and because it most closely resembles their final decision) let's put this at 80%: D) better AC decision - calculation score freq MP total +170 2 1 2 +680 8.8 11.8 103.84 +1430 0.2 20.8 4.16 ----- 110 As you see, the total (=balance) is still correct. For a full manner of calculation of 11.8 and 20.8 (yes, I know that's more than the "top", I refer to my website) This would be given to the players as : score freq MP total +170 2 1 2 +680 8 11.8 94.4 AS 1 13.6 13.6 ----- 110 (13.6 = 80% x 11.8 + 20% x 20.8) As you can see, three things are realised : The non-offending pair get their (equitable) compensation. The other pairs in 680 suffer slightly (indeed required). The "balance" remains correct. For a full exposee about these problems and others, I refer to my website. I would like to add that these calculations are even more "intuitively" correct when using the "Ascherman" system, but I wanted to show that they are equally well usable in the "Mitchell" system. (Again I refer to my website for a fuller explanation) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 19:43:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 19:43:15 +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 TAA17348 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 19:43:06 +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 JAA00389 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 09:43:27 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA07401; Mon, 25 May 98 09:43:25 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980525094325.007dda80@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:43:25 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:28 25/05/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >---------- >> From: Dany Haimovici >> To: Grattan >> Cc: jonbriss@ix7.ix.netcom.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II >> Date: 24 May 1998 18:16 >> >> Dear Grattan and Jon >> >> Well , I didn't believe we"ll go on with some peculiar >> and/or extreme situations , but ....... >> First I am happy you all agree that the monkey will get it >> 24 from 25 !! (in spite of Grattan's question mark and grin..)> >> > >[ ++++ Yes - but only deserve it twenty times. - G.++++] > > I am not certain I agree with your monkey's expectations. In my opinion the monkey will get in 76 from 100: Once in 25 times, he will lose the first trick and, having ruffed high the first trick, once in 4 times he will lose the second trick, failing to play another high trump. 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 Mon May 25 20:07:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:07:23 +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 UAA17488 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:07:17 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA01722 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 May 1998 11:07:37 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 May 98 11:06 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Recorder 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: Grattan wrote: > [++++ I would find it abhorrent and contrary to principles of > natural justice if a system were established that allowed of secret > accusations. Players of whom something noxious is alleged > should have the right to deal with the accusation in open > confrontation when it is made. It should not be stored up and > used against them at some later date, being unproven and unsafe > information; indeed any who were the victims of such methods > would be well advised to obtain legal representation. The UK > is not a police state. Indeed. Any such system would almost certainly need to be registered under the data protection act so individuals would have the right to view any information held about them. As long as a recorder notifies people about any information held I don't see that it would cause a problem. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 25 20:21:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:21:46 +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 UAA17534 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:21:40 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-184.uunet.be [194.7.14.184]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20467 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:22:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3569425A.55BBC7E9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 12:05:14 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199805241702.NAA23801@smtp1.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but > not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that > this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list > messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the > message. Seconded. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 02:52:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 02:52:32 +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 CAA21000 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 02:52:26 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025981; 25 May 98 16:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 00:39:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) In-Reply-To: <3567E795.1829ECA0@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3567E795.1829ECA0@xtra.co.nz>, Wayne Burrows writes >Session 2 >Brd 10 98 >All Vul AJT64 >Dealer E A984 > T9 >KJ752 Q4 >92 K873 >52 JT3 >AKQ4 8532 > AT63 > Q5 > KQ76 > J76 > >W N E S > P 1D >1S 2H P P >P > >2H was unalerted and was non-forcing. >I believe that it is generally accepted that non-forcing new suits by >non-passed hands should be alerted, although this is not explicitly >stated in NZCBA alerting procedures. It is covered by a catch-all - You >chould alert any bids that the opponents cannot be reasonably expected >to understand. > >At the end of the hand West claimed that she passed because she thought >that 2H was forcing and that south had made a mistake. > >The director ruled that the contract should be changed to 2S making. >This went to appeal and the committee upheld the directors ruling. This is absurd. West has every reason to think that 2H is non-forcing, because South has passed it, and there is nothing to prevent her asking. And apparently West did think that South thought it non-forcing, she just chose to believe that South had got it wrong. This has got nothing at all to do with whether or not 2H was alerted, and West was not damaged by any misinformation but by her own wrong guess that South had got the system wrong. I hope the laws experts on this group are not about to tell me that the law supports West on this one. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 03:47:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 03:47:29 +1000 Received: from mail2.rmcnet.fr (root@mail2.rmcnet.fr [194.206.92.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21107 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 03:47:18 +1000 Received: from ns1.rmcnet.fr (client36.rmcnet.fr [195.10.18.80]) by mail2.rmcnet.fr (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA28918 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 19:48:09 +0200 Message-Id: <199805251748.TAA28918@mail2.rmcnet.fr> From: "Mallory Voelker" To: "bridge laws" Subject: SPLIT SCORE Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 18:49:52 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I'm Vice Chairman of the German National Laws Comittee and I encounter a rather interesting question in a case we have to decide on: 97 E/E-W, IMPs, Screens are used E S W N KJ76 3C 3D* 3NT 4H J952 p p 4S all pass J95 KQ832 54 * 3D was alerted on the N/E side of A842 T7 the screen and explained as take AT 73 out double (Fishbein). S didn't alert Q4 AKT7632 his screenmate and thought that 3D AJT6 was natural. Convention card says Q53 it's Fishbein KQ864 8 W went down 4 in 4S. Director maintained the score as did the appeals committee. W claims that he has been damaged by the non-alert of the 3D bid. Director and committee deemed that the 4S bid (or at least East's pass on the 4S bid by his partner) was wild, gambling action, therefore forfeiting the right to obtain an adjusted score. W claims that he bid 4S in believing that 4H X would go 2 off at most and that N had a real H suit for his bid (facing a diamond one-suiter) and probably a diamond fit. E may now take 4S out into 5C with a misfit or pass 4S with 3 cards in S. Appeals committee deemed that W needs better S for his bid and that he got mad on this one; and E could not pass as his partner denied a 6 card S suit (he would have bid 3S instead of 3NT). W objects that with 6S and 9 tricks he still bids 3NT in IMPS because he doesn't want to create problems for his partner. More: E got the right explanation, so he thinks that W bid 4S knowing that S won't break (because of the take out double), so he must have solid S. If he had known that S showed D, he would have understood that 4S wanted to give him a choice of contracts. W argues further that even if he would be forced to play in 4S, he would only go 3 down, he misplayed the hand because he didn't think that trumps split so bad, because of the misinformation he played for a 3-3 split. 1) What do you think of W's arguments? We still deem that 4S is wild action, and that W needs at least better S spots to let this bid enter into consideration. For sake of information, in a earlier ruling, we precised "wild or gambling action" as follows: "Wild or gambling action is an action that: - less than 5% of all players with comparable Bridge ability would have chosen and - among the remaining (at least) 95% of all players of comparable capability all of them would have eliminated it after consideration, because it goes against Bridge logic and has only disadvantages of heavy weight" 2) What score do you give? Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X - 2 for N/S The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the dammage is no longer consequent to the irregularity but subsequent. Then the conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you CAN'T apply Law 12 C 2 as this Law only allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law 12 needs another Law who says that Law 12 applies. And as the conditions of Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there is no such law... You may think this is harsh reasoning, perhaps you can give me arguments why this should not be so. Many colleagues think it is not possible to let the offending side profit of the error of the non-offending side as this error would never have come up without the irregularity committed by the offending side (hypothetical causality!). So that the offending side must never profit from an opponent's wild action after an irregularity committed by the other side. So split scores only applie when the "likely" and the "at all probable" score are not the same and in no other situation... GRATTAN??? What do you think of this one? In your commentary, all examples concerning wild or gambling action (see ex. 12 B, D) maintain the score throughout so I come to think that you agree with me. 3) If you decide that you are not allowed to give a split score on this one, are you then allowed to circumvent the spirit of this by giving a procedural penalty that is so heavy that it takes away to N/S the benefit of the wild action of W? Should one do so? 4) If not, do you give a PP for the lack of alert having indirectly caused damage to the non-offending side? I would be pleased to have opinions on those questions who are - at least I believe it - of general interest. It seems very important to me that Directors agree on this frequent problem! Sincerily yours Mallory Voelker From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 04:51:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 04:51:16 +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 EAA21414 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 04:51:09 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA09650 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 18:51:45 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980525145408.006e1ec8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 14:54:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) In-Reply-To: <199805221630.JAA07318@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:28 AM 5/22/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >I don't think they thought for a very long time, and believe that >most of any discussion concerned whether the AC should keep the $50 >E-W deposit. If there was a screener, and I presume there was, s/he >should have tried to stop the appeal at that point. That's what >screeners are for. May s/he did try, I dunno. > >I would be in favor of having a screener's input become part of the >AC process, *after* the AC has decided on the case. What input? >Whether or not the screener gave an opinion to the appellant as to >the reasonableness of the appeal. This could help an AC decision in >regard to keeping deposits. I would second this with enthusiasm. At present the actions of the screener, unlike that of the floor TD, consulting TDs, DIC or AC, are entirely off the record. Yet the screener plays a key (if underrated) role in the appeals process at ACBL NABCs, and can easily effect the outcome of prospective appeals. Whatever bridge players may think of the relative values involved, it far more behooves the ACBL, in a broader legal context, to make sure that their process is open and a matter of record when they're imposing $50 fines -- which many bridge players do consider "real money" -- than when the stakes are mere glory and master points. 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 May 26 05:01:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:01:03 +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 FAA21445 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:00:57 +1000 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 05:00:57 +1000 Received: (qmail 23635 invoked from network); 25 May 1998 19:01:48 -0000 Received: from pm02-d098.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.98) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 25 May 1998 19:01:48 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980525140059.2b5f3c6e@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: Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:39 AM 5/25/98 +0100, you wrote: >In message <3567E795.1829ECA0@xtra.co.nz>, Wayne Burrows > writes >>Session 2 >>Brd 10 98 >>All Vul AJT64 >>Dealer E A984 >> T9 >>KJ752 Q4 >>92 K873 >>52 JT3 >>AKQ4 8532 >> AT63 >> Q5 >> KQ76 >> J76 >> >>W N E S >> P 1D >>1S 2H P P >>P >> >>2H was unalerted and was non-forcing. >>I believe that it is generally accepted that non-forcing new suits by >>non-passed hands should be alerted, although this is not explicitly >>stated in NZCBA alerting procedures. It is covered by a catch-all - You >>chould alert any bids that the opponents cannot be reasonably expected >>to understand. >> >>At the end of the hand West claimed that she passed because she thought >>that 2H was forcing and that south had made a mistake. >> >>The director ruled that the contract should be changed to 2S making. >>This went to appeal and the committee upheld the directors ruling. > >This is absurd. West has every reason to think that 2H is non-forcing, >because South has passed it, and there is nothing to prevent her asking. >And apparently West did think that South thought it non-forcing, she >just chose to believe that South had got it wrong. This has got nothing >at all to do with whether or not 2H was alerted, and West was not >damaged by any misinformation but by her own wrong guess that South had >got the system wrong. > >I hope the laws experts on this group are not about to tell me that the >law supports West on this one. West could have asked to protect her/himself but East NEVER got this chance without creating UI and risking to wake up South. We can never tell what would have happen with East if 2H have been alerted. eventually she/he would have raised Sp on Qx. NOS are damaged with the failure and than i think ruling 2Sp making is pretty fair, NOT because West was feeling she/he was damage but East Never got a chance to know 2H was non forcing. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 05:29:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:29:23 +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 FAA21558 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:29:17 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA09897 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 19:29:53 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980525153217.006dae88@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 15:32:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:55 PM 5/22/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >> From: Eric Landau >> >> . So *if* you believe that absent the original insufficient bid >> South would have passed 2H, you should adjust. >> >++++ [And if you believe that if he had heard the bidding >he would not have bid 2H but would have possessed systemically >a way to explore?] ++++ I would still adjust. But Grattan asks a very difficult question, one which we've touched on before without really resolving: Is the fact of North's original insufficient 1H bid AI or UI to South? There's no easy answer, because the parenthetical in L27B1(a) seems to lead to the opposite conclusion from L27B1(b). I have chosen to resolve the apparent contradiction by intepreting L27B1 to say that the partner of the insufficient bidder should bid as though the corrected call had been made originally (i.e. as though he had no knowledge that there had been an original insufficient bid), but without being subject to the strict choice-from-among-LAs constraint of L16C2. So to allow South to have bid over 2H, I need not be convinced that passing isn't an LA or that North's original insufficient bid failed to make bidding more attractive, but I do need to believe that South would have bid over 2H without 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 Tue May 26 05:50:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:50:29 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 FAA21622 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:50:24 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA13172 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805251950.MAA13172@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Hint by Defender Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 12:48:23 -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 Grattan wrote: > > John Probst wrote: >> >> mlfrench wrote: > > > > > >> My question: Is it okay for a defender to merely say to declarer > > >> after the face-down lead, "You might want to ask about our auction"? > > >> > > >++++ [If there is something that regularly happens that you think > > >opponents might want to know about, would you perhaps have it > > >on your CC?] > > > ++++Grattan++++ > > > > - but since it is unalertable why would the oppo consult it? I like > > Marv's approach and can't find anything to stop him doing it. I think it > > is full disclosure and as such thing it promotes harmony and is > > consequently a "GOOD THING" > > -- > ++++ Be careful. You may have stated some kind of truth but it is not > a universal truth, unless you are able to cite the regulations for every > competition world-wide. The key statement in the laws is "discloses the use > of such a call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > organisation". SOs are entitled to take the view that prevention of the > creation of UI is to be the priority. ( David S. may be able to recall > what if anything he has put in the revised EBU regulations ?) > + Grattan ++++ These passages come from the ACBL's PRINCIPLE OF FULL DISCLOSURE in its *ACTIVE ETHICS* pamphlet: "Full disclosure requires that all...inferences, restrictions, and tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about style." In other words, you have to ask. That doesn't seem right somehow. And then comes this: "The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made." So, disclosure in the absence of questioning is not only voluntary, but can only be made by declarer. That doesn't seem right, either. I'm beginning to wonder if the ACBL is in compliance with L40B, which says that use of a call or play that is based on a special partnership understanding must be disclosed, and that the disclosure is to be made "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." Requiring that an opponent ask for such information, and making its disclosure voluntary in the absence of a request (and then only for declarer), does not appear to satisfy the intent of the law. Right away I suppose someone will write that all such information should be on the CC. Not so. In the ACBL's words, the CC provides a "comprehensive overview" of one's system, not a detailed view. Using the ACBL's own example, taken from the *ACTIVE ETHICS* pamphlet, a weak two bid's description on the CC shows little more than point range. It goes on to say: "However, the partners are aware of the range of hands on which the bid can be made (discipline? suit quality requirements?, five-or-seven card suits allowed?, side four-card major ok?, void ok?, positional variations, etc.). Full disclosure requires that all these inferences, restrictions and tendencies be made known to any opponent *who inquires about style*." [emphasis mine] Well, as some of our BLML subscribers would say, there is no regulation against a defender's hinting that declarer might do well to question the defenders' auction, so I guess it's okay, at least if done carefully so as to avoid UI. Incidentally, as with most volunteer programs, there seems to be a shortage of volunteers for ACTIVE ETHICS. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 05:58:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:58:06 +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 FAA21647 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 05:58:00 +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 PAA18535 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 15:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01599; Mon, 25 May 1998 15:58:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 15:58:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199805251958.PAA01599@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > The arrows they launch at me are usually the ones that say as a > legislator I am brother- in-law to the bridge lawyer. Now I find > myself defending the liberal interpretation of the law against a > highly sophisticated and cultured bridge lawyer's argument. Well, pardon me, but I'm afraid some earlier messages from an entity pretending to be Grattan Endicott have confused me. From January of this year: > test to be made is to compare the agreed meaning of a call with > the non-conventional possibilities: > 1. that it shows willingness to play in the denomination > named (or in the last denomination named*); > 2. that it names where there is high card strength; > 3. that it names where there is suit length (3+ cards). > [* 'the last denomination named' was the subject of a ruling by the > WBF Laws Committee in Hammamet recently.] > If the call in question does not match to at least one of these > definitions, or if it has an additional qualification to its meaning > which does not do so, then it is held to be conventional. Please note the bit about "additional qualification." And then: > If as a matter of partnership agreement (partnership understanding) > a bid makes a statement about denominations other than the one named, > whether as the primary purpose of the bid or as a secondary matter, then > the law is that such a bid is conventional. ... > The effects were foreseen and intended. Do you see why I am perhaps confused? Consider a Standard American 1H opening bid, which promises spades are shorter than hearts. Is this a meaning? Yes. Is it by agreement? Again yes; other bidding systems attach different meanings to the 1H bid. (Think canape or Paulsen.) Does the meaning about spades match any of the tests above? No, the denomination named is hearts. So 1H is conventional under the new definition. The above was NOT my first interpretation of the new rules. The result above seemed so bizarre that I thought the definition must have been intended to be vague, allowing SO's to adopt their own definitions. But the above quotes assure us that it means exactly what it says. OK, I can live with that, although I don't especially care for it. Where I have trouble is hearing that the definition is precise, but it means something other than what it plainly says. From: "Grattan Endicott" > 1. The 'normal' natural opening of One of a Suit says 'I hold this > suit and have values to open the bidding'. There may be > expectations as to suit length by comparison with other suits held, > but nothing is guaranteed and it is not a breach of any agreement > if you happen to have a longer suit. Now _this_ sounds like sophism to me. If I am dealt 5-5 in the majors and open it 1H, that is just as much a breach of my agreements as a splinter bid on a doubleton or answering Blackwood with the wrong number of aces. I might actually do any of the above at the table, but I expect to apologize if it goes wrong. Incidentally, I've used hearts and spades only for simplicity. In real bidding systems, most openings convey specific distributional information about other suits. (Paulsen 1S is an obvious exception.) By the way, the above does NOT imply that all bids are conventional. Later in the auction, quite a few, perhaps most, bids will be non- conventional. So the definition makes logical sense, even if it is not one we happen to like. > I have no difficulty in asserting that such openers are not > 'conventional'; and I think such bids only become conventional > where it is agreed they *will* show a side holding. I agree that "_showing_ side length/strength" as opposed to "denying" would make for a good definition. (There are some complications, as duly noted on BLML some years ago.) My objection is that this isn't the definition printed in my copy of the Laws. > 2. I agree with a view that for two prime requirements of the laws > (Laws 27 and 40D) it is likely to work well if the law does not > rely on the definition of 'convention' but instead specifies the > area applicable by a descriptive statement of characteristics. Such description(s) would be logically equivalent to a definition, but either way is fine with me. There is no reason the two laws have to use the same definition; that might simplify the bit about "king less than an average hand." > {I am quietly contemplating whether, sooner rather than later, C > might promulgate such a statement in order to give the sophists a > new topic.} Writing a good convention definition is not easy. An imprecise definition is easy. (See the 1987 Laws. Actually, I thought the previous definition could be read as a precise one, but doing so made things everyone was "sure" were conventions into non- conventions.) A precise definition that has surprising results is easy. (As we now discover.) But a precise definition that corresponds to our usual notions is not easy, and the resulting text will not be simple or short. I wish C good luck with the task. Meanwhile, the practical definition of convention seems to be "I know one when I see one." OK, I guess, but we could have had that (and all its consequences) without changing the text. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 06:08:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:08:15 +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 GAA21677 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:08:09 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA10184 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:08:47 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980525161111.006e42f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 16:11:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <356584E9.71E506ED@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980522083459.006e8670@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:00 PM 5/22/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> What an insult! I have already said that I don't know the answer, and now >> the opponents and the TD are insisting that I must. > >Just one example : > >1NT - (2Di) > >explanation : I forgot, it's either natural or hearts. > >Now next bidder wants to know if partner has spades : > >over 2Di natural : >3Cl = asking for majors >3Di = transfer hearts >but over 2Di = transfer : >3Cl = transfer diamonds >3Di = asking for spades > >How do you suggest non-offenders bidding on without pressing for one >answer ? > >> I would be sorely >> tempted to take out a coin, announce "heads, I'm right; tails, partner's >> right", and flip. > >You'd have 50% of getting it right ! > >In stead of 100% chance of getting ruled against. > >Or do you consider 'I don't know' a correct information ? > >> Does anyone seriously think that my opponents would be >> better served if I did this as a pure thought experiment without letting >> them know I was doing it? >> > >Yes, I would. > >Fo one thing, your partner would not know you had any doubts and he >would not have to deal with UI. > >Sometimes it is very hard for the TD to actively screen against the use >of UI. > >Suppose in the above example it goes > >1NT - (2Di) - pass - (2H) >pass - 3Di > >Without showing doubt, overcaller has no problem whatsoever. >With the doubt, TD will have to decide if 3Di is allowed. > >Why can some of you not agree that giving one answer, without showing >doubt is at least as good as all the things you are suggesting. > >Me too, I'm getting fed up with this thread. We must be getting tired of this thread -- we seem to have forgotten what it was about. In the situation Herman cites as an example, it probably is best to decide what you think your partnership agreement most likely is, and to offer a single explanation without expressing doubt. But this situation has nothing to do with the one we've been discussing. In the problematic case, partner has already offered an explanation of your own bid which is inconsistent with your understanding at the time you made it, and you are thus confronted not with a situation in which you worry that partner's understanding may not coincide with your own, but rather one in which you know for certain that it doesn't. The difference is between concealing doubts about information offered as true and offering information known not to be true. 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 May 26 06:10:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:10:04 +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 GAA21700 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:09:58 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ye3a6-0001dG-00; Mon, 25 May 1998 21:10:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 21:09:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980525153217.006dae88@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980525153217.006dae88@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes snip >So to allow South to have bid over 2H, I need not be convinced that passing >isn't an LA or that North's original insufficient bid failed to make >bidding more attractive, but I do need to believe that South would have bid >over 2H without it. > yep, I agree with this. Say a 4-card fit and non-minimum would be ok? -- 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 Tue May 26 06:21:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:21:31 +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 GAA21749 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:21:25 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ye3lC-00022f-00; Mon, 25 May 1998 21:22:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 21:20:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980525145408.006e1ec8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980525145408.006e1ec8@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 09:28 AM 5/22/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: > >>I don't think they thought for a very long time, and believe that >>most of any discussion concerned whether the AC should keep the $50 >>E-W deposit. If there was a screener, and I presume there was, s/he >>should have tried to stop the appeal at that point. That's what >>screeners are for. May s/he did try, I dunno. >> >>I would be in favor of having a screener's input become part of the >>AC process, *after* the AC has decided on the case. What input? >>Whether or not the screener gave an opinion to the appellant as to >>the reasonableness of the appeal. This could help an AC decision in >>regard to keeping deposits. > >I would second this with enthusiasm. At present the actions of the >screener, unlike that of the floor TD, consulting TDs, DIC or AC, are >entirely off the record. Yet the screener plays a key (if underrated) role >in the appeals process at ACBL NABCs, and can easily effect the outcome of >prospective appeals. > >Whatever bridge players may think of the relative values involved, it far >more behooves the ACBL, in a broader legal context, to make sure that their >process is open and a matter of record when they're imposing $50 fines -- >which many bridge players do consider "real money" -- than when the stakes >are mere glory and master points. > I think the same would apply in the UK too. The deposit system is to stop frivolous appeals, but a player who has just been "fixed" may not be thinking straight. He needs an amicae curiae. -- 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 Tue May 26 06:30:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:30:24 +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 GAA21779 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:30:15 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA10320 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:30:52 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980525163316.006e41dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 16:33:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II In-Reply-To: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM 5/23/98 -0700, jonbriss wrote: >Edgar Kaplan wrote in his "Ruling the Game" pamphlet many years ago >about interpretation of the terms careless or irrational. He gave an >example: > S - void > H - 32 > D - 32 > C - 2 >S - 3 S - void >H - 54 H - 76 >D - 54 D - 76 >C - void C - 3 > S - AKQJ2 > H - void > D - void > C - void > >Spades are trumps, and South claims. Kaplan said that if the lead was >in the South hand, all tricks are awarded to South. However, if the >lead was in the North hand, a careless declarer could lead the club >deuce and ruff with the spade deuce, subjecting himself to an overruff, >and thus one trick should be awarded to E/W. > >I disagree with the ruling that E/W should be awarded a trick. I could >find a monkey at the zoo (or maybe one of David's cats) who could be >taught to select any one of the five cards from the North hand and any >one of the five cards from the South hand to comprise the next trick. >The monkey would get this situation right 24 times out of 25. If a >creature without bridge knowledge would go wrong only 4% of the time, >it's reasonable to assume that a bridge player might do somewhat better. >It seems to me that the threshhold for giving the claim disputers >protection ought to be higher than a one in twenty-five chance. > >I recognize that wherever the threshhold is drawn, it will be somewhat >arbitrary. All will likely agree that one chance in a thousand is too >small for protection, and that one chance is two clearly deserves >protection. I would like to see it placed about one time in six. > >Several top players with whom I have discussed this were reluctant to >propose where the threshhold should be drawn, but all agreed that >Kaplan's example should be below it (E/W not entitled to a trick). > >Comments? The monkey would go down 24% of the time: 4% of the time by attempting to ruff the C2 with the S2, and 20% of the time by ruffing one of dummy's cards high and leading the S2 next. Kaplan makes the case that the 4% random chance case doesn't qualify as irrational, while he accepts that the 20% chance does. Jon apparently agrees with the latter, since he doesn't consider it against his one-in-six threshold. What this says is that whatever the difference between careless and irrational play is, it's not a matter of the odds of getting it right by selecting cards 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 May 26 06:50:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:50:48 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21860 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 06:50:40 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA21862; Mon, 25 May 1998 23:51:02 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-135.access.net.il [192.116.204.135]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA12221; Mon, 25 May 1998 23:49:44 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3569DA60.7D5548C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 23:53:52 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> <35687FCF.CDB43133@internet-zahav.net> <3568BC50.3F0328CB@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Wayne Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > First for fun : > > > > I understand there is a well-known convention - > > Dbl = penalty ...... X = reopening/take out/ responsive ......... > > so e-w must digest there own bad agreement !!!!!!!! > > Sorry about the inconsistency. There is no real problem at the table as > using written bidding we are required to X not Dbl. > > > Now to work : > > It is a bridge judgment problem. > > > > TD - let the score stand . If east first dbl shows 16+ point > > then the second should show something more...... it means > > total penalty for me . > > > > AC - if appealed , as a member of that AC I still believe : > > a) there was irregularity (misinformation) > > b) e-w were damaged > > c) is any connection between the irregularity and damage ??? > > ......(a) if e-w good players , the AC should let the result stand > > ......(b) if e-w middle-down , the score will be 3Ddbl minus 2 > > > > Dany > > > > Please explain why you think that the score should stand (a) ? ========== IMHO - as a bridge player - I have no right even "to move my lips" but pass with my hand in West , before East's second double . As a reasonable player , after East's second dbl I know without any doubt that East's first Dbl was the "big hand Dbl." with a 4-3-3-3 (82% any suit 4 cards), otherwise he should bid his suit . I should pass it . Up to this point the TD should rule as quick as possible , in terms of his bridge judgment . ============= > > West not East is claiming misinformation - that he would double and East > could pass. > > East's double should have been takeout by partnership agreement so that > unless West makes a t/o double on this hand EW cannot penalize 2H. West > chose not to make a t/o double because of 2 small diamonds but that > would not have been a problem if he knew 2D was natural. ==========~~~~~~~~~~~~ As an AC member now - I"ll let the score stand if E-w good players because even if I should agree (and really I don't) there can be an agreement that West should bid after the second Dbl , there is no doubt , after East's 2NT , that he has a lot of high cards in both red suits ... This is why , for good players it is not important what was the explanation of 2D , West should bid 3NT. For less experienced players , I could accept that West was afraid to leave the dbl.Then I consider the scenario of what HAD TO happen there - West pass the dbl. and North would correct to 3D doubled by east - I think it will be 2 off. ===========~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hope it clarified my opinions and answered your request...... Friendly Dany > > > -- > > > Wayne Burrows > > > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > > > > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > > > http://www.juggle.org/wjd > > -- > Wayne Burrows > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 > http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 09:05:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:05:14 +1000 Received: from praseodumium.btinternet.com (praseodumium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA22239 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:05:03 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.28] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0ye6IJ-0005Lj-00; Tue, 26 May 1998 00:04:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: What are my options? Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 00:04:05 +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 At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my options?" Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. Do you believe that West actually has this option? More to the point, do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call and play for average minus? From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 10:25:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 10:25:56 +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 KAA22521 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 10:25:50 +1000 Received: from ptp79.ac.net (ptp79.ac.net [205.138.54.181]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA26500 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <356A046E.629F@ac.net> Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 19:53:18 -0400 From: Linda Weinstein Organization: Not! X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) References: <3.0.1.32.19980525145408.006e1ec8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I would second this with enthusiasm. At present the actions of the > screener, unlike that of the floor TD, consulting TDs, DIC or AC, are > entirely off the record. Yet the screener plays a key (if underrated) role > in the appeals process at ACBL NABCs, and can easily effect the outcome of > prospective appeals. > > Whatever bridge players may think of the relative values involved, it far > more behooves the ACBL, in a broader legal context, to make sure that their > process is open and a matter of record when they're imposing $50 fines -- > which many bridge players do consider "real money" -- than when the stakes > are mere glory and master points. IMHO, given the current system, it is probably correct that the screening Director's opinion not be included anywhere. Appeals Screening on a busy night is rather chaotic, and the Screening Director certainly isn't sitting around liesurely perusing and studying cases :-) He is also helping to manage and shuffle the people around, present cases, answer Committees questions regarding the application of laws, turn in score corrections quickly, maintaining proper paperwork and several other things I am probably forgetting at the moment. He also needs to be particularly careful to not really offer an opinion because by law, the final decision to appeal a ruling is an inalienable player right. This must be emphasized which removes a lot of 'weight' his opinion may have. He also must be careful to state his positon as a 'cop' (outlining the violation and stating the penalty) rather than as a 'judge / jury' (delivering an opinion). I do however, agree with you in principle. I would like to see a 'pre-appeal' Committee, that would perhaps include a Director, National Appeals Co-Chair (sorry Karen and Jon - you need more to do, right :-) ?), and a NAC Vice-Chairman. Now you have the 'cop' and the 'appellate court judge' and three opinions. This to me as an appelant would be more likely to make me pause and re-examine my position. This group should also encourage players to get an opinion when they think the case requires more consideration. This would also allow stricter enforcement of frivolous penalties. Two opinions of 'frivolous' and you are really nailed, as you probably should be. I like the idea of 'violation points' being considered now. (You get too many for abuse of process, and you are disclipined) What I would even like better (I know this is crazy) but... in this system if the pre-committee says you are out of your mind and you bring an appeal and the Committee again tells you were out of your mind, you should lose the right to use the appeals process (because you have abused it) for an amount of time - (and any partner you happen to be playing with while this is in effect). Then you will really think twice about timing your shots. i.e. - save it for when you really need it. (This might help pros too - ie. 'Hey, I really don't think we have such a hot case, let's not risk losing our rights') I am firmly convinced we have some folks who take their shot just-in-case in front of a Committee when they know in their heart they really have no case. Why not? No real penalty. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 11:14:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:14:46 +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 LAA22735 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:14:39 +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 UAA25521 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 20:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980525211512.0a7fcd1a@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 21:15:12 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:04 AM 5/26/98 +0100, David Burn wrote: >At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >"Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >options?" > >Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had >bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. My feeling is that the use of the stop card indicates that the 3H bid was inadvertant. If west was not aware she had bid 3H until the TD was called or her LHO brought it to her attention, I would let her change her call to 4H. Of course, this would require some explanations by the players at the table. I have pulled the wrong card from the bidding box (even before bidding boxes were common, I would occasionally name the wrong suit). My first reaction is always to attempt to conceal that I have noticed something is out of order. There's 'pause for thought' and now I'll have difficulty convincing anyone that my call was inadvertant or my attempt at correction was immediate. Anyway, I think the spirit of the Laws would be followed if the player who uses a skip card and then makes a bid which is not a skip bid were allowed to change her bid to the bid which everyone at the table probably knows she had obviously intended. As an aside, wouldn't most of you, if sitting north, ask west if she had intended 4H? When she then looked surprised or explained she had made a mistake by pulling the wrong card, wouldn't you have let her change her bid to 4H and gotten on with the game? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 11:16:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:16:36 +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 LAA22749 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:15:27 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:15:49 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:15:27 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hint by Defender 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 think you may be mixing the terms =22declarer=22 and =22declaring = side=22. I read the quote from the *ACTIVE ETHICS* pamphlet as saying that = either the (presumed) declarer or the (presumed) dummy can volunteer = information prior to the opening lead. (Remember that the distinction = between declarer and dummy isn=27t made until the opening lead is faced - = see =22Definitions=22 in TFLB) Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> =22Marvin L. French=22 26/05/98 5:48:23 >>> These passages come from the ACBL=27s PRINCIPLE OF FULL DISCLOSURE in its *ACTIVE ETHICS* pamphlet: =22Full disclosure requires that all...inferences, restrictions, and tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about style.=22 In other words, you have to ask. That doesn=27t seem right somehow. And then comes this: =22The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made.=22 So, disclosure in the absence of questioning is not only voluntary, but can only be made by declarer. That doesn=27t seem right, either.=20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 13:24:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 13:24:49 +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 NAA23081 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 13:24:42 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb122.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.122]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA31489 for ; Mon, 25 May 1998 23:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980525232502.0074b13c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 23:25:02 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980525163316.006e41dc@pop.cais.com> References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:33 PM 5/25/98 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 11:18 AM 5/23/98 -0700, jonbriss wrote: > >>Edgar Kaplan wrote in his "Ruling the Game" pamphlet many years ago >>about interpretation of the terms careless or irrational. He gave an >>example: >> S - void >> H - 32 >> D - 32 >> C - 2 >>S - 3 S - void >>H - 54 H - 76 >>D - 54 D - 76 >>C - void C - 3 >> S - AKQJ2 >> H - void >> D - void >> C - void >> >>Spades are trumps, and South claims. Kaplan said that if the lead was >>in the South hand, all tricks are awarded to South. However, if the >>lead was in the North hand, a careless declarer could lead the club >>deuce and ruff with the spade deuce, subjecting himself to an overruff, >>and thus one trick should be awarded to E/W. >> >>I disagree with the ruling that E/W should be awarded a trick. I could >>find a monkey at the zoo (or maybe one of David's cats) who could be >>taught to select any one of the five cards from the North hand and any >>one of the five cards from the South hand to comprise the next trick. >>The monkey would get this situation right 24 times out of 25. If a >>creature without bridge knowledge would go wrong only 4% of the time, >>it's reasonable to assume that a bridge player might do somewhat better. >>It seems to me that the threshhold for giving the claim disputers >>protection ought to be higher than a one in twenty-five chance. >> >>I recognize that wherever the threshhold is drawn, it will be somewhat >>arbitrary. All will likely agree that one chance in a thousand is too >>small for protection, and that one chance is two clearly deserves >>protection. I would like to see it placed about one time in six. >> >>Several top players with whom I have discussed this were reluctant to >>propose where the threshhold should be drawn, but all agreed that >>Kaplan's example should be below it (E/W not entitled to a trick). >> >>Comments? > >The monkey would go down 24% of the time: 4% of the time by attempting to >ruff the C2 with the S2, and 20% of the time by ruffing one of dummy's >cards high and leading the S2 next. Kaplan makes the case that the 4% >random chance case doesn't qualify as irrational, while he accepts that the >20% chance does. Jon apparently agrees with the latter, since he doesn't >consider it against his one-in-six threshold. > >What this says is that whatever the difference between careless and >irrational play is, it's not a matter of the odds of getting it right by >selecting cards at random. > Precisely the point. It is perhaps even clearer if we consider the case in which dummy holds _only_ clubs, so that the odds of failing are 20% whether we start in the open or closed hand. But as Eric points out, that calculation is only meaningful if we are conflating "random" play with "careless" play. Whether you agree or disagree with his analysis, Kaplan's argument is that in playing first from the closed hand, it would require a deliberate effort of will to play the deuce first. Since there is clearly no advantage to it, such a play would be irrational. OTOH, ruffing with the deuce after leading a club from dummy also requires an act of will, although certainly not a very demanding one. It is more natural to ruff with the lowest of trumps, and a player who believed that all trumps were drawn could plausibly make this error. Obviously it is technically inferior to trump low, and many fairly mediocre players would trump high without much pause for reflection, even if they had forgotten the missing trump. But trumping high does require at least a tacit awareness of the risk of an overruff, and a player who was blind to that possibility (as we assume the declarer to be in the absence of a clear and complete claim) might make such a careless error. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 15:34:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA23754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 15:34:51 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 PAA23749 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 15:34:44 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA23558; Mon, 25 May 1998 22:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805260533.WAA23558@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Simon Edler" , Subject: Re: Hint by Defender Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 22:30:23 -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 Simon Edler wrote: > > I think you may be mixing the terms "declarer" and "declaring side". I read the quote from the *ACTIVE ETHICS* pamphlet as saying that either the (presumed) declarer or the (presumed) dummy can volunteer information prior to the opening lead. (Remember that the distinction between declarer and dummy isn't made until the opening lead is faced - see "Definitions" in TFLB) > > >>> "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > These passages come from the ACBL's PRINCIPLE OF FULL DISCLOSURE in > its *ACTIVE ETHICS* pamphlet: > > "Full disclosure requires that all...inferences, restrictions, and > tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about style." > > In other words, you have to ask. That doesn't seem right somehow. And > then comes this: > > "The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically > required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, > the declaring side will volunteer such information before the opening > lead is made." > > So, disclosure in the absence of questioning is not only voluntary, > but can only be made by declarer. That doesn't seem right, either. > > Right, "declarer" should have been "declaring side" in that last part. It is better form, I think, for declarer--excuse me, the presumed declarer--to supply information concerning calls the presumed dummy has made, and vice-versa. This avoids the awkward situation that can arise when a player gives accurate partnership agreements about his/her own calls, and his/her hand does not fit that information well. For instance, a presumed declarer informs the presumed defenders that his weak two bid could be based on a weak five-card suit, and the actual suit is a strong six-carder. Not good, but all partnerships agreements about the weak two bid should be disclosed. Ergo, let the presumed dummy do it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 17:16:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA23949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 17:16:49 +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 RAA23944 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 17:16:42 +1000 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:16:42 +1000 Received: (qmail 19949 invoked from network); 26 May 1998 07:17:30 -0000 Received: from pm02-d102.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.102) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 26 May 1998 07:17:30 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980526021657.36f71278@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: Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: SPLIT SCORE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Think we got it a little bit easier to read it when we can see the hand and bidding, :) Hi all, I'm Vice Chairman of the German National Laws Comittee and I encounter a rather interesting question in a case we have to decide on: 97 Dealer E/E-W, IMPs, Screens are used KJ76 J952 J95 KQ832 54 * 3D was alerted on the N/E side of A842 T7 the screen and explained as take AT 73 out double (Fishbein). S didn't alert Q4 AKT7632 his screenmate and thought that 3D AJT6 was natural. Convention card says Q53 it's Fishbein KQ864 8 East South West North 3C 3D* 3NT 4H p p 4Sp all p W went down 4 in 4S. Director maintained the score as did the appeals committee. W claims that he has been damaged by the non-alert of the 3D bid. Director and committee deemed that the 4S bid(or at least East's pass on the 4S bid by his partner) was wild, gambling action, therefore forfeiting the right to obtain an adjusted score. W claims that he bid 4S in believing that 4H X would go 2 off at most and that N had a real H suit for his bid (facing a diamond one-suiter) and probably a diamond fit. E may now take 4S out into 5C with a misfit or pass 4S with 3 cards in S. Appeals committee deemed that W needs better S for his bid and that he got mad on this one; and E could not pass as his partner denied a 6 card S suit (he would have bid 3S instead of 3NT). W objects that with 6S and 9 tricks he still bids 3NT in IMPS because he doesn't want to create problems for his partner. More: E got the right explanation, so he thinks that W bid 4S knowing that S won't break (because of the take out double), so he must have solid S. If he had known that S showed D, he would have understood that 4S wanted to give him a choice of contracts. W argues further that even if he would be forced to play in 4S, he would only go 3 down, he misplayed the hand because he didn't think that trumps split so bad, because of the misinformation he played for a 3-3 split. 1) What do you think of W's arguments? We still deem that 4S is wild action, and that W needs at least better S spots to let this bid enter into consideration. For sake of information, in a earlier ruling, we precised "wild or gambling action" as follows: "Wild or gambling action is an action that: less than 5% of all players with comparable Bridge ability would have chosen and among the remaining (at least) 95% of all players of comparable capability all of them would have eliminated it after consideration, because it goes against Bridge logic and has only disadvantages of heavy weight" 2) What score do you give? Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X - 2 for N/S The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the damage is no longer consequent to the irregularity but subsequent. Then the conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you CAN'T apply Law 12 C 2 as this Law only allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law 12 needs another Law who says that Law 12 applies. And as the conditions of Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there is no such law... You may think this is harsh reasoning, perhaps you can give me arguments why this should not be so. Many colleagues think it is not possible to let the offending side profit of the error of the non-offending side as this error would never have come up without the irregularity committed by the offending side (hypothetical causality!). So that the offending side must never profit from an opponent's wild action after an irregularity committed by the other side. So split scores only applie when the "likely" and the "at all probable" score are not the same and in no other situation... GRATTAN??? What do you think of this one? In your commentary, all examples concerning wild or gambling action (see ex. 12 B, D) maintain the score throughout so I come to think that you agree with me. 3) If you decide that you are not allowed to give a split score on this one, are you then allowed to circumvent the spirit of this by giving a procedural penalty that is so heavy that it takes away to N/S the benefit of the wild action of W? Should one do so? 4) If not, do you give a PP for the lack of alert having indirectly caused damage to the non-offending side? I would be pleased to have opinions on those questions who are - at least I believe it - of general interest. It seems very important to me that Directors agree on this frequent problem! Sincerily yours Mallory Voelker From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 17:37:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 17:37:25 +1000 Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA24009 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 17:37:19 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.171] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yeEIU-00006v-00; Tue, 26 May 1998 08:37:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bd8878$fc794160$ab2d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: What are my options? Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:36:23 +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 >At 12:04 AM 5/26/98 +0100, David Burn wrote: >>At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >>"Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >>options?" >> >>Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had >>bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. > >My feeling is that the use of the stop card indicates that the 3H bid was >inadvertant. If west was not aware she had bid 3H until the TD was called >or her LHO brought it to her attention, I would let her change her call to >4H. Of course, this would require some explanations by the players at the >table. > Sorry - I should perhaps have added that the TD established that West had "intended" to bid 3H, thinking it to be a jump raise. Thus, there was no question of her being allowed to change an inadvertent call under L25A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 17:57:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 17:57:32 +1000 Received: from mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de (mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA24055 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 17:57:22 +1000 Received: from colorlab.brain.uni-freiburg.de ([132.230.63.114]) [132.230.63.114] by mailgateway1.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yeEca-0006HB-00; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:58:08 +0200 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199805251748.TAA28918@mail2.rmcnet.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:03:08 +0200 To: "Mallory Voelker" From: Ralf Teichmann Subject: Re: SPLIT SCORE Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Mallory, nice to read from you here at blml. At the table (as TD) I would have set the score to 4Hx -2 (-500). West's action may be considered as wild and gambling but it is, however, based on misinformation. So I rule in favour of the NO side. At the AC you may convince me that 4S was too much of a gamble, and that the score should be reverted to 4S -4 (+400). No split score. bye, Ralf ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) :-O O-: (-; (-; (-; (-; (-; (-; (-; Ralf Teichmann Phone: +49 (0)761 / 203-9583 Fax: +49 (0)761 / 203-9500 Inst. of Biophysics and e mail: teichman@sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de Radiation Biology - Brain Research Unit- Hansastrasse 9 D-79104 Freiburg, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 20:08:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 20:08:15 +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 UAA24295 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 20:08:10 +1000 Received: from Default (jkamras.cts.com [205.163.7.249]) by mh2.cts.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA02079 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 03:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 03:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805261009.DAA02079@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: Weekend Misinformation (2) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert wrote: >West could have asked to protect her/himself but East NEVER got this chance >without creating UI and risking to wake up South. We can never tell what >would have happen with East if 2H have been alerted. eventually she/he >would have raised Sp on Qx. NOS are damaged with the failure and than i >think ruling 2Sp making is pretty fair, NOT because West was feeling she/he >was damage but East Never got a chance to know 2H was non forcing. But N then has a 3D bid which is at least as obvious as E's eventual 2S bid thus, if on the AC, I'd never let EW play 2S. Either result stands or NS play 3D. Depending on SO, a PP for failure to alert could be considered. PS: EW apparently claimed that WEST could have bid 2S, thus THIS E probably didn't consider it! From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 21:58:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:58:55 +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 VAA24484 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:58:48 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-152.uunet.be [194.7.14.152]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09098 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 13:59:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356A7D40.ADCE9808@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:28:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What are my options? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West > "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > options?" > > Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had > bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said > partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game > was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to > change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. > > Do you believe that West actually has this option? More to the point, > do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call > and play for average minus? There was no mention of 25A ? I would certainly believe west if she said that she intended to bid 4H, so took the stop, and then misbid 3H. If this is not the case, then I think it should be only natural that the TD offers west to use L25B2b2, since a player who is polite enough to ask a director before bidding twice should not suffer a fate worse than someone who gives two calls without calling the TD. But that's just my opinion. Judging by past record, it will be shot, quartered and banished to the south pacific just because I offered it. Sorry to be a bit sceptical. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 21:58:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:58:54 +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 VAA24480 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:58:47 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-152.uunet.be [194.7.14.152]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09079 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 13:59:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356A7A78.1BE8BE74@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:16:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Hint by Defender X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199805251950.MAA13172@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > > Incidentally, as with most volunteer programs, there seems to be a > shortage of volunteers for ACTIVE ETHICS. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) While I agree with Marv (not for the first time either, he Marv) in his suggestion that this might actively help declarer, and while I commend his ethics, this does present one problem : This action should not be done too many times; I would not recommend it in cases like 'We sometimes open weak two's on five cards' and such. So we are left with a decision by a player as to when to do this. That is not at all interesting. Rather, I would expect declarer, when tackling a count of the hand, to also know that 1S can be stepped over and still be non-alertable, to ask defenders whether or not they play this. Suppose the declarer does get it wrong, and the TD is called, would he not rule in this manner ? So although I agree with Marv in principle, I believe even this example is not good enough to prove his point. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 21:58:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:58:52 +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 VAA24479 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:58:45 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-152.uunet.be [194.7.14.152]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA09090 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 13:59:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356A7B60.4207F26D@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:20:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980522083459.006e8670@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525161111.006e42f4@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > We must be getting tired of this thread -- we seem to have forgotten what > it was about. > > In the situation Herman cites as an example, it probably is best to decide > what you think your partnership agreement most likely is, and to offer a > single explanation without expressing doubt. > Exactly my point. > But this situation has nothing to do with the one we've been discussing. > In the problematic case, partner has already offered an explanation of your > own bid which is inconsistent with your understanding at the time you made > it, and you are thus confronted not with a situation in which you worry > that partner's understanding may not coincide with your own, but rather one > in which you know for certain that it doesn't. > Read the subject, read the first post, and you will see that I was deliberately putting one step back to deal a simpler problem than the one we had been discussing at length. While I understood that the hard problem presented some almost unsolvable problems, and while I understood that Ther were opposing points of view with merit, I was completely baffled when I was apparently alone on a very simple point. Allow me therefor to once more quote Eric in summing up my point in this separate thread : "it probably is best to decide what you think your partnership agreement most likely is, and to offer a single explanation without expressing doubt." > The difference is between concealing doubts about information offered as > true and offering information known not to be true. > And we will get back on that one later. Much later. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 22:08:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 22:08:16 +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 WAA24522 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 22:08:10 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA16101 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 12:08:47 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526081116.006dd33c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:11:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) In-Reply-To: <3567E6E8.550AC67C@xtra.co.nz> References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> <3567E2B2.4EDF95BB@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:22 PM 5/24/98 +1200, wayne wrote: >My opinion is that West is in possession of conflicting information (1) >that 2H is unalerted and therefore forcing and (2) that South has just >passed 2H and therefore (perhaps) 2H was non-forcing, and therefore West >should protect herself by asking about the 2H bid. Coincidently the >auction developed in precisely the same way at my table (including the >non-alert) and before calling in the West seat I enquired about 2H, >found it was non-forcing, made a takeout double and eventually defended >3D. > >Does west have the right to take this double shot, pass now to see if >that works out well and if not get an adjustment to 2S? I agree with Wayne; I would not have allowed the adjustment to stand. West must take reasonable, if minimal, measures to find out what's going on before he can claim to have been misinformed. When South passes he should know that it's at least as likely that North forgot to alert than that South had a sudden mental aberration and passed a forcing bid, and should ask. It does sound like West was intentionally going for the double shot, but it isn't necessary to find this in order not to rule in his favor. 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 May 26 22:36:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 22:36:34 +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 WAA24581 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 22:36:29 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA16463 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 12:37:04 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526083934.006e79dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:39:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) In-Reply-To: <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> References: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:25 PM 5/24/98 +1200, wayne wrote: >Session 1 >Brd 11 K542 >Nil Vul 643 >Dealer S 9754 > J2 >J963 AT >Q95 AJT8 >T2 KQJ >QT75 K963 > Q87 > K72 > A863 > A84 > >W N E S > 1NT >P P Dbl P >P 2D* P 2H >P P X P >2S P 2NT P >P P > >Dbl was penalties 16+ pts >2D was alerted and before West's third pass explained as a transfer to >hearts ( an initial 2D response would have been the start of a Game >Force relay not a transfer). This was not the correct agreement. The >correct agreement was that 2D was natural. > >The contract made 10 tricks. > >At the end of play West called the director and claimed that his third >pass was based on misinformation and that had he been told that 2D was >natural he would have made a takeout double which East could leave in >for penalties. I don't follow West's case here. He claims that if he knew 2D was natural he would have doubled 2H. Is he saying that he would be more likely to make a takeout double of hearts if he knew it wasn't the opponents' suit? Or is he saying that a double of 2H would be takeout of diamonds? I'm not inclined to believe either of these. East, I think, could make a case that had he known what was going on (if, for example, he had been screenmate to North) he would have passed 2H. Had that been E-W's claim, I might have favored adjusting the score to 2H -4. >The director ruled that the table result stood. The hand went to appeal >and the committee upheld the directors decision. In their ruling the >committee commented that N/S would get to 3D which would be -2 (compared >with 2H -4) this score was only 1 matchpoint (1/2 mp US) better than 180 >in 2NT so they would not change the score. The AC's ruling may have been right, but their reasoning is entirely inappropriate. E-W are either entitled to an adjustment or they aren't. The number of matchpoints the adjustment would be worth should not affect their decision; indeed, ideally they shouldn't even know the potential effect of their decision on the score. 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 May 26 22:50:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 22:50:23 +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 WAA24624 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 22:50:18 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA16729 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 12:50:56 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526085325.006e60cc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 08:53:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Hint by Defender In-Reply-To: <35687652.21909426@internet-zahav.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:34 PM 5/24/98 +0300, Dany wrote: >I think Marv's idea is right , but it should be implemented >in a "non contradictory to laws" way . IMHO this agreement >should appear on the CC (alertable or not , isn't relevant !!!). >And it should be included in the system basic description or >pre alert explanations when sitting at a table . Any other >way - hint , under table kick or whatever - isn't a proper manner. I don't see Marv's suggestion as either improper or contradictory to the laws. The laws may set minimum standards for full disclosure, but it is hardly contrary to the laws to exceed those minimum standards. Marv's "You might want to ask about our auction" is exactly what the philosophy of active ethics calls for -- going beyond what the laws minimally require in order to make sure that your opponents really do get all the information to which they are entitled, even if they neglect to follow the proper procedure for obtaining 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 Tue May 26 23:18:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:18:55 +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 XAA24705 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:18:49 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA17342 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 13:19:27 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 09:21:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:38 AM 5/25/98 +1000, Reg wrote: >EW are a casual partnership. South opens 1C, and West bids 2C. North asks, >and East says "We have no agreement'. North calls the TD. Where to from here? The TD (or even North, before calling the TD) should ask East whether E-W has any agreement that might be relevant to his interpretation of West's bid. >Does East's "We have no agreement" mean "We have no agreement about this >being a conventional bid, so it must be natural"? Or does it mean "We have >no agreement, so we'll all have to guess what West means"? If the first, >then NS may have a case for damage if the 2C is not natural. If the latter, >then the hand boils down to a guessing game. One suspects the latter in this case, but that's why the first order of business should be to ask East to elaborate on the meaning of "We have no agreement". If he intended the former, he might say something like "We did say that bids we haven't discussed are assumed to be natural", which would go a long way towards getting things back on track. >West may of course think that they do have an agreement. Should the TD send >East from the table so that West may explain to NS what he thinks the >agreement is. And if West agrees there was no agreemnt, where to from here? No. But perhaps the TD should take West away from the table so West can explain to the TD what he thinks the agreement is. If the TD is convinced that there really is no relevant agreement, i.e. that both East and West are as much in the dark as to the meaning of 2C as are North and South, then full disclosure has been satisfied; there has been no infraction and thus no cause for adjustment. The laws do *not* require a partnership to have an agreed meaning for every bid, nor do they forbid a player from making a bid for which no meaning has been agreed. So both sides must proceed based on their respective "general knowledge and experience". A bridge hand can easily "boil down to a guessing game" for any of a wide variety of legitimate reasons. This is one of them. 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 May 26 23:20:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:20:49 +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 XAA24727 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:20:04 +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 OAA03583 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 14:20:29 +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 OAA24558 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 14:20:28 +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 OAA08776 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 14:20:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 26 May 98 14:20:26 BST Message-Id: <3116.9805261320@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What are my options? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > David Burn wrote: > > > > At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West > > "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > > options?" > > > > Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had > > bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said > > partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game > > was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to > > change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. > > > > Do you believe that West actually has this option? More to the point, > > do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call > > and play for average minus? > > There was no mention of 25A ? David deals with 25A in another email. > If this is not the case, then I think it should be only natural that the > TD offers west to use L25B2b2, since a player who is polite enough to > ask a director before bidding twice should not suffer a fate worse than > someone who gives two calls without calling the TD. I wonder what would happen if you offer L25B: W: "Stop - 3H" W: "Oops! Director please," (waits) W: "Director, this is what happened [the aution]. What are my options?" TD: "Let me read you L25B," (reads) "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when ..." N: (interupts) "Pass" TD: "Oh. Now you (West) have no options." 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 May 26 23:21:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:21:19 +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 XAA24740 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:21:11 +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 JAA08032 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA05448; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 09:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805261322.JAA05448@freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >At 09:22 PM 5/24/98 +1200, wayne wrote: > >>My opinion is that West is in possession of conflicting information (1) >>that 2H is unalerted and therefore forcing and (2) that South has just >>passed 2H and therefore (perhaps) 2H was non-forcing, and therefore West >>should protect herself by asking about the 2H bid. Coincidently the >>auction developed in precisely the same way at my table (including the >>non-alert) and before calling in the West seat I enquired about 2H, >>found it was non-forcing, made a takeout double and eventually defended >>3D. >> >>Does west have the right to take this double shot, pass now to see if >>that works out well and if not get an adjustment to 2S? > >I agree with Wayne; I would not have allowed the adjustment to stand. West >must take reasonable, if minimal, measures to find out what's going on >before he can claim to have been misinformed. When South passes he should >know that it's at least as likely that North forgot to alert than that >South had a sudden mental aberration and passed a forcing bid, and should >ask. It does sound like West was intentionally going for the double shot, >but it isn't necessary to find this in order not to rule in his favor. > > >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 > Here is one where the ACBL may have even got it right. From the alerting regs: *In all Alert situations, tournament directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter of the law. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. ... Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. [ACBL Alert procedure, p.1&2] From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 26 23:34:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:34:31 +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 XAA24805 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 23:34:25 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA17701 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 13:34:56 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526093726.006e695c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 09:37:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: List usage In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980525003055.394f7fc0@maine.rr.com> References: <000d01bd876f$ef477840$4a1337a6@uymfdlvk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:30 AM 5/25/98, Tim wrote: >At 04:59 PM 5/24/98 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: >>Hirsh wrote: >> >>I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but >>not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that >>this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list >>messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the >>message. >> >> >> >> And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? >> >> Chris >> >>Attachment Converted: "C:\DOCS\BRIDGE\SALLY\Listusag.htm" > >At least I only have to delete something when I reply to all. When Chris >sends something I have to delete his attachment even if I don't want to >reply. How about not including attachments on BLML? What happens when you hit your "Reply" button isn't entirely up to Markus; it also depends on how you have configured your own mail software. I don't really care whether the message comes with the list address in the "Reply-to" header; I can manage whatever we decide with my own software. We should, however, agree on two points of common net courtesy: (1) Since this is a discussion list, anything you want others to read should be in the body of the message, not in an attachment. Attachments should only be sent by pre-arrangement to recipients who know they're coming and want them. They're for things like "If you're really interested, I'll send you my random number program...", and shouldn't be used for text. (2) When you are replying to a message, you should reply either publically (by sending the reply to the list) or privately (by sending your reply to the sender of the message to which you are replying). There is never any reason to do both; it merely wastes bandwidth and results in the original sender seeing the reply twice. 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 May 27 00:06:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:06:46 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24894 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:06:40 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA29681 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 10:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02157; Tue, 26 May 1998 10:07:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:07:39 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805261407.KAA02157@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jon C. Brissman" > I recognize that wherever the threshhold is drawn, it will be somewhat > arbitrary. All will likely agree that one chance in a thousand is too > small for protection, and that one chance is two clearly deserves > protection. I would like to see it placed about one time in six. This intent is quite reasonable; it corresponds to the "at all probable" language of L12C2. Unfortunately, this is not what L70 says today. I suspect the reason has to do with the tradeoff between fairness and simplicity. If you can find even one rational line of play on which the claim fails, then it fails. There is no need to evaluate murky probabilities. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 00:30:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:30:17 +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 AAA27185 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:30:11 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA19310 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 14:30:49 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526103319.006e84e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:33:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:04 AM 5/26/98 +0100, David wrote: >At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >"Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >options?" > >Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had >bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said >partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game >was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to >change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. > >Do you believe that West actually has this option? More to the point, >do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call >and play for average minus? Yes, and yes. I don't care for it; I would like to see L25 rewritten, but that is what it says. 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 May 27 00:32:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:32:39 +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 AAA27201 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:32:33 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA09945 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:32:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009941; Tue May 26 09:32:55 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8891.7292CA20@har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 26 May 1998 10:31:31 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8891.7292CA20@har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: List usage Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:31:22 -0400 Encoding: 88 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It would be better, I think, if a reply to all or reply to group would send message only to the list. Many of us (this writer included) often forget to delete other names in a reply and the original author then has the nuisance of getting two copies. Would it be difficult to do this? An individual reply should certainly NOT go to the group, so a reply to sender should not bring up the group address ideally. Since we are hoping for discussion based on bridge interest and knowledge rather than technical computer skills, it would be best to adopt the KISS (keep it simple stupid) approach and make it easy for relative computer novices to click just once to reach the list with a reply. I leave it to those of you more versed in the mechanics to consider what set up makes this goal most attainable. Craig ---------- From: Markus Buchhorn[SMTP:markus@acsys.anu.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 8:37 PM To: Chris Pisarra; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: List usage At 16:59 24/05/98 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: >>>> Hirsh wrote: I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the message. And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? Chris This comes up every now and then. The issue seems to split the list into two camps, those in favour (for the reasons listed above) and those against - some worried about the increased risk of mail explosions due to email errors, and some worried about the inverse behaviour of accidentally sending personal mail to the list. Most of this latter camp point to the "reply-to-all" button featured in most/all mailreaders. The last time I polled this it was about 2:1 in favour of the current behaviour. However, the voter turnout was around 5% (yes - five percent, around 10 people). I'm happy to support either, and have had offers of extra list admins to monitor (and block) the list for explosions 24 hrs a day (the joys of a global membership), so we can tick off that concern. The rest is personal preference AFAICS. Time for another poll ? Any other issues people see ? Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 00:52:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:52:13 +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 AAA27327 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:52:08 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA12029 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 09:52:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.36) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012024; Tue May 26 09:52:24 1998 Received: by har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8894.2AC78CA0@har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 26 May 1998 10:50:59 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8894.2AC78CA0@har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: List usage Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 10:50:57 -0400 Encoding: 46 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Amen to this, when possible. I believe a few of our group must pay by the minute for connect time and must for economic reasons compose replies offline and attach. It appears that certain areas of the world preclude sending straight text. Vitold and Dany, both very friendly and pleasant individuals do not seem able to do so. For the rest of us, we should try to avoid attachments to the list as a whole. This is also a courtesy to those who must download them needlessly while paying connect charges. Perhaps one of our more technically expert people might be willing to communicate via email with anyone using attachments to explain how to communicate in a text mode? ---------- From: Tim Goodwin[SMTP:timg@maine.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 8:30 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: List usage At 04:59 PM 5/24/98 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: >Hirsh wrote: > >I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but >not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that >this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list >messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the >message. > > > > And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? > > Chris > >Attachment Converted: "C:\DOCS\BRIDGE\SALLY\Listusag.htm" At least I only have to delete something when I reply to all. When Chris sends something I have to delete his attachment even if I don't want to reply. How about not including attachments on BLML? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 01:04:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 01:04:56 +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 BAA27373 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 01:04:33 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA20168 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 15:05:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526110732.006e4af8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:07:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) In-Reply-To: <356A046E.629F@ac.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19980525145408.006e1ec8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:53 PM 5/25/98 -0400, Linda wrote: >IMHO, given the current system, it is probably correct that the >screening Director's opinion not be included anywhere. Appeals >Screening on a busy night is rather chaotic, and the Screening Director >certainly isn't sitting around liesurely perusing and studying cases >:-) He is also helping to manage and shuffle the people around, present >cases, answer Committees questions regarding the application of laws, >turn in score corrections quickly, maintaining proper paperwork and >several other things I am probably forgetting at the moment. He also >needs to be particularly careful to not really offer an opinion because >by law, the final decision to appeal a ruling is an inalienable player >right. This must be emphasized which removes a lot of 'weight' his >opinion may have. He also must be careful to state his positon as a >'cop' (outlining the violation and stating the penalty) rather than as a >'judge / jury' (delivering an opinion). The supposed reason for having screeners is to provide help and guidance to players who may not know enough about the rules to figure out whether an appeal they are contemplating is meritorious and should be brought. I don't see how a screener can do his job if he is "particularly careful to not really offer an opinion". If the screener believes that the player's appeal has sufficient potential merit to proceed, he should go on the record with his opinion, and his doing so should protect the player absolutely from being fined for a frivolous appeal. After all, if the AC does decide that the appeal is frivolous, no action will be taken against the screener! That means that if the SO permits them to fine the player $50 for bringing the appeal, that is nothing less than holding players to a higher standard of knowledge of the laws than that to which they hold their screeners, who are TDS who get paid for their knowledge of the laws. Try explaining to an LOL in tears (or a real-life (not bridge) lawyer threatening to sue to get her $50 back) why she just got fined $50 for bringing an appeal that a Director employed by the tournament told her was OK. In real life, the screener's overt, albeit unofficial and perhaps unacknowledged, objective is to keep the AC's workload to a minimum. In practice, screeners are much more likely to wind up discouraging appeals that have merit than encouraging appeals that don't. Which is all the more reason why, if the screener is willing to opine officially that the appeal should go forward, the player should be protected. 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 May 27 01:07:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 01:07:36 +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 BAA27406 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 01:07:29 +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 LAA31851 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02249; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:08:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:08:28 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805261508.LAA02249@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What are my options? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > I wonder what would happen if you offer L25B: > > W: "Stop - 3H" > W: "Oops! Director please," (waits) > W: "Director, this is what happened [the aution]. What are my options?" > TD: "Let me read you L25B," (reads) > "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when ..." > N: (interupts) "Pass" > TD: "Oh. Now you (West) have no options." This is called "the race." It adds a whole new dimension to the game of bridge. :-( Of course in the above, North may receive a PP for violation of L9B2, and the TD could adjust the score under L72B1 or even L12A1, but if North manages to pass _before_ the TD is called, I think West is out of luck. Absent the above, I think L9B1c (Retention of Rights) applies. Why in the world wouldn't L25B be available? There was room for argument under the 1987 Laws, but how can there be any doubt now? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 01:16:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 01:16:54 +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 BAA27458 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 01:16:45 +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 LAA31297 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02262; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:17:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:17:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805261517.LAA02262@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: SPLIT SCORE X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robert Nordgren > Think we got it a little bit easier to read it when we can see the hand and > bidding, :) Thanks! >From Mallory Voelker: > 2) What score do you give? > Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X - 2 > for N/S > The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the > damage is no longer consequent to the irregularity but subsequent. Then the > conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you CAN'T apply Law 12 C 2 > as this Law only > allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law > 12 needs another Law who says that Law 12 applies. And as the conditions of > Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there is no such law... This seems to be a case for Kaplan's dictum: if you cannot do what you want under one Law, find a different Law. It looks to me as though L40B or L21B3 or even L75A or L75C will do just fine. I would have thought a split score would be the normal action under the facts the AC found (misinformation followed by wild and gambling action by the NOS). Isn't there usually an automatic PP (0.5 or 1 VP or so) for giving different explanations on the two sides of the screen? This seems an ordinary enough auction, so if the screen regulations provide such a penalty, I wouldn't hesitate to apply it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 02:05:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 02:05:01 +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 CAA27843 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 02:04:55 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA21748 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 16:05:33 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526120804.006ee22c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 12:08:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <3116.9805261320@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:20 PM 5/26/98 BST, Robin wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> If this is not the case, then I think it should be only natural that the >> TD offers west to use L25B2b2, since a player who is polite enough to >> ask a director before bidding twice should not suffer a fate worse than >> someone who gives two calls without calling the TD. Clearly correct, and required by L9B1(c). The player calling the TD cannot have his rights subsequently compromised by an action taken by LHO. >I wonder what would happen if you offer L25B: > >W: "Stop - 3H" >W: "Oops! Director please," (waits) >W: "Director, this is what happened [the aution]. What are my options?" >TD: "Let me read you L25B," (reads) > "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when ..." >N: (interupts) "Pass" >TD: "Oh. Now you (West) have no options." That last statement would be a serious error by the TD. North's interruption is an obvious violation of L9B2; it is cancelled, and subject to being treated as an "extraneous... remark" under L16A. 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 May 27 02:18:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 02:18:16 +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 CAA27881 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 02:18:09 +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 LAA16632 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 11:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980526121540.2a275e4e@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 12:15:40 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:21 AM 5/26/98 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >If the TD is convinced that there really is no relevant agreement, i.e. >that both East and West are as much in the dark as to the meaning of 2C as >are North and South, then full disclosure has been satisfied; there has >been no infraction and thus no cause for adjustment. The laws do *not* >require a partnership to have an agreed meaning for every bid, nor do they >forbid a player from making a bid for which no meaning has been agreed. So >both sides must proceed based on their respective "general knowledge and >experience". > >A bridge hand can easily "boil down to a guessing game" for any of a wide >variety of legitimate reasons. This is one of them. Suppose the auction starts 1C-2C and a querry is made. Intervenor's partner says "we have no agreement." The TD is called, takes intervenor away from the table and learns that 2C was intended as Michaels. There may well have been no mention of this cue-bid in the partnership's limited system discussions. But, in my opinion, the use of a convention presumes partner will understand. If partner is presumed to understand, there is some sort of (implied) agreement and this agreement should be disclosed to the opponents. Suppose a partnership agrees that when the opponents have no agreement, they treat the bid as natural. So that after 1C-2C (undiscussed/no agreement) the partnership does not use some sort of unusual v unusual defense. Have they put themselves at some sort of disadvatage since they cannot argue that they were not sure what defense to use? Is it better to wing it and then complain to a director if the undiscussed bid caused problems? (Better from a bridge lawyer standpoint, anyway.) Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 03:28:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 03:28:22 +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 DAA28092 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 03:28:13 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA23594 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 17:28:51 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526133121.00695538@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 13:31:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980526121540.2a275e4e@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:15 PM 5/26/98, Tim wrote: >At 09:21 AM 5/26/98 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>If the TD is convinced that there really is no relevant agreement, i.e. >>that both East and West are as much in the dark as to the meaning of 2C as >>are North and South, then full disclosure has been satisfied; there has >>been no infraction and thus no cause for adjustment. The laws do *not* >>require a partnership to have an agreed meaning for every bid, nor do they >>forbid a player from making a bid for which no meaning has been agreed. So >>both sides must proceed based on their respective "general knowledge and >>experience". >> >>A bridge hand can easily "boil down to a guessing game" for any of a wide >>variety of legitimate reasons. This is one of them. > >Suppose the auction starts 1C-2C and a querry is made. Intervenor's >partner says "we have no agreement." The TD is called, takes intervenor >away from the table and learns that 2C was intended as Michaels. There may >well have been no mention of this cue-bid in the partnership's limited >system discussions. But, in my opinion, the use of a convention presumes >partner will understand. If partner is presumed to understand, there is >some sort of (implied) agreement and this agreement should be disclosed to >the opponents. If the subsequent action by the intervenor's partner is consistent with his having interpreted 2C as Michaels, there is a prima facie case for MI -- his interpretation may well have been based on *some* agreement (e.g. they have agreed to play Michaels in the majors but haven't discussed the minors) that should have been disclosed. He is free to argue that he simply took a random guess at the meaning of 2C and got lucky, but a TD/AC would be required to consider that statement as "self-serving" (possibly true, but not to be taken at face value without some further reason to do so). But if his further actions suggest that he had some other interpretation in mind -- or even that he was doing his best to cover multiple possible interpretations, possibly including Michaels among them, rather than simply responding to Michaels -- then why should his opponents be entitled to information which does not reflect an actual agreement and which he himself does not possess? >Suppose a partnership agrees that when the opponents have no agreement, >they treat the bid as natural. So that after 1C-2C (undiscussed/no >agreement) the partnership does not use some sort of unusual v unusual >defense. Have they put themselves at some sort of disadvatage since they >cannot argue that they were not sure what defense to use? Is it better to >wing it and then complain to a director if the undiscussed bid caused >problems? (Better from a bridge lawyer standpoint, anyway.) Nothing in the laws suggests that players have the right to know what defense to use, nor to require their opponents to tell them. If they wish to agree that they will defend against bids about which their opponents have no agreement as though they were natural, fine, but their decision to do so is at their own risk, and doesn't create an obligation for their opponents to treat their own bids as natural. Full disclosure is satisfied when all relevant information has been revealed. There is no obligation to "make up" additional "information" on the spot just because the opponents wish you had it to give to them. 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 May 27 04:51:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 04:51:11 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28406 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 04:50:59 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA24433 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:51:27 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-171.access.net.il [192.116.204.171]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA27496 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:50:17 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356B0FE7.5CF90F8E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 21:54:31 +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: What are my options? References: <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn> <356A7D40.ADCE9808@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman I don't like anyone who would throw away your interesting messages , even if strongly disagree with your opinions ; I warn them !!!!!!! But infesting South Pacific again ??? Even France was forbidden to check its atomic arsenal there.. For this case my opinion is very clear but , as Eric pointed it about some players , it happens to TDs too : ".... a sudden mental aberration ......" Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > > > At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West > > "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > > options?" > > > > Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had > > bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said > > partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game > > was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to > > change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. > > > > Do you believe that West actually has this option? More to the point, > > do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call > > and play for average minus? > > There was no mention of 25A ? > > I would certainly believe west if she said that she intended to bid 4H, > so took the stop, and then misbid 3H. > > If this is not the case, then I think it should be only natural that the > TD offers west to use L25B2b2, since a player who is polite enough to > ask a director before bidding twice should not suffer a fate worse than > someone who gives two calls without calling the TD. > > But that's just my opinion. > > Judging by past record, it will be shot, quartered and banished to the > south pacific just because I offered it. > > Sorry to be a bit sceptical. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 05:06:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 05:06:01 +1000 Received: from mail2.rmcnet.fr (root@mail2.rmcnet.fr [194.206.92.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA28473 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 05:05:53 +1000 Received: from ns1.rmcnet.fr (client25.rmcnet.fr [195.10.18.69]) by mail2.rmcnet.fr (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA11440; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:06:41 +0200 Message-Id: <199805261906.VAA11440@mail2.rmcnet.fr> From: "Mallory Voelker" To: "bridge laws" Cc: "Thomas Wisser" , "Richard Bley" , "Ralf Teichmann" , "Klaus Amann" , "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karin_Bruchh=E4user?=" , "Carina Tetal" , "Ansgar Seiter" Subject: Split Score - Now readable :)))) SORRY !! Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 20:08:38 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First of all, I apologize of the fact that my E-mail wasn't readable, I didn't know that tabs have such a devastating effect :)))))) So let's try again: Hi all, I'm Vice Chairman of the German National Laws Comittee and I encounter a rather interesting question in a case we have to decide on: E/E-W, IMPs, Screens are used 97 KJ76 J952 J95 KQ832 54 A842 T7 AT 73 Q4 AKT7632 AJT6 Q53 KQ864 8 E S W N 3C 3D* 3NT 4H p p 4S all pass * 3D was alerted on the N/E side of the screen and explained as take out double (Fishbein). S didn't alert his screenmate and thought that 3D was natural. Convention card says it's Fishbein. W went down 4 in 4S. Director maintained the score as did the appeals committee. W claims that he has been damaged by the non-alert of the 3D bid. Director and committee deemed that the 4S bid (or at least East's pass on the 4S bid by his partner) was wild, gambling action, therefore forfeiting the right to obtain an adjusted score. W claims that he bid 4S in believing that 4H X would go 2 off at most and that N had a real H suit for his bid (facing a diamond one-suiter) and probably a diamond fit. E may now take 4S out into 5C with a misfit or pass 4S with 3 cards in S. Appeals committee deemed that W needs better S for his bid and that he got mad on this one; and E could not pass as his partner denied a 6 card S suit (he would have bid 3S instead of 3NT). W objects that with 6S and 9 tricks he still bids 3NT in IMPS because he doesn't want to create problems for his partner. More: E got the right explanation, so he thinks that W bid 4S knowing that S won't break (because of the take out double), so he must have solid S. If he had known that S showed D, he would have understood that 4S wanted to give him a choice of contracts. W argues further that even if he would be forced to play in 4S, he would only go 3 down, he misplayed the hand because he didn't think that trumps split so bad, because of the misinformation he played for a 3-3 split. 1) What do you think of W's arguments? We still deem that 4S is wild action, and that W needs at least better S spots to let this bid enter into consideration. For sake of information, in a earlier ruling, we precised "wild or gambling action" as follows: "Wild or gambling action is an action that: - less than 5% of all players with comparable Bridge ability would have chosen and - among the remaining (at least) 95% of all players of comparable capability all of them would have eliminated it after consideration, because it goes against Bridge logic and has only disadvantages of heavy weight" 2) What score do you give? Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X - 2 for N/S The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the dammage is no longer consequent to the irregularity but subsequent. Then the conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you CAN'T apply Law 12 C 2 as this Law only allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law 12 needs another Law who says that Law 12 applies. And as the conditions of Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there is no such law... You may think this is harsh reasoning, perhaps you can give me arguments why this should not be so. Many colleagues think it is not possible to let the offending side profit of the error of the non-offending side as this error would never have come up without the irregularity committed by the offending side (hypothetical causality!). So that the offending side must never profit from an opponent's wild action after an irregularity committed by the other side. So split scores only applie when the "likely" and the "at all probable" score are not the same and in no other situation... GRATTAN??? What do you think of this one? In your commentary, all examples concerning wild or gambling action (see ex. 12 B, D) maintain the score throughout so I come to think that you agree with me. 3) If you decide that you are not allowed to give a split score on this one, are you then allowed to circumvent the spirit of this by giving a procedural penalty that is so heavy that it takes away to N/S the benefit of the wild action of W? Should one do so? 4) If not, do you give a PP for the lack of alert having indirectly caused damage to the non-offending side? I would be pleased to have opinions on those questions who are - at least I believe it - of general interest. It seems very important to me that Directors agree on this frequent problem! Sincerily yours Mallory Voelker From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 05:06:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 05:06:56 +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 FAA28489 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 05:06:50 +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 OAA29314 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 14:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980526150727.0d6fabc2@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:07:27 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980526133121.00695538@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.5.16.19980526121540.2a275e4e@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:31 PM 5/26/98 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>Suppose the auction starts 1C-2C and a querry is made. Intervenor's >>partner says "we have no agreement." The TD is called, takes intervenor >>away from the table and learns that 2C was intended as Michaels. There may >>well have been no mention of this cue-bid in the partnership's limited >>system discussions. But, in my opinion, the use of a convention presumes >>partner will understand. If partner is presumed to understand, there is >>some sort of (implied) agreement and this agreement should be disclosed to >>the opponents. > >If the subsequent action by the intervenor's partner is consistent with his >having interpreted 2C as Michaels, there is a prima facie case for MI -- >his interpretation may well have been based on *some* agreement (e.g. they >have agreed to play Michaels in the majors but haven't discussed the >minors) that should have been disclosed. He is free to argue that he >simply took a random guess at the meaning of 2C and got lucky, but a TD/AC >would be required to consider that statement as "self-serving" (possibly >true, but not to be taken at face value without some further reason to do so). > >But if his further actions suggest that he had some other interpretation in >mind -- or even that he was doing his best to cover multiple possible >interpretations, possibly including Michaels among them, rather than simply >responding to Michaels -- then why should his opponents be entitled to >information which does not reflect an actual agreement and which he himself >does not possess? Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion. If advancer says "no agreement," but intervenor intended the 2C cue-bid to be Michaels, then the opponents should be told. If intervenor bids 2C with both majors, he must have some expectation that his partner will understand the bid. I believe this expectation should be enough to determine that there is an agreement. Or, maybe better put: the expectation of partner understanding is enough to require disclosure. I understand that this may not be what the Laws say, or even intend, but I believe this is the way it should be. Advancer's actions are irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. Perhaps a simpler example. The opponents bid 1S-3S and you ask if 3S is preemptive, mixed, limit or forcing? Opener says: "We met at the partnership desk at the last minute and haven't had a chance to discuss everything. Double raises have not been discussed." I think opener should leave the table and responder should disclose to the opponents what he intended the 3S bid to mean. >Nothing in the laws suggests that players have the right to know what >defense to use, nor to require their opponents to tell them. If they wish >to agree that they will defend against bids about which their opponents >have no agreement as though they were natural, fine, but their decision to >do so is at their own risk, and doesn't create an obligation for their >opponents to treat their own bids as natural. The auction starts 1C-(2C). Now, my bids carry different meanings depending on whether 2C is Michaels or natural. If the opponents tell me this sequence is undiscuss, how am I to know which methods to use? Suppose I guess it's Michaels and bid accordingly. My partner guesses it is natural and bids accordingly. It would not be a surprise if we end up in the wrong spot because partner and I are speaking different languages. Do we have no recourse? If not, it sounds like we are at a disadvantage because we have taken the time to discuss defensive counter-measures. >Full disclosure is satisfied when all relevant information has been >revealed. There is no obligation to "make up" additional "information" on >the spot just because the opponents wish you had it to give to them. There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those agreements are. If not, I think there should be. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 06:00:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:00:32 +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 GAA28647 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:00:23 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yePuO-0003yB-00; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:01:17 +0100 Message-ID: <8ru2IkBvkxa1EwoD@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 20:34:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: SPLIT SCORE In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980526021657.36f71278@pop3.iag.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.16.19980526021657.36f71278@pop3.iag.net>, Robert Nordgren writes snip - and I've put in the screen > \ 97 Dealer E/E-W, IMPs, Screens are used > \ KJ76 > \ J952 > \ J95 >KQ832 \ 54 * 3D was alerted on the N/E side of >A842 \ T7 the screen and explained as take >AT \ 73 out double (Fishbein). S didn't alert >Q4 \ AKT7632 his screenmate and thought that 3D > AJT6 \ was natural. Convention card says > Q53 \ it's Fishbein > KQ864 \ > 8 \ > > >East South West North > > 3C 3D* 3NT 4H > p p 4Sp all p > >W went down 4 in 4S. Director maintained the score as did the appeals >committee. > When West is faced with the problem of what to do what does he *know*? North looks as though he holds something like xx KQJTxxx xx xx and South probably has Axx xx KQJxxx xx. Partner's most likely shape is 7321 (prima facie) so is something like Jxx x xx AJxxxxx. In this example there are 14H and 12D and no CK but never mind, it'll do. KQxxx Jxx Axxx x Ax xx Do I want to play 4S Qx AJxxxxx on the KH lead at 50% or better? I'd guess I'll make it when S has SA if he has no H to return, and if partner has the CK I can just draw trump. I think I fancy it. Yep I'm going to bid 4S TOUGH! I'm allowing the double of 4H. -- 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 May 27 06:03:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:03:41 +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 GAA28665 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:03:32 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013504; 26 May 98 20:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 20:38:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes >At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >"Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >options?" > >Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had >bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said >partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game >was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to >change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. > >Do you believe that West actually has this option? More to the point, >do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call >and play for average minus? > > Yep, he should have (after checking that West hadn't made a mechanical error) explained the options, including deliberate change of call. I'd rule Director's error were I CTD (fat chance of that!) and assuming that 420(620) would have pushed given NS the game swing and EW -3 imps. -- 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 May 27 06:24:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:24:43 +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 GAA28737 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:24:34 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yeQHj-0006Ag-00; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:25:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 21:23:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980526150727.0d6fabc2@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.16.19980526150727.0d6fabc2@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes snip >Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion. If advancer says "no agreement," but >intervenor intended the 2C cue-bid to be Michaels, then the opponents >should be told. If intervenor bids 2C with both majors, he must have some >expectation that his partner will understand the bid. I believe this >expectation should be enough to determine that there is an agreement. Or, >maybe better put: the expectation of partner understanding is enough to >require disclosure. I understand that this may not be what the Laws say, >or even intend, but I believe this is the way it should be. Advancer's >actions are irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. > Nah, I'd toss in a 2C bid to wind the Director up (and get my own back:) Maybe it's x KQJxxx AKQxx x (unconditional game force; pace Mater). Maybe it's Kxxxx Axxxx xx x (sporting Michaels; pace YC) Maybe it's xxx x Kx AKJxxxx (natural; pace ACBL) and if the TD asks me I'll tell him "No agreement, without prejudice the club style is Michaels" if that is indeed the case, but the hand is going to be fun one way or the other. Bridge is about solving logic problems with insufficient data. >Perhaps a simpler example. The opponents bid 1S-3S and you ask if 3S is >preemptive, mixed, limit or forcing? Opener says: "We met at the >partnership desk at the last minute and haven't had a chance to discuss >everything. Double raises have not been discussed." I think opener should >leave the table and responder should disclose to the opponents what he >intended the 3S bid to mean. > Why? Partner has the same problem as oppo and there's no MI, UI or CPU. > >>Nothing in the laws suggests that players have the right to know what >>defense to use, nor to require their opponents to tell them. If they wish >>to agree that they will defend against bids about which their opponents >>have no agreement as though they were natural, fine, but their decision to >>do so is at their own risk, and doesn't create an obligation for their >>opponents to treat their own bids as natural. > >The auction starts 1C-(2C). Now, my bids carry different meanings >depending on whether 2C is Michaels or natural. If the opponents tell me >this sequence is undiscuss, how am I to know which methods to use? Here my partner and I have an agreement that we will assume that our meaning is ascribed to their bid - it's better than nothing. >>Full disclosure is satisfied when all relevant information has been >>revealed. But IMO the opponents have given you all relevant information - "No agreement" > There is no obligation to "make up" additional "information" on >>the spot just because the opponents wish you had it to give to them. > >There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those >agreements are. If not, I think there should be. > Why? where does it say so in the Laws? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 27 06:49:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:49:05 +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 GAA28780 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:48:59 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h21.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id AAA19970; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:49:51 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <356BC582.7EF7@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 00:49:22 -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: What are my options? References: <003701bd8831$6ae66120$1c3463c3@david-burn> <356BA4DA.2FA9@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) To be sincer I become not understanding the matter: expierenced and respected TD's seriously discussed rights of offender to change the bid (to correct his bridge mistake!) - after at the table TD establish that W intended to bid 3 hearts (by mistake this W thought that the bid was with jump). And why should anybody to allow such correction?:) Moreover - after (suppously) opponents' paid attention... Any bridge mistake is an integral part of game. Permission to forgive the bid of 3 Hearts (in that circumstances) is the same as permission to forgive revoke: it might take place in home game - not at the tournament:)) And both (the Laws and the Legend) forbid such doing. I support TD decision in full. And if the case would appear in AC - as AC member I would vote the appeal as frivolous. Sorry for being disagree with most of BLMLers Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 06:50:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:50:20 +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 GAA28800 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:50:13 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA27840 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 20:50:49 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980526165113.006ea130@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:51:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980526150727.0d6fabc2@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980526133121.00695538@pop.cais.com> <3.0.5.16.19980526121540.2a275e4e@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:07 PM 5/26/98, Tim wrote: >At 01:31 PM 5/26/98 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>But if his further actions suggest that he had some other interpretation in >>mind -- or even that he was doing his best to cover multiple possible >>interpretations, possibly including Michaels among them, rather than simply >>responding to Michaels -- then why should his opponents be entitled to >>information which does not reflect an actual agreement and which he himself >>does not possess? > >Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion. If advancer says "no agreement," but >intervenor intended the 2C cue-bid to be Michaels, then the opponents >should be told. If intervenor bids 2C with both majors, he must have some >expectation that his partner will understand the bid. I believe this >expectation should be enough to determine that there is an agreement. Or, >maybe better put: the expectation of partner understanding is enough to >require disclosure. I understand that this may not be what the Laws say, >or even intend, but I believe this is the way it should be. Advancer's >actions are irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. I think I understood Tim; I simply don't agree. Why should one player's expectation that his partner will understand a bid about which the partnership has no agreement, by itself, create a presumption that they do have an agreement? I am, however, sympathetic to the position that one player's expectation that his partner will underststand a bid *combined with* the fact of his partner's actually appearing to do so might create a strong (but not irrefutable) supposition that they have an agreement. >Perhaps a simpler example. The opponents bid 1S-3S and you ask if 3S is >preemptive, mixed, limit or forcing? Opener says: "We met at the >partnership desk at the last minute and haven't had a chance to discuss >everything. Double raises have not been discussed." I think opener should >leave the table and responder should disclose to the opponents what he >intended the 3S bid to mean. But what if he genuinely intended the bid to mean "I know we haven't agreed on a meaning for this bid, so work it out for yourself"? Why should the opponents be entitled know more than the bidder *or* his partner does? Surely the bidder isn't required to reveal how he *hopes*, given his actual hand, that partner will interpret his bid. Of course, I also believe that there is any reason to think that his partner will work it out based on something other than an agreement about the specific auction in question, his partner has an obligation to explain *any* information he has about their agreements that might help the opponents (who are entitled to bid with all the same information about the partnership's methods that he has), subject to the opponents having redress for MI. An actively ethical player should not attempt to hide behind "general knowledge and experience", but should be as forthcoming as possible in explaining everything that might be relevant. The laws may not require this -- perhaps they should -- but the canons of active ethics do. >>Nothing in the laws suggests that players have the right to know what >>defense to use, nor to require their opponents to tell them. If they wish >>to agree that they will defend against bids about which their opponents >>have no agreement as though they were natural, fine, but their decision to >>do so is at their own risk, and doesn't create an obligation for their >>opponents to treat their own bids as natural. > >The auction starts 1C-(2C). Now, my bids carry different meanings >depending on whether 2C is Michaels or natural. If the opponents tell me >this sequence is undiscuss, how am I to know which methods to use? Suppose >I guess it's Michaels and bid accordingly. My partner guesses it is >natural and bids accordingly. It would not be a surprise if we end up in >the wrong spot because partner and I are speaking different languages. Do >we have no recourse? If not, it sounds like we are at a disadvantage >because we have taken the time to discuss defensive counter-measures. If you and your partner are "speaking different languages" you take your lumps, as you do any time you have a bidding misunderstanding -- your right to full disclosure doesn't mean you have a right not to have a bidding misunderstanding. If you have discussed defensive counter-measures against "no agreement" auctions (e.g. "presume natural"), you will not be put at a disadvantage by having done so; you might be speaking the wrong language for the situation, but you will know, at least, that it is the *same* language. >>Full disclosure is satisfied when all relevant information has been >>revealed. There is no obligation to "make up" additional "information" on >>the spot just because the opponents wish you had it to give to them. > >There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those >agreements are. If not, I think there should be. I disagree with both statements. 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 May 27 06:50:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:50:42 +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 GAA28814 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 06:50:36 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA18401 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 May 1998 15:48:06 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199805262048.PAA18401@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:48:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 01:31 PM 5/26/98 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>Suppose the auction starts 1C-2C and a querry is made. Intervenor's > >>partner says "we have no agreement." The TD is called, takes intervenor > >>away from the table and learns that 2C was intended as Michaels. There may > >>well have been no mention of this cue-bid in the partnership's limited > >>system discussions. But, in my opinion, the use of a convention presumes > >>partner will understand. If partner is presumed to understand, there is Why? Why doesn't the use of the convention simply reflect a _hope_ that partner will understand. [I myself don't usually use Michaels, but in my last individual game I had a partner use it hoping (or assuming) I'd figure it out. I didn't.] > >>some sort of (implied) agreement and this agreement should be disclosed to > >>the opponents. > > > >If the subsequent action by the intervenor's partner is consistent with his > >having interpreted 2C as Michaels, there is a prima facie case for MI -- > >his interpretation may well have been based on *some* agreement (e.g. they > >have agreed to play Michaels in the majors but haven't discussed the > >minors) that should have been disclosed. He is free to argue that he Agreed. > >But if his further actions suggest that he had some other interpretation in > >mind -- or even that he was doing his best to cover multiple possible > >interpretations, possibly including Michaels among them, rather than simply > >responding to Michaels -- then why should his opponents be entitled to > >information which does not reflect an actual agreement and which he himself > >does not possess? Agreed. > Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion. If advancer says "no agreement," but > intervenor intended the 2C cue-bid to be Michaels, then the opponents > should be told. If intervenor bids 2C with both majors, he must have some > expectation that his partner will understand the bid. I believe this > expectation should be enough to determine that there is an agreement. Or, I respectfully disagree. There is no obligation to reveal to opponents what cards one holds in one's hand. As long as partner cannot know that 2C is intended as Michaels except by 'general bridge knowledge and experience', then there is no reason for me to reveal what the bid meant. I would never ask the TD to order an opponent to explain his own bids under these conditions, and would regard it as a serious TD error if he so ordered. Of course, if partner knows that 2C is likely to be Michaels for reasons other than general bridge knowledge [he knows I usually use Michaels in other partnerships, etc.] then of course he should have said so rather than merely indicating no agreement. If partner has much more bridge experience than the opponents, and this makes it much more easy for him to guess that it's Michaels than they are, I think as a matter of active ethics he should tell them that. If I bid 2C _hoping_ partner will guess correctly what it means, there is no reason why the opponents shouldn't have to guess as well. > maybe better put: the expectation of partner understanding is enough to > require disclosure. I understand that this may not be what the Laws say, > or even intend, but I believe this is the way it should be. Advancer's > actions are irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. > > Perhaps a simpler example. The opponents bid 1S-3S and you ask if 3S is > preemptive, mixed, limit or forcing? Opener says: "We met at the > partnership desk at the last minute and haven't had a chance to discuss > everything. Double raises have not been discussed." I think opener should > leave the table and responder should disclose to the opponents what he > intended the 3S bid to mean. Why? Do you think it is a legal requirement? Under what law? Or do you think this is a super-legal matter of ethics? > >Nothing in the laws suggests that players have the right to know what > >defense to use, nor to require their opponents to tell them. If they wish > >to agree that they will defend against bids about which their opponents > >have no agreement as though they were natural, fine, but their decision to > >do so is at their own risk, and doesn't create an obligation for their > >opponents to treat their own bids as natural. > > The auction starts 1C-(2C). Now, my bids carry different meanings > depending on whether 2C is Michaels or natural. If the opponents tell me > this sequence is undiscuss, how am I to know which methods to use? Suppose You'll have to guess, just like partner does. > I guess it's Michaels and bid accordingly. My partner guesses it is > natural and bids accordingly. It would not be a surprise if we end up in > the wrong spot because partner and I are speaking different languages. Do > we have no recourse? If not, it sounds like we are at a disadvantage No, you have no recourse. Bad luck. Just as I will have nothing to turn to if partner interprets my 2C as natural and we end up in a catastrophe. > because we have taken the time to discuss defensive counter-measures. No, you have taken the time to discuss counter-measures but failed to make a default agreement to cover bidding against opponents who are idiots. :) [This is like cases where people have different agreements vs. strong and weak NT openers, and then end up against someone playing 12-14 NT and realize they don't know which defense to use.] > >Full disclosure is satisfied when all relevant information has been > >revealed. There is no obligation to "make up" additional "information" on > >the spot just because the opponents wish you had it to give to them. > > There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those > agreements are. If not, I think there should be. Do you think this covers all bids in all auctions, or only certain basic situations? > Tim Sincerely, Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 07:21:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 07:21:59 +1000 Received: from smtp1.mailsrvcs.net (smtp1.gte.net [207.115.153.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA28877 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 07:21:53 +1000 Received: from pavilion (1Cust1.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [208.255.105.1]) by smtp1.mailsrvcs.net with SMTP id QAA11876 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 16:22:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <007101bd88eb$f0a6d780$0169ffd0@pavilion> From: "mike dodson" To: Subject: Club game ruling Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 14:19:15 -0700 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 Turn out for Monday's holiday club game was very small but this deal caused a bit of ill will when the playing director and a very erratic partner bid this hand: dealer E vul none 8xxx xx 10xxx xxx QJxx Kxx Jx AKxx xx QJ Axxxxx KJxx Ax Q10xxx AKxxx Q N E S W 1NT 2S* x P P 3D x P P P *2S alerted as brozel, spades and a minor, CC agrees. Making 3. East is furious contending three things: 1)passing 2SX is LA, contract should be 2SX down many. 2)north should preference back to 3S over 3D, I'm not sure why except it doesn't work. 3)as a matter of active ethics, declarer should announce his error before the opening lead. I was not at the table but received my share of disdain when I suggested 1)passing wasn't LA, 2)north had no UI and was under no obligation to make what might be an encouraging noise to a partner known by all at the table capable of any mistake or bad judgment. 3)cackling about his mistake half way through the play was in poor taste but he was not required to inform his opponents of his misbid. This morning I'm not so sure of 1 and would welcome opinions on the others. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 07:48:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 07:48:12 +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 HAA28928 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 07:48:00 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa18769; 26 May 98 14:48 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Club game ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 May 1998 14:19:15 PDT." <007101bd88eb$f0a6d780$0169ffd0@pavilion> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 14:48:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805261448.aa18769@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Turn out for Monday's holiday club game was very small but this deal caused > a bit of ill will when the playing > director and a very erratic partner bid this hand: > > dealer E vul none > > 8xxx > xx > 10xxx > xxx > QJxx Kxx > Jx AKxx > xx QJ > Axxxxx KJxx > Ax > Q10xxx > AKxxx > Q > N E S W > 1NT 2S* x > P P 3D x > P P P > *2S alerted as brozel, spades and a minor, CC agrees. > Making 3. > > East is furious contending three things: > 1)passing 2SX is LA, contract should be 2SX down many. > 2)north should preference back to 3S over 3D, I'm not sure why except it > doesn't work. > 3)as a matter of active ethics, declarer should announce his error before > the opening lead. > > I was not at the table but received my share of disdain when I suggested > 1)passing wasn't LA, > 2)north had no UI and was under no obligation to make what might be an > encouraging noise > to a partner known by all at the table capable of any mistake or bad > judgment. > 3)cackling about his mistake half way through the play was in poor taste but > he was not > required to inform his opponents of his misbid. > > This morning I'm not so sure of 1 and would welcome opinions on the others. I'm not sure about it, either, and I don't know whether we have enough information. Since I'm not a bidding expert, there are some areas of theory I need help with. In particular: Suppose you make an artificial two-suited overcall that does not include the suit bid. LHO doubles, partner passes (e.g. Cappelletti 2D over their 1NT). Does partner's pass necessarily indicate interest in playing in the suit? I.e. would partner always redouble without a long suit, asking partner to choose one of his two suits? I think the question has to be asked on "general principles", since 2S showing red suits is not part of any convention I've ever heard of, so we can't really determine whether passing shows spades in whatever imaginary convention South thought he was playing. The second question: Can this South be expected to know the answer to the first question? (Note that Brozel overcalls always promise the suit bid, so this isn't an issue for Brozel players.) Only if the answers to both questions are Yes would I consider passing a LA and adjust back to 2SX. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 08:16:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:16:37 +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 IAA28999 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:16:31 +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 SAA18646 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 18:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 18:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805262217.SAA25080@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <007101bd88eb$f0a6d780$0169ffd0@pavilion> (mikedod@gte.net) Subject: Re: Club game ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk mike dodson writes: > dealer E vul none > 8xxx > xx > 10xxx > xxx > QJxx Kxx > Jx AKxx > xx QJ > Axxxx KJxx > Ax > Q10xxx > AKxxx > Q (14th club removed from West's hand) > N E S W > 1NT 2S* x > P P 3D x > P P P > *2S alerted as brozel, spades and a minor, CC agrees. > Making 3. > East is furious contending three things: > 1)passing 2SX is LA, contract should be 2SX down many. Agreed. Absent the UI, North knows that South has 5-5 in the red suits (or hearts and a minor), and has chosen to play 2Sx anyway. He probably has five or six spades, and South's Ax, AK of diamonds, and stiff club give him an excellent hand. This is a flagrant violation. > 2)north should preference back to 3S over 3D, I'm not sure why except it > doesn't work. North has no UI, so he can bid anything he likes. As a matter of fact, he's probably better off staying in 3D, since partner's pull of the double suggests long diamonds and only four spades. > 3)as a matter of active ethics, declarer should announce his error before > the opening lead. Not here, as it is clear from the CC that South misbid and there was no misinformation. West does not have a double of 3D, though. When he doubled the Brozel 2S, he should have been prepared to have someone run to 3D. (But what should E-W do here? Forcing pass by W, 3H by E, 3NT by W is down two on a diamond lead or one on a heart lead. South's legal misbid has kept E-W out of a making 4S.) My ruling: 2S for N-S down five for -1100, and I'm inclined to let E-W get +1100 as well, as I don't find the double of 3D sufficiently egregious or a double shot. South gets some advice from a director (or, in a higher-level game, a quarter-board 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 Wed May 27 08:17:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:17:05 +1000 Received: from orr.pwgsc.gc.ca (orr.pwgsc.gc.ca [198.103.167.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29014 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:16:59 +1000 Received: id SAA17278; Tue, 26 May 1998 18:03:04 -0400 Received: by gateway ??? Date: Tue, 26 May 98 18:04:30 EDT Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Dave Kent" Subject: Screening of Appeals X-Incognito-SN: 393 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.01a ENCRYPTED=NO Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In 1987, or whenever the ACBL Fall Nationals were held in Anaheim, I had the following situation on the last day of the Nationals (i.e. the final Sunday). My team had won the first 3 matches of the Flt A Swiss and were in 3rd (?) place. The first 3 hands were rather non-descript. On the 4th hand, white vs red, my partner opened 2NT in 3rd seat. I had a hand with 2S, 4H, 3D and 4C and about 9 HCP. I bid Stayman, my partner showed 4S, and we resided in 3NT. Partner had approximately KQxxxxx xx xx xx and with helpful defense we went down only 5. My RHO called the director after the hand and it was determined that this was the first time that my partner had psyched with me, although I had played against him enough that I knew about his propensity for psyching 2NT in similar situations (i.e. he had done it once before and everyone in Ottawa heard about it - it was successful). This, however, had not influenced my bidding on this hand one iota. The next hand I held Axxxx xx Kxx Axx, and heard the auction go: Me LHO Pard RHO ------------------------------------------- 1N (1) P 2D (2) P 2S P 3H P 3NT P 4H P P P (1) - 10-12 HCP (2) - GF Stayman I have played both a 10-12 NT and an 11+-14 NT for many years. When I produce this auction, I have at least a mild slam try (if I produce RHO's auction). 1NT had been identified as 10-12 and 2D as GF Stayman but no other questions were asked about the auction. Believing that I had the majority of the values our side owned, I led the SA followed by the S2 (or whatever was my lowest). My partner ruffed the 2nd spade, returned a C, and got another spade ruff to defeat the contract. Dummy was 4-2-(34) and declarer was 3-6 in the majors with about a 16 count. As it turned out, partner held the HK (amazingly - as far as I was concerned), which was onside for declarer and this was the only defense to beat the contract. As I was mentally patting myself on the back for finding this lead, RHO called the director. The same director who came to the table for the first director call returned to the table. RHO explained the situation on this hand and stated that "These guys are up to something funny." Needless to say I was rather peeved with this comment. I sat back waiting for the director to chew this guy out, but no, the director went and got a recorder form for him when asked! I was mind-boggled at this turn of events. After the director had come back with the recorder form and was leaving the table, I chased him down and asked, "What are you going to do about this accusation of cheating against us?". He replied that there was no accusation of cheating because our opponent had not said the "C" word. He told me to go back and play the last hands of the match. We played the remainder of the match and as soon as it was over, I went to see the director while my partner compared scores with our teammates (we won by about 15). I was trying to get the director to tell me what would be required for an accusation of cheating when my RHO walked by and stated "If you want your accusation, you've got it. You guys should clean up your act.". The director then told me that now we had a case for a cheating accusation. My partner and I went to the screening area. Dave Treadwell was screening our opponents case (RHO had filed a recorder form against us). After about 15 minutes it was our turn. We told our side of the story and were told "I don't think you boys have any case." (My partner and I were in our 20's.) I told Mr. Treadwell that if he would put that in writing that I would drop my case against our opponents and would take him in front of the Board of Governors and he would have to explain his decision to them. I was absolutely furious at this point. He then told us that "On second thought, maybe you have a case." To make the rest of a long story short, the C&E committee which was held after the event (Alan LeBendig may remember this as he was counsel for my opponent) found that my RHO was in the wrong and he was suspended from tournament play for 30 days (I believe that was the max that a tournament C&E could give him). It was sent back to his unit for further review and I heard nothing further about it. Upon returning home, I sent a letter to the President of the ACBL, Bobby Wolff, (this may have been in January of the next year). I never received an answer to my letter asking for an explanation as to why I had to why my partner and I had had to go to such extremes to be able to get a C&E hearing for this situation. Based on this experience, I do not believe that screening does much more than kill protests which possibly should or possibly should not be carried to their rightful conclusion - it is not clear. It seems to be based on how the screener is feeling at that point (in our case there was 1 hour for supper on the last day of the tournament - we ended up having 15 mins for supper - DT was probably tired and did not want to be there). Had I not been so forceful about my claim, nothing would have ever been heard about this matter and my partner and I would have left a little more resentful as to the way the ACBL treats their younger players. As it was, both of us felt that justice did prevail, but were perturbed as to the lengths to which we had to go to get justice. Dave Kent david@magi.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 08:29:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:29:03 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29044 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:28:56 +1000 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA03044; Wed, 27 May 1998 01:29:25 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-171.access.net.il [192.116.204.171]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA28861; Tue, 26 May 1998 21:59:48 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356B121F.6B2410C7@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:03:59 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What are my options? References: <001201bd8878$fc794160$ab2d63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > >At 12:04 AM 5/26/98 +0100, David Burn wrote: > >>At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, > West > >>"Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > >>options?" > >> > >>Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she > had > >>bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. > > > >My feeling is that the use of the stop card indicates that the 3H bid > was > >inadvertant. If west was not aware she had bid 3H until the TD was > called > >or her LHO brought it to her attention, I would let her change her > call to > >4H. Of course, this would require some explanations by the players > at the > >table. > > > Sorry - I should perhaps have added that the TD established that West > had "intended" to bid 3H, thinking it to be a jump raise. Thus, there > was no question of her being allowed to change an inadvertent call > under L25A. For this case my basic opinion is very clear and , as Eric pointed it about some players , it happens to TDs too : ".... a sudden mental aberration ......" . Very sad , but human ! After reading some other people's remarks I suggest to describe more accurate the event - in this case : who summoned the TD ??. His/her ruling shouldn't be different according to who called him , but some scenarios posted would influence my consequent decisions about the defenders' etiquette (if they summoned and then call-bid in the middle of TD's ruling ... etc.) Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 08:38:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:38:51 +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 IAA29093 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:38:45 +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 PAA00353 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 26 May 1998 15:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id PAA20400; Tue, 26 May 1998 15:42:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:42:16 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199805262242.PAA20400@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Screening of Appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Screening of Appeals Dave Kent wrote: |... As I was mentally patting myself on the back |for finding this lead, RHO called the director. The same director who came to |the table for the first director call returned to the table. RHO explained |the situation on this hand and stated that "These guys are up to something |funny." | |Needless to say I was rather peeved with this comment. I sat back waiting for |the director to chew this guy out, but no, the director went and got a |recorder form for him when asked! I was mind-boggled at this turn of events. |After the director had come back with the recorder form and was leaving the |table, I chased him down and asked, "What are you going to do about this |accusation of cheating against us?". He replied that there was no accusation |of cheating because our opponent had not said the "C" word. He told me to go |back and play the last hands of the match. | |We played the remainder of the match and as soon as it was over, I went to see |the director while my partner compared scores with our teammates (we won by |about 15). I was trying to get the director to tell me what would be required |for an accusation of cheating when my RHO walked by and stated "If you want |your accusation, you've got it. You guys should clean up your act.". | |The director then told me that now we had a case for a cheating accusation. Sounds like the director, having arrived at the table after the incident, wasn't clear that your opponent meant cheating of any sort. Once he was told that this was true, he should have gone and dealt with the situation, but as do many overworked people, was hoping to let it slide without his doing anything. That became a non-option to him, and he dealt with it adequately, it seems, no? |My partner and I went to the screening area. Dave Treadwell was screening our |opponents case (RHO had filed a recorder form against us). After about 15 |minutes it was our turn. We told our side of the story and were told "I don't |think you boys have any case." (My partner and I were in our 20's.) | |I told Mr. Treadwell that if he would put that in writing that I would drop my |case against our opponents and would take him in front of the Board of |Governors and he would have to explain his decision to them. I was absolutely |furious at this point. He then told us that "On second thought, maybe you |have a case." I think you explained this one well yourself. Mr. Treadwell was tired and careless. We have all been guilty of that from time to time. |To make the rest of a long story short, the C&E committee which was held after |the event (Alan LeBendig may remember this as he was counsel for my opponent) |found that my RHO was in the wrong and he was suspended from tournament play |for 30 days (I believe that was the max that a tournament C&E could give him). | It was sent back to his unit for further review and I heard nothing further |about it. Why would you want to hear anything? You know that the offender has been punished. His home unit, knowing what they know about him, had the opportunity to increase the punishment. It's really none of your business what they do about that or why. |Upon returning home, I sent a letter to the President of the ACBL, Bobby |Wolff, (this may have been in January of the next year). I never received an |answer to my letter asking for an explanation as to why I had to why my |partner and I had had to go to such extremes to be able to get a C&E hearing |for this situation. |Based on this experience, I do not believe that screening does much more than |kill protests which possibly should or possibly should not be carried to their |rightful conclusion - it is not clear. It seems to be based on how the |screener is feeling at that point (in our case there was 1 hour for supper on |the last day of the tournament - we ended up having 15 mins for supper - DT |was probably tired and did not want to be there). Had I not been so forceful |about my claim, nothing would have ever been heard about this matter and my |partner and I would have left a little more resentful as to the way the ACBL |treats their younger players. As it was, both of us felt that justice did |prevail, but were perturbed as to the lengths to which we had to go to get |justice. Why is it that one must put forth a great deal of effort to push through C&E hearings? 1) To protect the innocent. A hearing, even if frivolous, reflects poorly on the accused. This is not as it is legally, or how it should be, but how it is. The accused is also legally entitled to time to prepare defenses; this wasn't much of an issue in your case; it could have been worse. 2) To save effort on the part of the volunteers. C&E committees are entirely volunteer, performed by other players who are just as tired after ten days of nationals as you are. They'd prefer to relax for an hour during dinner instead of having a committee. Therefore, screening is done. Frivolous, ill-advised, uninformed, or otherwise poor appeals are supposed to be rejected or strongly advised not to continue. Screeners, however, are not perfect. 3) Because accusations that are the basis for a C&E hearing are not to be considered lightly. Forcing the plaintiff to jump through hoops restricts cases to those in which the offended side cares a lot. Good. We don't want to handle C&E cases for peccadillos. 4) Jurisdiction for C&E hearings is strange, as the ACBL is made up of a number of different levels of management, each with different powers. One must not step on anyone's toes during this process; one must not infringe upon rights of the Units or Districts as well as the accused and the accusors. All in all, it sounds as if your case hit a number of annoying snags, mostly caused by human error. The system isn't extremely smooth, but we don't want it to be; we want to have everyone stop at each step of the process and think about the case. The case could have been worse. If this had not been a tournament hearing, you could have had to deal with multiple postponements, a possible change of venue, all sorts of irritating legal-ish stuff. Yes, it's a mess, but so is the US Court system. I imagine the courts of most democratic nations do not process cases quickly and smoothly. --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 May 27 08:47:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:47:28 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29118 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:47:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2002655; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:26:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >Aside from the question of simplicity, you do agree it's bloody daft, >don't you? Apart from all the people he killed, Fred West was a jolly good chap, wasn't he? It is not daft because of the simplicity, so your question is just unanswerable. -- 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 May 27 08:48:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:20 +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 IAA29132 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2002654; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:24:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980525153217.006dae88@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >But Grattan asks a very difficult question, one which we've touched on >before without really resolving: Is the fact of North's original >insufficient 1H bid AI or UI to South? There's no easy answer, because the >parenthetical in L27B1(a) seems to lead to the opposite conclusion from >L27B1(b). Surely, L27B1A says that the knowledge of partner's 1H is AI, but L27B1B says that you may not gain from this AI? -- 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 May 27 08:48:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:27 +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 IAA29139 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2002661; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:36:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) In-Reply-To: <199805241732.KAA10304@proxyb1-atm.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 agree 100%, although I can see where an AC might want to see all >the scores on a board when deciding on an appropriate score to >assign. If no one in a huge field makes (or bids) a certain contract, >then making (or bidding) it is obviously not "at all probable" or >"likely." This is not to say that scores are a highly accurate >assessment of probabilities, because the TD/AC must take into account >the skills of the particular pairs involved in the adjustment. >However, the field's scores add another tool to the AC decision >process. How do the AC know the bidding is the same at other tables? The fact that a contract is reached at no other tables does not mean that the result was not likely or probable. ACs should not use scores from other tables to decide contracts. >Wouldn't it be appropriate for TDs to routinely print out a copy of >the recap sheet for possible use by the AC? The names and standings >would of course be removed. No, I don't think so. -- 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 May 27 08:48:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:37 +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 IAA29148 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002705; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:41:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) In-Reply-To: <3567E78B.CA646BD2@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >Two hands that involved misinformation caught my attention. I've posted >one here and another in a separate post ( Weekend Misinformation (2) ) >so that they can be commented on separately. A small favour, please, Wayne, don't reply to another article when starting a new thread. For people like myself whose software threads all these articles I now have a thread with 42 articles that is a mix between Weekend Misinformation (1), Weekend Misinformation (2) and Careless or Irrational II. It is a *very* confusing thread! >Session 1 >Brd 11 K542 >Nil Vul 643 >Dealer S 9754 > J2 >J963 AT >Q95 AJT8 >T2 KQJ >QT75 K963 > Q87 > K72 > A863 > A84 > >W N E S > 1NT >P P Dbl P >P 2D* P 2H >P P X P >2S P 2NT P >P P > >Dbl was penalties 16+ pts >2D was alerted and before West's third pass explained as a transfer to >hearts ( an initial 2D response would have been the start of a Game >Force relay not a transfer). This was not the correct agreement. The >correct agreement was that 2D was natural. > >The contract made 10 tricks. > >At the end of play West called the director and claimed that his third >pass was based on misinformation and that had he been told that 2D was >natural he would have made a takeout double which East could leave in >for penalties. I don't see the logic. What difference does it make? >The director ruled that the table result stood. So would I. > The hand went to appeal >and the committee upheld the directors decision. In their ruling the >committee commented that N/S would get to 3D which would be -2 (compared >with 2H -4) this score was only 1 matchpoint (1/2 mp US) better than 180 >in 2NT so they would not change the score. That's appalling. They are asked to rule on the hand , not on its relation to results at other tables. They should either adjust or not as suitable - and I would 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 Wed May 27 08:48:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:41 +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 IAA29147 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002693; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:20:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980526103319.006e84e0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:04 AM 5/26/98 +0100, David wrote: > >>At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >>"Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >>options?" >> >>Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had >>bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said >>partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game >>was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to >>change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. >> >>Do you believe that West actually has this option? More to the point, >>do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call >>and play for average minus? >Yes, and yes. I don't care for it; I would like to see L25 rewritten, but >that is what it says. I am sure that the player has an option under L25B. The 1997 version of this strange Law makes it clear that a player can always change any call they wish to so long as the next player has not called [well, it is not so clear about the *last* call of the auction, but let's leave that to another thread]. Therefore I believe the call can be changed. However, it is not so obvious that the TD should *offer* it. Suppose you think that L10C1 requires the TD to mention it as an "option": why does that not mean that the TD should *always* offer L25B when called to the table for *any* irregularity in the bidding? "Director, I want to reserve my rights: my opponent has just made a slow double, didn't you?" "Yes, I did think before doubling." "OK, I rule there was a hesitation. By the way, do you want to change your double under L25B?" This approach cannot really be right, and in general I would argue that where L10C1 requires the Director to explain all the options after an irregularity it means the ones consequent on the irregularity, so normally he should not mention L25B. Players should be able to protect themselves by use of L25B. In the specific case in Bournemouth, the player has asked a strange question: "What are my rights?". Given this particular question, I feel the TD might tell her about L25B, since that is one of her "rights", even if it is not an "option after an irregularity". -- 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 May 27 08:48:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:48 +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 IAA29165 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:48:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002708; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: <1vF2$SBagza1EwI0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:46:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II In-Reply-To: <356712EB.5D18@popd.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon C. Brissman wrote: >Edgar Kaplan wrote in his "Ruling the Game" pamphlet many years ago >about interpretation of the terms careless or irrational. He gave an >example: > S - void > H - 32 > D - 32 > C - 2 >S - 3 S - void >H - 54 H - 76 >D - 54 D - 76 >C - void C - 3 > S - AKQJ2 > H - void > D - void > C - void > >Spades are trumps, and South claims. Kaplan said that if the lead was >in the South hand, all tricks are awarded to South. However, if the >lead was in the North hand, a careless declarer could lead the club >deuce and ruff with the spade deuce, subjecting himself to an overruff, >and thus one trick should be awarded to E/W. > >I disagree with the ruling that E/W should be awarded a trick. I could >find a monkey at the zoo (or maybe one of David's cats) who could be >taught to select any one of the five cards from the North hand and any >one of the five cards from the South hand to comprise the next trick. >The monkey would get this situation right 24 times out of 25. If a >creature without bridge knowledge would go wrong only 4% of the time, >it's reasonable to assume that a bridge player might do somewhat better. >It seems to me that the threshhold for giving the claim disputers >protection ought to be higher than a one in twenty-five chance. > >I recognize that wherever the threshhold is drawn, it will be somewhat >arbitrary. All will likely agree that one chance in a thousand is too >small for protection, and that one chance is two clearly deserves >protection. I would like to see it placed about one time in six. > >Several top players with whom I have discussed this were reluctant to >propose where the threshhold should be drawn, but all agreed that >Kaplan's example should be below it (E/W not entitled to a trick). I am quite happy with your threshold idea, but I think the example is poor. If a card is led from the dummy, a casual declarer who thinks there are no trumps out will ruff low about 40% of the time, high about 60% of the time. So I would expect a player to ruff with the 2 about 40% not 4%. I think that your monkey is the wrong approach - it is *not* a random matter. My cats, of course, would refuse to play. When I rule in a claim situation of this type, I think "Do I believe that people *really* would play this card?". In effect I am comparing with some sort of threshold mentally. -- 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 May 27 08:49:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:49:15 +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 IAA29202 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:49:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2002653; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: <1tIWvxAu4xa1Ewoi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 20:55:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law80G In-Reply-To: <01bd85e0$4b4f5220$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Herman is excersising his new right to take rulings to appeal, with >great enthusiasm, and it would appear at every opportunity. This is not >the only change in the 1997 Laws as far as appeals are concerned. >How do members of the list see Law 80G has changed the approach of SOs? >Is "make suitable arrangements for appeals to be heard" being >interpreted as "make sure the venue is booked until midnight", or make >sure there is a suitable person available, if not present to be >"Chairman of Appeals". >IMO this Law should be interpreted as meaning the latter, and for >suitable I would expect a non-competitor in all but club games. I don't see that this is necessary. >In my experience it is more difficult to convene a "suitable" Appeals >Committee in Area games than in National Finals and I had hoped that >this law would remove the responsibility from the DIC. I do not however >see much evidence of change. The TDic is the sponsor's representative and it thus is presumably his job to arrange ACs. I see no reason to increase the number of officials at events thus making them more expensive. -- 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 May 27 08:49:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:49:33 +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 IAA29216 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:49:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003042; 26 May 98 22:49 GMT Message-ID: <54AFqLCPa0a1Ew4n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:47:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: SPLIT SCORE In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980526021657.36f71278@pop3.iag.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mallory Voelker wrote [edited by Robert Nordgren]: >I'm Vice Chairman of the German National Laws Comittee Nice to see you here. > and I encounter a >rather interesting question in a case we have to decide on: [snip details of the case] >1) >What do you think of W's arguments? We still deem that 4S is wild action, >and that W needs at least better S spots to let this bid enter into >consideration. For sake of information, in a earlier ruling, we precised >"wild or gambling action" as follows: "Wild or gambling action is an action >that: less than 5% of all players with comparable Bridge ability would >have chosen and among the remaining (at least) 95% of all players of >comparable capability all of them would have eliminated it after >consideration, because it goes against Bridge logic and has only >disadvantages of heavy weight" I think that your definition of wild or gambling action has not been reached in this case. I do not believe the action was wild or gambling, possibly ill-judged. It looks unsympathetic to consider West's actions gambling: he has a problem, and failed to solve it - that's not gambling. In general, when a player has a difficult problem, then one should be sympathetic to any non-extreme solution - 6S would be wild and gambling. >2) What score do you give? >Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X - 2 >for N/S >The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the >damage is no longer consequent to the irregularity but subsequent. Then the >conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you CAN'T apply Law 12 C 2 >as this Law only >allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law >12 needs another Law who says that Law 12 applies. And as the conditions of >Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there is no such law... > >You may think this is harsh reasoning, perhaps you can give me arguments >why this should not be so. Many colleagues think it is not possible to let >the offending side profit of the error of the non-offending side as this error >would never have come up without the irregularity committed by the >offending side (hypothetical causality!). So that the offending side must >never profit from an opponent's wild action after an irregularity committed >by the other >side. So split scores only applie when the "likely" and the "at all >probable" score are not the same and in no other situation... Assuming that we are going to treat this as wild or gambling action, you are correct that that means the causal link has been snapped. As far as the NOs are concerned L40C does not apply and there is no reason to adjust the score. Certainly both the EBU and the ACBL expect to give a split score in such cases. In the EBU it is routine and normal to split any score where wild or gambling action is concerned - is that legal? L21B3 is vaguer than L40C, and seems to suggest that the TD/AC has more discretion in the matter. I would suggest that there is no real need to challenge this interpretation. So I would be happy with a split score. >3) If you decide that you are not allowed to give a split score on this >one, are you then allowed to circumvent the spirit of this by giving a >procedural penalty that is so heavy that it takes away to N/S the benefit >of the wild action of W? Should one do so? There is certainly nothing to stop you making a PP as large as you like, except any regulations and/or interpretations of your SO. However, I don't think this is necessary. >4) If not, do you give a PP for the lack of alert having indirectly caused >damage to the non-offending side? You could. The general approach that I suggest to this list is to avoid PPs except at the higher levels or for frequent offenders. However, most bridge played with screens is higher level 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 Wed May 27 08:50:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:50:46 +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 IAA29245 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:50:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003133; 26 May 98 22:49 GMT Message-ID: <+48EqUC$a0a1Ew57@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:48:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) 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 the UK I'd rule result stands - there is a possibility that 2H is >non-forcing, which is non-alertable and I can protect myself. Errrrr - I think it's alertable here, John. > My late >mother, whom I blame for many things including how I play bridge, taught >me it was non-forcing. The analogy is this one > >1NT 2S 3H round the table. That is not analogous: there has been differences of opinion over this one, and I agree that a non-alert proves nothing, but that is not a universal view. However, the L&EC has laid down that, in future, 1NT 2S 3H is alertable if *forcing*. > Whether it is forcing or not is non-alertable >and I would not adjust as a result of it being either forcing or non- >forcing. More to the point, the question is whether there should be an adjustment under NZ alerting regulations. -- 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 May 27 08:51:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:51:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29259 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:51:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002656; 26 May 98 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:21:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <199805251958.PAA01599@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Writing a good convention definition is not easy. Fortunately it is not necessary. No particular accuracy is needed in a definition for the two Laws involved, is 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 Wed May 27 08:54:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:54:03 +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 IAA29304 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:53:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003044; 26 May 98 22:49 GMT Message-ID: <4oUFuOCea0a1Ew5C@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:47:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: List usage In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980525103731.0094adb0@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: >At 16:59 24/05/98 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: >>>>> >Hirsh wrote: I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to >people, but >not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know that >this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to list >messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the >message. > And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? >Chris > > >This comes up every now and then. The issue seems to split the list into two >camps, those in favour (for the reasons listed above) and those against - some >worried about the increased risk of mail explosions due to email errors, and >some worried about the inverse behaviour of accidentally sending personal mail >to the list. Most of this latter camp point to the "reply-to-all" button >featured in most/all mailreaders. > >The last time I polled this it was about 2:1 in favour of the current behaviour. >However, the voter turnout was around 5% (yes - five percent, around 10 people). > >I'm happy to support either, and have had offers of extra list admins to monitor >(and block) the list for explosions 24 hrs a day (the joys of a global >membership), so we can tick off that concern. > >The rest is personal preference AFAICS. Time for another poll ? Any other issues >people see ? Keep current arrangement please. -- 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 May 27 08:56:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:56:19 +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 IAA29322 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:56:12 +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 SAA17401 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 18:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980526185635.2adf3f5a@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 18:56:35 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980526165113.006ea130@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.5.16.19980526150727.0d6fabc2@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19980526133121.00695538@pop.cais.com> <3.0.5.16.19980526121540.2a275e4e@maine.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:51 PM 5/26/98 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >An actively ethical player should not attempt to hide behind >"general knowledge and experience", but should be as forthcoming as >possible in explaining everything that might be relevant. The laws may not >require this -- perhaps they should -- but the canons of active ethics do. That someone would want to hide behind "general knowledge and experience" rather than explain to the opponents what he intended his bid to mean is distasteful at best. If the canons of active ethics require disclosure, why not the Laws? Tim >>>Nothing in the laws suggests that players have the right to know what >>>defense to use, nor to require their opponents to tell them. If they wish >>>to agree that they will defend against bids about which their opponents >>>have no agreement as though they were natural, fine, but their decision to >>>do so is at their own risk, and doesn't create an obligation for their >>>opponents to treat their own bids as natural. >> >>The auction starts 1C-(2C). Now, my bids carry different meanings >>depending on whether 2C is Michaels or natural. If the opponents tell me >>this sequence is undiscuss, how am I to know which methods to use? Suppose >>I guess it's Michaels and bid accordingly. My partner guesses it is >>natural and bids accordingly. It would not be a surprise if we end up in >>the wrong spot because partner and I are speaking different languages. Do >>we have no recourse? If not, it sounds like we are at a disadvantage >>because we have taken the time to discuss defensive counter-measures. > >If you and your partner are "speaking different languages" you take your >lumps, as you do any time you have a bidding misunderstanding -- your right >to full disclosure doesn't mean you have a right not to have a bidding >misunderstanding. If you have discussed defensive counter-measures against >"no agreement" auctions (e.g. "presume natural"), you will not be put at a >disadvantage by having done so; you might be speaking the wrong language >for the situation, but you will know, at least, that it is the *same* >language. > >>>Full disclosure is satisfied when all relevant information has been >>>revealed. There is no obligation to "make up" additional "information" on >>>the spot just because the opponents wish you had it to give to them. >> >>There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those >>agreements are. If not, I think there should be. > >I disagree with both statements. > > >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 May 27 08:59:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:59:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29339 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:58:58 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003131; 26 May 98 22:49 GMT Message-ID: <$4oEqRCva0a1Ew5$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:48:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) In-Reply-To: <199805261322.JAA05448@freenet3.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: >Here is one where the ACBL may have even got it right. From the alerting >regs: > *In all Alert situations, tournament directors should rule > with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not > simply by the letter of the law. > Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that > their opponents have neglected to Alert a special > agreement will be expected to protect themselves. > ... > Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects > what is happening, even though not properly informed, may > not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed > without clarifying the situation. > > [ACBL Alert procedure, p.1&2] The EBU equivalent is If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to alert a call, and it is reckoned that you were aware of its likely meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk. I wouldn't adjust on the actual hand, basically because of the above two statements which I consider should be part of everyone's approach to alerting. -- 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 May 27 09:04:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:04:49 +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 JAA29370 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:04:41 +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 SAA18009 for ; Tue, 26 May 1998 18:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980526190505.50bfdfea@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:05:05 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199805262048.PAA18401@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:48 PM 5/26/98 -0500, Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion. If advancer says "no agreement," but >> intervenor intended the 2C cue-bid to be Michaels, then the opponents >> should be told. If intervenor bids 2C with both majors, he must have some >> expectation that his partner will understand the bid. I believe this >> expectation should be enough to determine that there is an agreement. Or, > > I respectfully disagree. There is no obligation to reveal to >opponents what cards one holds in one's hand. As long as partner cannot >know that 2C is intended as Michaels except by 'general bridge knowledge >and experience', then there is no reason for me to reveal what the bid >meant. No reason in the Laws perhaps, but an ethical player would want the opponents to be fully informed. >I would never ask the TD to order an opponent to explain his own >bids under these conditions, and would regard it as a serious TD error if >he so ordered. And I would never put an opponent in a position where he thought calling the director was neccesary, I would simply tell him what I intended the bid to mean. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 09:12:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:52:55 +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 IAA29295 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:52:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003040; 26 May 98 22:49 GMT Message-ID: <54MFqEC$Z0a1EwYq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:47:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) In-Reply-To: <199805221630.JAA07318@proxyb1-atm.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 be in favor of having a screener's input become part of the >AC process, *after* the AC has decided on the case. What input? >Whether or not the screener gave an opinion to the appellant as to >the reasonableness of the appeal. This could help an AC decision in >regard to keeping deposits. This has been discussed in England, and it has been agreed here that this would be very undesirable and open to abuse. All the player needs to do is to give a story to the screener that clearly is worth an appeal, then he gives the real story to the AC and his deposit is safe. No, thankyou. Apart from players who tell the story wrong deliberately, what about those who give a biased or wrong story to the screener unintentionally? --------- Linda Weinstein wrote: >I do however, agree with you in principle. I would like to see a >'pre-appeal' Committee, that would perhaps include a Director, National >Appeals Co-Chair (sorry Karen and Jon - you need more to do, right :-) >?), and a NAC Vice-Chairman. Now you have the 'cop' and the 'appellate >court judge' and three opinions. This to me as an appelant would be >more likely to make me pause and re-examine my position. This group >should also encourage players to get an opinion when they think the case >requires more consideration. This would also allow stricter enforcement >of frivolous penalties. Two opinions of 'frivolous' and you are really >nailed, as you probably should be. I think this is just as bad, as well as lengthening the process. There is absolutely no need for this sort of further committee. Both the ACBL and the EBU have a method to warn a player who is about to make a stupid appeal, and that is enough. No further protection is 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 Wed May 27 09:38:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:38:15 +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 JAA29431 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:38:07 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA20408; Tue, 26 May 1998 16:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:38:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199805262338.QAA20408@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Club game ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike wrote: > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue May 26 14:49 PDT 1998 > > Turn out for Monday's holiday club game was very small but this deal caused > a bit of ill will when the playing > director and a very erratic partner bid this hand: > > dealer E vul none > > 8xxx > xx > 10xxx > xxx > QJxx Kxx > Jx AKxx > xx QJ > Axxxxx KJxx > Ax > Q10xxx > AKxxx > Q > N E S W > 1NT 2S* x > P P 3D x > P P P > *2S alerted as brozel, spades and a minor, CC agrees. > Making 3. > > East is furious contending three things: > 1)passing 2SX is LA, contract should be 2SX down many. > 2)north should preference back to 3S over 3D, I'm not sure why except it > doesn't work. > 3)as a matter of active ethics, declarer should announce his error before > the opening lead. > > I was not at the table but received my share of disdain when I suggested > 1)passing wasn't LA, > 2)north had no UI and was under no obligation to make what might be an > encouraging noise > to a partner known by all at the table capable of any mistake or bad > judgment. > 3)cackling about his mistake half way through the play was in poor taste but > he was not > required to inform his opponents of his misbid. > > This morning I'm not so sure of 1 and would welcome opinions on the others. And Adam wrote: > 2S showing red suits is not part of any convention I've ever heard of Suction, Adam. Perhaps passing 2SX was an LA, but I think the TD must try to understand 2S. (1) If 2S was intended as Suction (showing clubs or reds), pass cannot be an LA because there is no hand partner can hold on this auction which could have a strong enough preference for spades over either possibility -- partner could only be 7222 if an opp had psyched or misbid, and likewise partner cannot be strong enough to think that 2SX might well make. The Laws surely do not intend that we should contrive fictitious methods to expose psychs and impose them on South to punish his mistake. (2) If 2S was intended as a psych, passing is plainly not an LA. (3) If 2S was intended as a Michaels cue bid, passing is suggested by the UI because it awakens South to East's bid-- (1S) 2S (X) would never be left in with South's hand, whereas (1NT) 2S showing hearts and a minor (X) might be left in, as David explains below. If North had a spade suit and the double were left in successfully, I think E-W would have a good case. (4) If 2S was purely a misbid when South intended Brozel 2D, I believe that the X will always awaken South even without the UI, so pass is not an LA. The UI also awakens South, and in that sense it does suggest correcting. But is the UI law so strong that South cannot reconsider whether the present contract fits what he intended to propose? Any other serious possibilities for 2S? Not that I can think of off-hand. If cases 3 and 4 are considered possible, and you believe the UI law is so strong, how should the conflicting suggestions be resolved? I have thought that "demonstrably suggests" intends to cover possibilities for the UI transmitter rather than possibilities for the recipient. Does South's misbid put him in a position where any call he makes should be penalized? I hope not! How does anyone recommend determining which possibilities for 2S should be considered in formulating a ruling on such a case, apart from asking South and assessing his credibility? And David Grabiner wrote: > Absent the UI, North knows that South has 5-5 in the red suits > (or hearts and a minor), and has chosen to play 2Sx anyway. He probably > has five or six spades, and South's Ax, AK of diamonds, and stiff club > give him an excellent hand. This is a flagrant violation. I disagree! I think your analysis isn't deep enough on this hand. If South intended 2S as Suction, then absent UI North doesn't know nearly so much about South's hand. And your willingness to proceed from cursory analysis to your flatly accusatory conclusion? Boo! But perhaps all this analysis proves that pass merits serious consideration before rejecting it, and is therefore an LA for having considered it? I think not! If South is expected to continue playing bridge, he must be allowed to try to decide what is an LA based on reason rather than on whatever calls are sufficient and might come to mind. (And I mean continue playing both for the hand and for future games.) Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 10:12:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 10:12:28 +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 KAA29548 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 10:12:21 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa28109; 26 May 98 17:12 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Club game ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 May 1998 16:38:30 PDT." <199805262338.QAA20408@d2.ikos.com> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:12:35 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805261712.aa28109@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everett wrote: > And Adam wrote: > > 2S showing red suits is not part of any convention I've ever heard of > > Suction, Adam. Oh, yeah, I forgot that one. Maybe because Suction is now an illegal convention in GCC events, except in the 95% of the country where this prohibition has been waived . . . :-) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 11:25:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 11:25:48 +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 LAA29682 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 11:25:31 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yeUyx-00048I-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 02:26:21 +0100 Message-ID: <0Pj0RXAZw1a1Ewr4@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 01:19:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) In-Reply-To: <+48EqUC$a0a1Ew57@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <+48EqUC$a0a1Ew57@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>in the UK I'd rule result stands - there is a possibility that 2H is >>non-forcing, which is non-alertable and I can protect myself. > > Errrrr - I think it's alertable here, John. > I stand corrected but diligent searching of the Orange Book doesn't convince me. As I said I know plenty of people who play it as non- forcing (albeit in their 70's and rubber bridge players). I would be aware it could be non-forcing. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) / --} |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .\:. /\ /~~ |This line intentionally nul From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 11:26:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 11:26:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA29690 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 11:26:30 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014455; 27 May 98 1:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 01:38:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Club game ruling In-Reply-To: <007101bd88eb$f0a6d780$0169ffd0@pavilion> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <007101bd88eb$f0a6d780$0169ffd0@pavilion>, mike dodson writes >Turn out for Monday's holiday club game was very small but this deal caused >a bit of ill will when the playing >director and a very erratic partner bid this hand: > >dealer E vul none > > 8xxx > xx > 10xxx > xxx >QJxx Kxx >Jx AKxx >xx QJ >Axxxxx KJxx > Ax > Q10xxx > AKxxx > Q >N E S W > 1NT 2S* x >P P 3D x >P P P >*2S alerted as brozel, spades and a minor, CC agrees. >Making 3. > >East is furious contending three things: >1)passing 2SX is LA, contract should be 2SX down many. >2)north should preference back to 3S over 3D, I'm not sure why except it >doesn't work. >3)as a matter of active ethics, declarer should announce his error before >the opening lead. > >I was not at the table but received my share of disdain when I suggested >1)passing wasn't LA, >2)north had no UI and was under no obligation to make what might be an >encouraging noise >to a partner known by all at the table capable of any mistake or bad >judgment. >3)cackling about his mistake half way through the play was in poor taste but >he was not >required to inform his opponents of his misbid. > >This morning I'm not so sure of 1 and would welcome opinions on the others. > My guess is he psyche'd (probably intentionally) and pulled to expose his psyche. Generally players playing 2-suiters over 1NT know better what they're doing than when they try them against a suit opener. N has no business reverting to 3S as South's D's will be longer than his spades. There appears to be no UI. WTP? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 27 12:12:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:12:05 +1000 Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29764 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:12:00 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p47.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.127]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA28470; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:12:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980527090332.006c99f8@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:03:32 +1000 To: "Grattan" From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: no agreement 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 09:38 25/05/98 +0100, you wrote: > > >---------- >> From: Reg Busch >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: no agreement >> Date: 25 May 1998 00:38 >> >> EW are a casual partnership. South opens 1C, and West bids 2C. North >asks, >> and East says "We have no agreement'. North calls the TD. Where to from >here? >> >> Does East's "We have no agreement" mean "We have no agreement about this >> being a conventional bid, so it must be natural"? >> >++ [ I would suggest "Since we have no agreement you and I are both left >to use our general bridge knowledge to make up our minds how to treat it." >More difficult is the situation when they ask the meaning of East's next >call >and West does not just say "We have no special agreement" ] ++ > \x/ \x/ >> West may of course think that they do have an agreement. Should the TD >send >> East from the table so that West may explain to NS what he thinks the >> agreement is. And if West agrees there was no agreemnt, where to from >here? > >++[ How would we know what West thinks? Who has been so unwise as to >ask him to speak? ] The time is not now for any correction. North/South >should >be getting on with the game and had no reason to call the Director in the >first place. ++ Grattan ++ > Supposing East, instead of saying "no agreement" had seen "I don't know" or "I've forgotten." Now, rightly or wrongly, I see it as my duty to NS to ensure their entitlement to an explanation of the agreement, if there is one. So I would ask East to leave the table, then ask West to explain their agreement, if they have one. East now returns, NS have the info they are entitled to, and there has been no UI. The Laws do not specify that ONLY East may respond to questions about West's calls. In the specific situation, I was extending this policy to the "No agreement" situation. East may THINK there is no agreement, West may believe otherwise. Far better to clarify this at this stage, with no damage done, than to have to deal with a possibly complex claim of damage later. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 12:12:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:12:08 +1000 Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29769 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:12:02 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p47.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.127]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA28443; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:12:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980527083323.006c99f8@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:33:23 +1000 To: "John Probst" From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: no agreement Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:34 25/05/98 +0100, you wrote: >In article <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch > writes >>EW are a casual partnership. South opens 1C, and West bids 2C. North asks, >>and East says "We have no agreement'. North calls the TD. Where to from here? >> >>Does East's "We have no agreement" mean "We have no agreement about this >>being a conventional bid, so it must be natural"? Or does it mean "We have >>no agreement, so we'll all have to guess what West means"? If the first, >>then NS may have a case for damage if the 2C is not natural. If the latter, >>then the hand boils down to a guessing game. >> >>West may of course think that they do have an agreement. Should the TD send >>East from the table so that West may explain to NS what he thinks the >>agreement is. And if West agrees there was no agreemnt, where to from here? >> >>Reg. >> >I have played "no agreement" as a system with one or two partners. Each >time one of you makes a bid you establish an agreement, so you end up >playing eg. precision 2C, Strong 2D, Weak 2H and 2S a minor pre-empt, >depending on what either of you have already opened. It's quite fun. > >SFAICT it's not illegal either although one is liable to get a warning >letter from the club manager. Full disclosure involves explaining what >we have agreed so far :) >-- It may be fun, but is it bridge? So you have qualified for, say, the Bermuda Bowl and the WBF asks for your system summary. You reply that you don't have any agreements, but plan to establish them as play progresses. Will they accept this because it is not illegal? Doesn't your SO have some regulations re changing systems after every hand? No doubt the Laws of Cricket contain all sets of regs about bat dimensions etc, but probably don't specify that, when you stand at the batting crease, you must actually have a bat in your hand! If you stand at the crease without a bat, you may be playing some fun game of your own, but it isn't cricket. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 14:21:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:21:37 +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 OAA00162 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:21:31 +1000 Received: from paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.58]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA24924 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 00:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 00:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805270422.AAA07712@paxil.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Tue, 26 May 1998 22:36:32 +0100) Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > How do the AC know the bidding is the same at other tables? The fact > that a contract is reached at no other tables does not mean that the > result was not likely or probable. ACs should not use scores from other > tables to decide contracts. > Marvin L. French wrote: >> Wouldn't it be appropriate for TDs to routinely print out a copy of >> the recap sheet for possible use by the AC? The names and standings >> would of course be removed. > No, I don't think so. There were some comments in the Appeals Casebooks about wanting the recap sheet to see possible results. For example, suppose that the committee rules an adjustment of the contract from 5Hx, +800, to the normal contract of 4S, which may be +420, +450, or +480 depending on the lead. To determine whether the lead to get +420 is likely, may the committee see how many tables actually scored +420? -- 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 May 27 15:58:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 15:58:27 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00423 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 15:58:23 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz (p42-m1-wg1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.107.234]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07954 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 17:58:49 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <356BA3B1.BE8079D4@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:25:05 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > A small favour, please, Wayne, don't reply to another article when > starting a new thread. For people like myself whose software threads > all these articles I now have a thread with 42 articles that is a mix > between Weekend Misinformation (1), Weekend Misinformation (2) and > Careless or Irrational II. It is a *very* confusing thread! David and all others please accept my apologies. I've just got used to cutting the bridge-laws address and replacing it when replying to a post and I thought that I could simply do this and change the Subject but alas I have learned that this does not work. (much snipped) > > >At the end of play West called the director and claimed that his third > >pass was based on misinformation and that had he been told that 2D was > >natural he would have made a takeout double which East could leave in > >for penalties. > > I don't see the logic. What difference does it make? The logic is: EW have agreed to play t/o doubles. If the opponent's have bid and completed a 2D transfer to hearts then a t/o double needs to be able to cope with a 3D response from partner hence no double. However if West knows that 2D is natural and has seen south bid 2H (for whatever reason) then a t/o double asks partner to bid either black suit or pass for penalties but not bid 3D. -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 16:54:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:54:39 +1000 Received: from mail2.rmcnet.fr (root@mail2.rmcnet.fr [194.206.92.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA00532 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:54:28 +1000 Received: from ns1.rmcnet.fr (client23.rmcnet.fr [195.10.18.67]) by mail2.rmcnet.fr (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA16381; Wed, 27 May 1998 08:55:09 +0200 Message-Id: <199805270655.IAA16381@mail2.rmcnet.fr> From: "Mallory Voelker" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge laws" Cc: "Thomas Wisser" , "Ralf Teichmann" , "Klaus Amann" , "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karin_Bruchh=E4user?=" , "Carina Tetal" , "Ansgar Seiter" Subject: Re: SPLIT SCORE Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 07:56:59 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail2.rmcnet.fr id IAA16381 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > De : David Stevenson > A : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Objet : Re: SPLIT SCORE > Date=A0: mardi 26 mai 1998 23:47 >=20 > Mallory Voelker wrote [edited by Robert Nordgren]: >=20 > >I'm Vice Chairman of the German National Laws Comittee >=20 > Nice to see you here. >=20 > > and I encounter a > >rather interesting question in a case we have to decide on: >=20 > [snip details of the case] >=20 > >1) > >What do you think of W's arguments? We still deem that 4S is wild action, > >and that W needs at least better S spots to let this bid enter into > >consideration. For sake of information, in a earlier ruling, we precis= ed > >"wild or gambling action" as follows: "Wild or gambling action is an action > >that: less than 5% of all players with comparable Bridge ability woul= d > >have chosen and among the remaining (at least) 95% of all players of > >comparable capability all of them would have eliminated it after > >consideration, because it goes against Bridge logic and has only > >disadvantages of heavy weight" >=20 > I think that your definition of wild or gambling action has not been > reached in this case. I do not believe the action was wild or gambling= , > possibly ill-judged. It looks unsympathetic to consider West's actions > gambling: he has a problem, and failed to solve it - that's not > gambling. In general, when a player has a difficult problem, then one > should be sympathetic to any non-extreme solution - 6S would be wild an= d > gambling. >=20 > >2) What score do you give?=20 > >Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X -= 2 > >for N/S > >The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the > >damage is no longer consequent to the irregularity but subsequent. The= n the > >conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you CAN'T apply Law 12 = C 2 > >as this Law only > >allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law > >12 needs another Law who says that Law 12 applies. And as the conditio= ns of > >Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there is no such law... > > > >You may think this is harsh reasoning, perhaps you can give me argumen= ts > >why this should not be so. Many colleagues think it is not possible to let > >the offending side profit of the error of the non-offending side as th= is error > >would never have come up without the irregularity committed by the > >offending side (hypothetical causality!). So that the offending side must > >never profit from an opponent's wild action after an irregularity committed > >by the other > >side. So split scores only applie when the "likely" and the "at all > >probable" score are not the same and in no other situation... >=20 > Assuming that we are going to treat this as wild or gambling action, > you are correct that that means the causal link has been snapped. As > far as the NOs are concerned L40C does not apply and there is no reason > to adjust the score. >=20 > Certainly both the EBU and the ACBL expect to give a split score in > such cases. In the EBU it is routine and normal to split any score > where wild or gambling action is concerned - is that legal? L21B3 is > vaguer than L40C, and seems to suggest that the TD/AC has more > discretion in the matter. I would suggest that there is no real need t= o > challenge this interpretation. >=20 > So I would be happy with a split score. >=20 > >3) If you decide that you are not allowed to give a split score on thi= s > >one, are you then allowed to circumvent the spirit of this by giving a > >procedural penalty that is so heavy that it takes away to N/S the benefit > >of the wild action of W? Should one do so? >=20 > There is certainly nothing to stop you making a PP as large as you > like, except any regulations and/or interpretations of your SO. > However, I don't think this is necessary. >=20 > >4) If not, do you give a PP for the lack of alert having indirectly caused > >damage to the non-offending side? >=20 > You could. The general approach that I suggest to this list is to > avoid PPs except at the higher levels or for frequent offenders. > However, most bridge played with screens is higher level bridge! > 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 ~ Dear David, Thank you for your detailed answer. I am still not happy about the split score. Being international TD, I kno= w that=20 currently you easily give one, but I think the Law doesn't allow to do so. Law 21 B 3 is vaguer, but it expressively takes reference to Law 40 C... and there you are again. As the reference goes to Law 40 C, this means in my opinion, that as long as Law 40 C applies to the situation - and here = it clearly=20 does - you cannot apply Lw 21 B 3 (alone). So...? Of course you may say that the OS is not allowed to profit from its irregularity, as if it had not occured, W would never have bid 4S. But that s just as when the OS commits an irregularity and gives thereby the chance to the NOS to profit from it by the way of an adjusted score or another penalty. If the NOS doesn t profit, so be is...just rub of the green. I still think u should be able to give that split score but I just don t find the Law on which you can base it. Perhaps I m too dogmatic ;-) 40 C seems to define clearly the given situation. If that is the case, yo= u cannot, in my opinion, apply a more general Law (as suggested other BLML readers) to solve the case (lex specialis derogat...). So perhaps that we should not challenge the "official view", but just question it in order to advance in the interpretation of the Laws? ;-) I m grateful that you don t agree with judging 4S gambling action, I don = t either. But majority of the German NAC does...Hope with your arguments I will be able to convince them ... ;-) Sincerily yours Mallory Voelker From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 18:30:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 18:30:07 +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 SAA00741 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 18:30:00 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:30:27 +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 JAA08400 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 09:29:26 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:27:45 +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: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > >Aside from the question of simplicity, you do agree it's bloody daft, > >don't you? > > Apart from all the people he killed, Fred West was a jolly good chap, > wasn't he? No, I don't think so. I don't think it's an unanswerable question, though. If the answer were "yes", the reason it would be an awkward question is that it would be difficult to say that without seeming callous. I don't think the EBU's alerting regulations are quite so sensitive a target. > It is not daft because of the simplicity, so your question is just > unanswerable. Is there a stress on "because"? If so, I think you may have answered my question. I applaud the EBU's policy of simplicity in alerting, and I am more than happy to put up with the occasional absurdity to avoid added complication, but I don't think this is such a case, because an *equally simple* set of rules would eliminate the absurdity of alerting 2C (natural and non-forcing) to warn the opponents that it is not Stayman (artificial and forcing), which is also alertable. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 27 19:16:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 19:16:44 +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 TAA00820 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 19:16:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025424; 27 May 98 9:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:57:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980526150727.0d6fabc2@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >Perhaps a simpler example. The opponents bid 1S-3S and you ask if 3S is >preemptive, mixed, limit or forcing? Opener says: "We met at the >partnership desk at the last minute and haven't had a chance to discuss >everything. Double raises have not been discussed." I think opener should >leave the table and responder should disclose to the opponents what he >intended the 3S bid to mean. Absolutely not. If there is no agreement whatever, why on earth should you tell the oppos what you hold? There is no Law that suggests non-agreements should be told to oppos. [s] >There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those >agreements are. If not, I think there should be. Why? Anyway, if you think so, and you really wish to make the game unplayable for the vast majority, then you need the Laws changing. -- 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 May 28 02:15:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:15:04 +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 CAA04387 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:14:57 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016840; 27 May 98 15:58 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:56:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: What are my options? Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:56:57 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > At 02:20 PM 5/26/98 BST, Robin wrote: > > >> From: Herman De Wael > >> If this is not the case, then I think it should be only natural > that the > >> TD offers west to use L25B2b2, since a player who is polite enough > to > >> ask a director before bidding twice should not suffer a fate worse > than > >> someone who gives two calls without calling the TD. > > Clearly correct, and required by L9B1(c). The player calling the TD > cannot > have his rights subsequently compromised by an action taken by > LHO.######## See my comments below. ####### > > >I wonder what would happen if you offer L25B: > > > >W: "Stop - 3H" > >W: "Oops! Director please," (waits) > >W: "Director, this is what happened [the aution]. What are my > options?" > >TD: "Let me read you L25B," (reads) > > "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when ..." > >N: (interupts) "Pass" > >TD: "Oh. Now you (West) have no options." > > That last statement would be a serious error by the TD. North's > interruption is an obvious violation of L9B2; it is cancelled, and > subject > to being treated as an "extraneous... remark" under L16A. > > > ######### I am troubled by this. Law 9B1d states that "The fact that > a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does > not affect the rights of the opponents." I therefore cannot see why > the *non-offenders* are handicapped in 'the race' because the offender > called the TD and as a result is now allowed time to consider her next > action that she would not otherwise have had. To be fair to both > sides, perhaps the TD should explain everyone's rights to them and > then restart the auction with "On your marks, get set, go!" The TD > would, of course, require video replay evidence to decide who got > their call in first. More seriously, Law 25 is considered by many > (including me) to be an ill-drafted piece of legislation and the whole > concept 'the race' together with such ridiculous examples as the > above where the workings of the Law are affected by whether or not the > TD is called lead me to conclude that Law 25 should be re-written at > the earliest opportunity and preferably before 2007. IMO, a perfectly > sensible alternative Law 25 would allow changes of inadvertant calls > only. All other calls once made should stand and any subsequently > substituted calls be cancelled, treated as UI and lead penaties > applied. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 02:36:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:36:45 +1000 Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04458 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:36:39 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with SMTP id MAA11230 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:37:34 -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-1998May27.122710.1189.214146; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:27:59 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@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, 27 May 1998 12:27:59 -0600 Subject: Psychic bidding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a question regarding certain types of psychic bids. The question came about because of an event which occurred down at MIT yesterday evening. Partner and I were playing a very non-standard system. 1C is a catch all bid showing 13-16 HCP any shape 1D = 17+ forcing 1H = 4+ hearts, 8-12 HCP, might be a minor suit canape 1S = 4+ spades, 8-12 HCP, might be a minor suit canape 1N = 12-14 HCP 2C = weak, both minors or strong and balanced 2D = 5+ hearts, 4+ minor, longer hearts, 7-12 HCP 2H = 4+/4+ in both majors, 4-11 HCP 2S = 5+ spades, 4+ minor, 7-12 HCP In first seat, partner opened 1H Partner's failure to open 2H (essentially) denies more than three cards in spades. I was dealt x xx KTxxx AKxxx The auction proceeded 1H - (P) - ? holding this hand, a 1S psyche is extremely attractive The hand isn't good enough for a 2/1 1N lacking a spade stopper doesn't call to me, plus I KNOW that the opponent's own a nine card spade fit and approximately half the deck I would argue that any good bridge player would at least consider the 1S psyche. (I certainly did, but decided to bid 1N instead since I wasn't sure if I could ethically bid 1S) My question to the list is when precisely does a psychic bid become systemic? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 02:43:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:43:45 +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 CAA04504 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:43:39 +1000 Received: from ptp150.ac.net (ptp150.ac.net [205.138.55.59]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA19927 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 12:44:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <356C421C.227C@ac.net> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:41:00 -0400 From: Linda Weinstein Organization: Not! X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: no agreement References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Absolutely not. If there is no agreement whatever, why on earth > should you tell the oppos what you hold? There is no Law that suggests > non-agreements should be told to oppos. > > [s] > > >There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those > >agreements are. If not, I think there should be. > > Why? Anyway, if you think so, and you really wish to make the game > unplayable for the vast majority, then you need the Laws changing. I sure agree with you, David. In fact, I am surprised, no, make that *flabbergasted* that anyone would have thought differently. It almost seems fair that one ends up combating the well-oiled agreements that established partnerships have by not having agreements that then allow them to cope. Sort of evens the playing field sometimes. I don't mean that as a premeditated strategy, just the normal sort of thing that comes from playing with casual partners, strangers, etc. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 03:15:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:15:47 +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 DAA04642 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:15:35 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1019752; 27 May 98 17:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:14:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Martin writes > IMO, a perfectly >> sensible alternative Law 25 would allow changes of inadvertant calls >> only. All other calls once made should stand and any subsequently >> substituted calls be cancelled, treated as UI and lead penaties >> applied. ########### I am 100% in favoUr of this -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 28 03:24:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:24:52 +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 DAA04722 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:24:39 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa17487; 27 May 98 10:25 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 May 1998 12:27:59 PDT." <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:24:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805271025.aa17487@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > I would argue that any good bridge player would at least consider the 1S > psyche. This is tangential to your question, but I have to take issue with this. I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of good bridge players who just don't consider psyching, ever. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 03:37:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:37:29 +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 DAA04805 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:37:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2005134; 27 May 98 17:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:49:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) In-Reply-To: <199805270422.AAA07712@paxil.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: > >> How do the AC know the bidding is the same at other tables? The fact >> that a contract is reached at no other tables does not mean that the >> result was not likely or probable. ACs should not use scores from other >> tables to decide contracts. > >> Marvin L. French wrote: > >>> Wouldn't it be appropriate for TDs to routinely print out a copy of >>> the recap sheet for possible use by the AC? The names and standings >>> would of course be removed. > >> No, I don't think so. > >There were some comments in the Appeals Casebooks about wanting the >recap sheet to see possible results. For example, suppose that the >committee rules an adjustment of the contract from 5Hx, +800, to the >normal contract of 4S, which may be +420, +450, or +480 depending on the >lead. To determine whether the lead to get +420 is likely, may the >committee see how many tables actually scored +420? You may think that I post too much, but quite often I deliberately leave out detail to shorten things - and I did it deliberately here! Bother! I accept that scores on the score-sheet are reasonable for one purpose: the number of tricks made during the play. If I decide to adjust 2H to 1NT I accept a quick look at the score-sheet for some idea of the number of tricks made is 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 Thu May 28 03:39:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:39:49 +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 DAA04827 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:39:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2005118; 27 May 98 17:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:45:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Jeremy Rickard wrote: >> >> >Aside from the question of simplicity, you do agree it's bloody daft, >> >don't you? >> >> Apart from all the people he killed, Fred West was a jolly good chap, >> wasn't he? > >No, I don't think so. I don't think it's an unanswerable question, >though. If the answer were "yes", the reason it would be an awkward >question is that it would be difficult to say that without seeming >callous. I don't think the EBU's alerting regulations are quite so >sensitive a target. > >> It is not daft because of the simplicity, so your question is just >> unanswerable. > >Is there a stress on "because"? If so, I think you may have answered my >question. > >I applaud the EBU's policy of simplicity in alerting, and I am more than >happy to put up with the occasional absurdity to avoid added >complication, but I don't think this is such a case, because an *equally >simple* set of rules would eliminate the absurdity of alerting 2C >(natural and non-forcing) to warn the opponents that it is not Stayman >(artificial and forcing), which is also alertable. You can have an equally simple set of rules, but they have tried them and they do not work. I do not agree that you can get a workable set of rules that are as simple and do not involve alerting Stayman. Nor do I believe it to be desirable, 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 Thu May 28 03:57:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:57:06 +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 DAA04906 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 03:56:45 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yekSG-0007cA-00; Wed, 27 May 1998 17:57:37 +0000 Message-ID: <7eQnl$AT1Eb1EwSs@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:28:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com>, Richard Willey writes > >I have a question regarding certain types of psychic bids. >The question came about because of an event which occurred down at MIT >yesterday evening. > >Partner and I were playing a very non-standard system. >1C is a catch all bid showing 13-16 HCP any shape >1D = 17+ forcing >1H = 4+ hearts, 8-12 HCP, might be a minor suit canape >1S = 4+ spades, 8-12 HCP, might be a minor suit canape >1N = 12-14 HCP >2C = weak, both minors or strong and balanced >2D = 5+ hearts, 4+ minor, longer hearts, 7-12 HCP >2H = 4+/4+ in both majors, 4-11 HCP >2S = 5+ spades, 4+ minor, 7-12 HCP > >In first seat, partner opened 1H >Partner's failure to open 2H (essentially) denies more than three cards >in spades. > >I was dealt > >x >xx >KTxxx >AKxxx > >The auction proceeded > >1H - (P) - ? > >holding this hand, a 1S psyche is extremely attractive >The hand isn't good enough for a 2/1 >1N lacking a spade stopper doesn't call to me, plus I KNOW that the >opponent's own a nine card spade fit and approximately half the deck > >I would argue that any good bridge player would at least consider the 1S >psyche. >(I certainly did, but decided to bid 1N instead since I wasn't sure if I >could ethically bid 1S) > >My question to the list is when precisely does a psychic bid become >systemic? > > >Richard > when you do it sufficiently frequently that partner knows it is a pssibility, at which point it becomes a CPU (concealed partnership understanding). This particular bid is a frequent psyche in general terms, so ... in the days when I used to make it partners used to alert it as "spades or not spades". IMO it doesn't have the element of surprise in a strong field so is far less attractive than it might seem. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 28 04:30:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 04:30:31 +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 EAA05086 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 04:30:24 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA02221 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 May 1998 13:27:58 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199805271827.NAA02221@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:27:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I respectfully disagree. There is no obligation to reveal to > >opponents what cards one holds in one's hand. As long as partner cannot > >know that 2C is intended as Michaels except by 'general bridge knowledge > >and experience', then there is no reason for me to reveal what the bid > >meant. > > No reason in the Laws perhaps, but an ethical player would want the > opponents to be fully informed. I want my opponents to be fully informed of our partnership agreements. I think this includes telling them anything they want to know about our past experiences together, or the way the bid is usually played at the club we come from, or whatever else partner may know that would allow him to figure out my bid. But neither law nor ethics requires me to tell the opponents information my partner is not aware of. Do you extend this rule to other cases as well? When you open a strong artificial bid do you send partner away from the table to tell opponents exactly what you have, since the bid is ambiguous and it would be to their advantage in bidding and play to know what it is based on? > >I would never ask the TD to order an opponent to explain his own > >bids under these conditions, and would regard it as a serious TD error if > >he so ordered. > > And I would never put an opponent in a position where he thought calling > the director was neccesary, I would simply tell him what I intended the bid > to mean. While you're at it, why not just show him your hand. I am still mystified as to why you think the opponents are entitled to information that cannot possibly be available to partner. I am sympathetic to Herman's point that in most cases the partnership really does have relevant information that they need to make available. But even then it is partner who should present that evidence to opponents, not me. And in the rare case where there is no such information [I just met partner for the first time at the partnership desk, and we said nothing at all about any cue-bids whatsoever, and now I have made one], then everyone at the table, partner and opponents, just have to guess. > Tim > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 05:31:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 05:31:41 +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 FAA05343 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 05:31:28 +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 PAA12050 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 15:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 15:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805271932.PAA17232@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The role of a screening director Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While I agree with the argument that is raised that the screening director should not be able to completely protect the appelants against frivolous appeal penalties, I believe his input should be available to the committee when it is considering a frivolous appeal penalty. He doesn't need to be present if he writes a short summary of his advice. For example, West may have used UI to sacrifice in 5Hx for -300. The director adjusts the score to 4S by South making five, +450. E-W want to appeal. "I advised the appelants that the adjustment to 4S appeared justified, but 4S should make only four on correct defense, not five." This appeal should not be penalized as frivolous, since at least one expert looking at an objective standard believes that the score adjustment is wrong. E-W should be protected here even if the committee determines that South could always make five on an elementary endplay that the screening director missed, or that it was likely West would make the wrong opening lead. "I advised West that it didn't seem to me that pass was a logical alternative to 5H on his hand." This appeal should probably not be frivolous, unless the committee determines that West should clearly have known, based on his system, that pass was logical with his hand. "I advised West that he would have to demonstrate to the committee that pass was not a logical alternative, and that this was the standard." This appeal could be deemed frivolous, possibly even in the same case in which the above appeal would not. E-W mught still be able to win the case if they could show that in their system pass was not a logical alternative, or not be penalized for a frivolous appeal if they could show that West could be convinced pass was not a logical alternative. "I advised West that it was irrelevant that he had intended to bid 5H before East hesitated, as long as some of his peers would seriously consider passing." This appeal would probably be frivolous, because West would have been informed of the grounds for a frivolous appeal. -- 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 May 28 05:48:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 05:48:12 +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 FAA05508 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 05:48:06 +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 PAA11234 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 15:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980527154844.37cf1ade@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 15:48:44 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199805271827.NAA02221@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:27 PM 5/27/98 -0500, Grant C. Sterling wrote: > While you're at it, why not just show him your hand. I am still >mystified as to why you think the opponents are entitled to information >that cannot possibly be available to partner. Showing the opponents your hand is a lot different from telling them how you expect (or hope) your partner to interpret your bid. >then everyone at the table, partner and opponents, just >have to guess. And this is bridge? Sounds more like a crap shoot to me. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 06:32:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:32:21 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05585 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:32:12 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA11875; Wed, 27 May 1998 23:32:23 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-143.access.net.il [192.116.204.143]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA20116; Wed, 27 May 1998 23:31:15 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356C7911.AEE2D09A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:35:29 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Grant C. Sterling" CC: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: no agreement References: <199805271827.NAA02221@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Grant I don't understand why should we make all these interesting queries more complicated and super-wiser than in real life. I start from the basic point of view : plyayers don't cheat ..!! (otherwise you all knok my unpolite way to kick ..........). When this assumption agreed - neither opponents or partner can do nothing . We must deal with it as best as possible. Reasonable & up players can relate the non-agreed bid to their own holdings and act accordingly , but they are forbidden to tell what did they understand by general knowledge or experience (L75C). KIS-NHB !!!!!! (Keep It Simple - Nice Human Beings) Dany Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > > I respectfully disagree. There is no obligation to reveal to > > >opponents what cards one holds in one's hand. As long as partner cannot > > >know that 2C is intended as Michaels except by 'general bridge knowledge > > >and experience', then there is no reason for me to reveal what the bid > > >meant. > > > > No reason in the Laws perhaps, but an ethical player would want the > > opponents to be fully informed. > > I want my opponents to be fully informed of our partnership > agreements. I think this includes telling them anything they want to know > about our past experiences together, or the way the bid is usually played > at the club we come from, or whatever else partner may know that would > allow him to figure out my bid. But neither law nor ethics requires me to > tell the opponents information my partner is not aware of. > Do you extend this rule to other cases as well? When you open a > strong artificial bid do you send partner away from the table to tell > opponents exactly what you have, since the bid is ambiguous and it would be > to their advantage in bidding and play to know what it is based on? > > > >I would never ask the TD to order an opponent to explain his own > > >bids under these conditions, and would regard it as a serious TD error if > > >he so ordered. > > > > And I would never put an opponent in a position where he thought calling > > the director was neccesary, I would simply tell him what I intended the bid > > to mean. > > While you're at it, why not just show him your hand. I am still > mystified as to why you think the opponents are entitled to information > that cannot possibly be available to partner. > I am sympathetic to Herman's point that in most cases the > partnership really does have relevant information that they need to make > available. But even then it is partner who should present that evidence > to opponents, not me. And in the rare case where there is no such > information [I just met partner for the first time at the partnership > desk, and we said nothing at all about any cue-bids whatsoever, and now I > have made one], then everyone at the table, partner and opponents, just > have to guess. > > > Tim > > > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 06:39:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:39:32 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05642 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:39:25 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA14375; Wed, 27 May 1998 23:39:53 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-143.access.net.il [192.116.204.143]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA21695; Wed, 27 May 1998 23:38:29 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356C7AC1.D916C5CB@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:42:41 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Senior CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: List usage References: <01BD8894.2AC78CA0@har-pa1-04.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Craig I use Professional Comunicator , reliese 4.0 - I don't understand what are the problems - maybe the receivers' software doesn't fit to this advanced one ; I don't attach anything , maybe it appears in a peculiar way at recievers. If you"ll be very kind to send me a copy of my own message , received in "attached" mode , maybe I"ll be able to improve (the best existing software ......). Thanx Dany Craig Senior wrote: > > Amen to this, when possible. I believe a few of our group must pay by the > minute for connect time and must for economic reasons compose replies > offline and attach. It appears that certain areas of the world preclude > sending straight text. Vitold and Dany, both very friendly and pleasant > individuals do not seem able to do so. For the rest of us, we should try to > avoid attachments to the list as a whole. This is also a courtesy to those > who must download them needlessly while paying connect charges. Perhaps one > of our more technically expert people might be willing to communicate via > email with anyone using attachments to explain how to communicate in a text > mode? > > ---------- > From: Tim Goodwin[SMTP:timg@maine.rr.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 8:30 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: List usage > > At 04:59 PM 5/24/98 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: > >Hirsh wrote: > > > >I am starting to lose track of how many messages I've sent to people, but > >not the list, because of the way the reply function is set up. I know > that > >this has been discussed before, but I would really like to see reply to > list > >messages generate a message to the list, rather than the author of the > >message. > > > > > > > > And I couldn't agree more. How about it, everyone? > > > > Chris > > > >Attachment Converted: "C:\DOCS\BRIDGE\SALLY\Listusag.htm" > > At least I only have to delete something when I reply to all. When Chris > sends something I have to delete his attachment even if I don't want to > reply. How about not including attachments on BLML? > > Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 06:46:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:46:37 +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 GAA05717 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:46:31 +1000 Received: from default (cph16.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.16]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA08012 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 22:47:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805272047.WAA08012@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:48:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are my options? Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West > "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > options?" > > Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had > bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said > partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game > was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to > change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. > > Do you believe that West actually has this option? Yes. > More to the point, > do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call > and play for average minus? Certainly. Scratch "should", substitute "shall". I would rule this as a TD error if involved as, say, TDiC. On the information available, an adjustment to 3 imps lost by EW and won by NS seems reasonable as rectification of the TD error. As we have discussed earlier, I don't like L25B, but that is immaterial to the ruling. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 06:46:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:46:33 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05711 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:46:26 +1000 Received: from default (cph16.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.16]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA08022 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 22:47:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805272047.WAA08022@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:48:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >The director ruled that the table result stood. The hand went to > appeal > > >and the committee upheld the directors decision. In their ruling > the > > >committee commented that N/S would get to 3D which would be -2 > (compared > > >with 2H -4) this score was only 1 matchpoint (1/2 mp US) better > than 180 > > >in 2NT so they would not change the score. > > > > Should the committee have information as to how a score adjustment > will > > affect the MP score? I would expect not. Either a score > adjustment is > > appropriate or not. This should be independent of any matchpoint > score. > > > I agree 100%, although I can see where an AC might want to see all > the scores on a board when deciding on an appropriate score to > assign. If no one in a huge field makes (or bids) a certain contract, > then making (or bidding) it is obviously not "at all probable" or > "likely." This is probably a reasonable approach if the irregularity happened early in the auction, but not if the non-offenders have already performed the master stroke that puts them ahead of the field, only to have that advantage taken away from them by an irregularity. Thus this is an approach that must be exercised with caution. > This is not to say that scores are a highly accurate > assessment of probabilities, because the TD/AC must take into account > the skills of the particular pairs involved in the adjustment. > However, the field's scores add another tool to the AC decision > process. > > It is only the scores that are important. The matchpoints are not > important *per se*; they only serve as an indication of the apparent > probability of various results. I am with you all the way here. > Wouldn't it be appropriate for TDs to routinely print out a copy of > the recap sheet for possible use by the AC? The names and standings > would of course be removed. Well, when I attended a course with Ton Kooijman instructing, he suggested that the TD always should start an adjustment by acquainting himself with the scores at the other table(s). I understand his reasoning, but I am not sure I recommend it because of the danger of overlooking the situation at the time of the irregularity. I guess I would prefer that the TD (or the AC) should see the need for referring to this information before getting it, and so they should have to go a little out of their way to pick it up. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 06:57:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:57:39 +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 GAA05757 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 06:57:32 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029800; 27 May 98 20:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:37:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980526190505.50bfdfea@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 03:48 PM 5/26/98 -0500, Grant C. Sterling wrote: > >>> Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion. If advancer says "no agreement," but >>> intervenor intended the 2C cue-bid to be Michaels, then the opponents >>> should be told. If intervenor bids 2C with both majors, he must have some >>> expectation that his partner will understand the bid. I believe this >>> expectation should be enough to determine that there is an agreement. Or, >> >> I respectfully disagree. There is no obligation to reveal to >>opponents what cards one holds in one's hand. As long as partner cannot >>know that 2C is intended as Michaels except by 'general bridge knowledge >>and experience', then there is no reason for me to reveal what the bid >>meant. > >No reason in the Laws perhaps, but an ethical player would want the >opponents to be fully informed. There is a principle in Bridge that opponents are to be fully informed as to your agreements. There is no suggestion in Bridge that you should tell the opponents what is in your hand. Ethical players make sure that their opponents are fully informed as to their agreements. To suggest that it is unethical in any way not to tell them things that are not agreements is not fair on the many ethical players out there. I really think that you should re-consider your definition of ethical players: in my view a player who follows the ethics of the game, and even the ACBL Active Ethics pamphlet, is ethical: you require different standards, and that is not fair or reasonable. >>I would never ask the TD to order an opponent to explain his own >>bids under these conditions, and would regard it as a serious TD error if >>he so ordered. > >And I would never put an opponent in a position where he thought calling >the director was neccesary, I would simply tell him what I intended the bid >to mean. I am not arguing with whatever you wish to do, Tim, but suggesting that players who follow the rules and ethics of the game are unethical because they do not follow your ideas is not 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 Thu May 28 07:01:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 07:01:14 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 HAA05783 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 07:01:08 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06972 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 14:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805272101.OAA06972@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:58:23 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I agree 100%, although I can see where an AC might want to see all > >the scores on a board when deciding on an appropriate score to > >assign. If no one in a huge field makes (or bids) a certain contract, > >then making (or bidding) it is obviously not "at all probable" or > >"likely." This is not to say that scores are a highly accurate > >assessment of probabilities, because the TD/AC must take into account > >the skills of the particular pairs involved in the adjustment. > >However, the field's scores add another tool to the AC decision > >process. > > How do the AC know the bidding is the same at other tables? The fact > that a contract is reached at no other tables does not mean that the > result was not likely or probable. Of course not. You look at the hand record as well as the scores in order to determine how much weight to give to the scores, if any. You consider the skills of the pairs at the table. You definitely do not determine probabilities by mathematically analyzing the other scores, and I don't think I implied that. > ACs should not use scores from other > tables to decide contracts. You do not use them to decide the contracts. You use them as a possible aid to your thinking. They may also useful in a "discussion" with other AC members. One says, "Everyone would get to 4H with those two hands," and you say, "Here are the scores. How come no one did?" > > >Wouldn't it be appropriate for TDs to routinely print out a copy of > >the recap sheet for possible use by the AC? The names and standings > >would of course be removed. > > No, I don't think so. The AC wouldn't routinely look at the scores, and probably would not consult them for most score assignments. However, when the AC has difficulty determining a proper assigned score, it is possible that the score sheet might help them on occasion. AC members would have to be instructed (in the rigorous training they should have) not to give inappropriate weight to the scores. What is that training currently? As I understand it, ACBL Directors appoint players to be on the NABC ACs, normally selecting those who have experience in local sectional and regional AC meetings. The appointees sit in on NABC ACs as observors for a while before they get to serve on one. What I want to know is, where is the training? You can't learn to play bridge well by kibitzing, or even playing; you need instruction, either self-instruction from books or tutoring by knowledgeable players. And you can't learn how to serve on ACs by doing it or by observing. That only perpetuates bad practices (e.g., awarding artificial scores when assigned scores are appropriate). The ACBL's Handbook for Appeals Committees is an inadequate 10-page document that expresses mere commonplaces in legalistic language. Right now the NABC AC casebooks (and BLML, of course) represent the best potential for AC (and TD) training. I hope they are both used extensively by AC members, local and national, but I'm afraid that only a small percentage know about these resources (NABC AC people do get the casebooks, I believe), let alone use them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 07:28:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 07:28:03 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA05884 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 07:27:51 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA29469; Thu, 28 May 1998 00:28:16 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-143.access.net.il [192.116.204.143]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA02208; Thu, 28 May 1998 00:27:06 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356C8624.BEA53487@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 00:31:16 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Hint by Defender References: <3.0.1.32.19980526085325.006e60cc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe it is a Philosophical question of ethics , but my opinion is still that Marv's way to give them a hint , like that "would you ....." produces more unpleasant taste and disappointment ... One can think : "... hmmm , they hide from us a lot of things...." I don't believe that any Laws Code - starting from Hamourrapi - and ending ?? with "the big bang laws..." - can be perfect and 100% comprehensive , so we should try to act in a two ways human behavior: a) as if the present code IS 100% comprehensive b) implementing the not-written Laws 00 and 99 ....... Eric Landau wrote: > > At 10:34 PM 5/24/98 +0300, Dany wrote: > > >I think Marv's idea is right , but it should be implemented > >in a "non contradictory to laws" way . IMHO this agreement > >should appear on the CC (alertable or not , isn't relevant !!!). > >And it should be included in the system basic description or > >pre alert explanations when sitting at a table . Any other > >way - hint , under table kick or whatever - isn't a proper manner. > > I don't see Marv's suggestion as either improper or contradictory to the > laws. The laws may set minimum standards for full disclosure, but it is > hardly contrary to the laws to exceed those minimum standards. Marv's "You > might want to ask about our auction" is exactly what the philosophy of > active ethics calls for -- going beyond what the laws minimally require in > order to make sure that your opponents really do get all the information to > which they are entitled, even if they neglect to follow the proper > procedure for obtaining 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 Law 00: The bridge game is for players , not for TDs or bridge lawyers. Law 99: Always try to use your fabulous GOD's best gifts :your brains Dany P.S. I"ll be very thankful if you"ll try to help me to improve the formulation of these laws. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 09:41:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:41:54 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06193 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:41:48 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA05810; Wed, 27 May 1998 18:41:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca1-14.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.46) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005785; Wed May 27 18:41:21 1998 Message-ID: <356CA402.1084@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:38:42 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The role of a screening director References: <199805271932.PAA17232@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > While I agree with the argument that is raised that the screening > director should not be able to completely protect the appelants against > frivolous appeal penalties, I believe his input should be available to > the committee when it is considering a frivolous appeal penalty. He > doesn't need to be present if he writes a short summary of his advice. > > For example, West may have used UI to sacrifice in 5Hx for -300. The > director adjusts the score to 4S by South making five, +450. E-W want > to appeal. > > "I advised the appelants that the adjustment to 4S appeared justified, > but 4S should make only four on correct defense, not five." This appeal > should not be penalized as frivolous, since at least one expert looking > at an objective standard believes that the score adjustment is wrong. > E-W should be protected here even if the committee determines that South > could always make five on an elementary endplay that the screening > director missed, or that it was likely West would make the wrong opening > lead. > > "I advised West that it didn't seem to me that pass was a logical > alternative to 5H on his hand." This appeal should probably not be > frivolous, unless the committee determines that West should clearly have > known, based on his system, that pass was logical with his hand. > > "I advised West that he would have to demonstrate to the committee that > pass was not a logical alternative, and that this was the standard." > This appeal could be deemed frivolous, possibly even in the same case in > which the above appeal would not. E-W mught still be able to win the > case if they could show that in their system pass was not a logical > alternative, or not be penalized for a frivolous appeal if they could > show that West could be convinced pass was not a logical alternative. > > "I advised West that it was irrelevant that he had intended to bid 5H > before East hesitated, as long as some of his peers would seriously > consider passing." This appeal would probably be frivolous, because > West would have been informed of the grounds for a frivolous appeal. > David has some good ideas, but they are probably unworkable. In practice at NABCs, sometimes 10-12 cases appear for screening by two or three screeners (it's a madhouse). As soon as the case survives the screening process, the screener immediately brings the parties to an awaiting AC. The screener presents the facts of the case and represents the TD staff at the appeal. The screener then rushes back to screen the next case. There is no time between the screening and the presentation of the case during which a screener could write a summary. Screeners are forbidden from warning players explicitly that they are risking a frivolous appeal sanction, and justifiably so. Players with a righteous appeal may choose to drop the matter in fear of the sanction. A screener will, however, dance around the issue through explaining the law, burden of proof, evidentiary standards, etc. Let's take an example. A defender holds the ace of trumps against a grand slam, but hasn't played it at the time his partner's revoke becomes established. Making seven, rules the TD. "But that's not fair - I want to appeal!" A screener will explain that the ruling is a matter of law and that the AC is powerless to overturn the TD's ruling; any rational being will now make the leap of logic that pursuing the appeal will result in a sanction for bringing a meritless appeal. Nonetheless, it is a player's right to have the matter heard by an AC; the screener can dissuade but cannot prevent the appellant from pursuance. Screeners should not be placed in the position of indemnifying appellants against meritless appeal sanctions. The upshot of this discussion is that the screening process at NABCs works very well as is, and I adhere to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 09:54:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:54:44 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06281 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:54:36 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA03360; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:52:59 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-143.access.net.il [192.116.204.143]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA24546; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:51:49 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356CA812.3DFE685A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 02:56:02 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Hint by Defender References: <3.0.1.32.19980526085325.006e60cc@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe it is a Philosophical question of ethics , but my opinion is still that Marv's way to give them a hint , like that "would you ....." produces more unpleasant taste and disappointment ... One can think : "... hmmm , they hide from us a lot of things...." I don't believe that any Laws Code - starting from Hamourrapi - and ending ?? with "the big bang laws..." - can be perfect and 100% comprehensive , so we should try to act in a two ways human behavior: a) as if the present code IS 100% comprehensive b) implementing the not-written Laws 00 and 99 ....... Eric Landau wrote: > > At 10:34 PM 5/24/98 +0300, Dany wrote: > > >I think Marv's idea is right , but it should be implemented > >in a "non contradictory to laws" way . IMHO this agreement > >should appear on the CC (alertable or not , isn't relevant !!!). > >And it should be included in the system basic description or > >pre alert explanations when sitting at a table . Any other > >way - hint , under table kick or whatever - isn't a proper manner. > > I don't see Marv's suggestion as either improper or contradictory to the > laws. The laws may set minimum standards for full disclosure, but it is > hardly contrary to the laws to exceed those minimum standards. Marv's "You > might want to ask about our auction" is exactly what the philosophy of > active ethics calls for -- going beyond what the laws minimally require in > order to make sure that your opponents really do get all the information to > which they are entitled, even if they neglect to follow the proper > procedure for obtaining 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 Law 00: The bridge game is for players , not for TDs or bridge lawyers. Law 99: Always try to use your fabulous GOD's best gifts :your brains Dany P.S. I"ll be very thankful if you"ll try to help me to improve the formulation of these laws. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 09:55:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:55:50 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06307 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 09:55:42 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA03965 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:56:11 +0300 (IDT) Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-143.access.net.il [192.116.204.143]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA24926 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:55:02 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356CA8D2.9EA0BE99@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 02:59:14 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Double shot Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau asked a good question : where is written that "double shot" isn't legal ?? Is any bridge law which forbids it ?? I must agree that in spite of the fact I consider double shot as a very non-ethical action I don't know where from this opinion comes . Thinking about Eric's remark I considered the general line of thinking to adjust (or assign) score when an irregularity was established (Kaplan's line...): b. was there a damage ?? c. is any "connection"/"relationship" between the irregularity and the damage . These statements (b&c) may be themselves a double shot ....???? : if the NO side wasn't damage , they can choose not to summon again the TD , but if they feel damaged then they"ll try to get the most and it is a legal and "by the Law" action ! And I remember one more phrase from the legendary sfinx: "A p;ayer is entitled to do everything legal to get the best score..." I think here is a good reason for it , but ...... what is the forum's opinion ??? Dany From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 10:35:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:35:56 +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 KAA06512 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:35:50 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yeqgX-0006lf-00; Thu, 28 May 1998 01:36:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 01:35:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980527154844.37cf1ade@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.16.19980527154844.37cf1ade@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 01:27 PM 5/27/98 -0500, Grant C. Sterling wrote: > >> While you're at it, why not just show him your hand. I am still >>mystified as to why you think the opponents are entitled to information >>that cannot possibly be available to partner. > >Showing the opponents your hand is a lot different from telling them how >you expect (or hope) your partner to interpret your bid. > >>then everyone at the table, partner and opponents, just >>have to guess. > >And this is bridge? Sounds more like a crap shoot to me. > >Tim > Tim, I've been watching this thread develop and I seriously believe you are going in the wrong direction. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have no agreement* then *I have no agreement*. You are entitled to no more than that. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have 180 pages of system notes (and I do so choose with one partner) you are entitled to the friggin' lot. In the first game it is indeed a bit of a crap shoot, but when I have no UI, no MI, and no CPU I *cannot* tell you what I *don't know*. I will tell you what standard practice is if my pick-up is from the group I frequently play in, when I think you might not know, otherwise I'll say "No agreement but in this club it is usually - whatever it is". Why do you want me tell YOU something partner DOES NOT KNOW? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 28 10:37:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:37:18 +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 KAA06532 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:37:10 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yeqhp-0002wA-00; Thu, 28 May 1998 00:38:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 01:36:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <199805272047.WAA08012@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199805272047.WAA08012@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >David Burn wrote: > >> At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >> "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >> options?" >> >> Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had >> bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said >> partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game >> was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to >> change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. >> >> Do you believe that West actually has this option? > >Yes. > >> More to the point, >> do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call >> and play for average minus? > >Certainly. Scratch "should", substitute "shall". > >I would rule this as a TD error if involved as, say, TDiC. On the >information available, an adjustment to 3 imps lost by EW and won by >NS seems reasonable as rectification of the TD error. > hmm, I think it's -3 and the game swing to the other side. >As we have discussed earlier, I don't like L25B, but that is >immaterial to the ruling. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 28 10:38:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:38:06 +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 KAA06547 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:37:57 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yeqiT-0006qn-00; Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 01:37:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <9805271025.aa17487@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9805271025.aa17487@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > > >Richard Willey wrote: > >> I would argue that any good bridge player would at least consider the 1S >> psyche. > >This is tangential to your question, but I have to take issue with >this. I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of good bridge players >who just don't consider psyching, ever. > > -- Adam Yep, and they're very easy to play against, even if technically perfect -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 28 11:12:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:12:13 +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 LAA06639 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:12:03 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026390; 28 May 98 1:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 01:00:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: UI from slow RKCB MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been asked to post this on behalf of someone else: ******************************************************************* During the GNTs yesterday, a disturbing situation arose, and I request informed opinions on the situation. The auction proceeded as follows (opps silent): 1s 2h 4c* 4nt** 5s*** 6h ap 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter 4nt** =definite break in tempo 5s*** =definite break in tempo At the time that the 5s bid was made, I called the director and informed her that both the 4nt and 5s bids were made out of tempo. Dummy hit with: AKJxx AQxx JTx K When dummy hit, he explained that 4nt was always RKC in their partnership, so I then asked him why he paused before bidding 5s. He told me that he was thinking of lying about the HQ. Since the opps were off the AK of diamonds, we scored up +100 on the board. But being the curious sort, I sought out the chief director, explained the situation, and asked whether we would have been entitled to a score adjustment if opener had in fact decided to lie about the HQ and they wound up in 5h making 5 instead of 6h down 1. My argument was that a slow 4nt bid conveys unauthorized information to partner, suggested a minimal slam try; a full values slam try would bid an in tempo 4nt. And since there is a logical alternative to lying, namely telling the truth, the score should be adjusted. The director told me that hesitations in a non-competitive auction are not generally treated in the same way as hesitations in a competitive auction, and that my interpretation of a slow 4nt as showing a doubtful or minimum slam try isn't valid. This seems highly dubious to me, but I've been wrong before, so I request explanation, clarification, and enlightenment. ******************************************************************* So, presume the auction was 1s 2h 4c* 4nt** 5h**** ap 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter 4nt** =definite break in tempo 5h**** =showing 2 a's + no hq [but actually holding the hq] If 5H makes exactly, how do you rule? -- 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 May 28 11:14:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:14:00 +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 LAA06659 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:13:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026388; 28 May 98 1:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:46:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <199805272047.WAA08012@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >> At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >> "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >> options?" >> >> Well, what are they? The TD did not give her many, saying that she had >> bid 3H and her use of the Stop card was UI to her partner. The said >> partner had a minimum 2H response, passed, and of course an easy game >> was missed - 10 IMPs away. But if West had been given the option *to >> change her call to 4H under L25B*, she would have lost 3 IMPs only. >> >> Do you believe that West actually has this option? > >Yes. > >> More to the point, >> do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call >> and play for average minus? > >Certainly. Scratch "should", substitute "shall". Let's just get this one straight, Jens. Why? > >I would rule this as a TD error if involved as, say, TDiC. On the >information available, an adjustment to 3 imps lost by EW and won by >NS seems reasonable as rectification of the TD error. > >As we have discussed earlier, I don't like L25B, but that is >immaterial to the ruling. -- 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 May 28 11:14:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:14:12 +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 LAA06660 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:13:55 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yerHG-000083-00; Thu, 28 May 1998 02:14:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 02:13:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: psyching frequencies MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Postulate: If you never psyche then the opponents always know what you hold. Postulate: If you occasionally psyche opponents don't have such certainty Postulate: If you frequently psyche partner loses patience and has terrible UI problems At poker it is winning tactics to bluff at a well understood (and fairly low) frequency in order to engender frequent calls when you *have* your hand. At 5 card draw I raise whenever I've drawn to an open straight and made it, or when I draw the 2,3 or 4 of clubs. This is close enough to the saddle point that the opponents are no win, whether they always call or never call. IMO the same is true of high standard bridge, a low psyching frequency is necessary, such that partner doesn't lose patience and have UI problems, but such that oppo have doubts about your bidding, when most of the time you *do* have your bid. Has anyone any thoughts, perhaps of a mathematical or statistical nature, here. Certain professors of Maths at Oxford maybe .. ? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 28 11:22:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:22:44 +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 LAA06724 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:22:35 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yerPk-000409-00; Thu, 28 May 1998 01:23:29 +0000 Message-ID: <1hyUKXAYxLb1EwhO@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 02:22:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: UI from slow RKCB In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > I have been asked to post this on behalf of someone else: > >******************************************************************* >During the GNTs yesterday, a disturbing situation arose, and I >request informed opinions on the situation. > >The auction proceeded as follows (opps silent): > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5s*** 6h > ap > >4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter >4nt** =definite break in tempo >5s*** =definite break in tempo > >At the time that the 5s bid was made, I called the director >and informed her that both the 4nt and 5s bids were made out >of tempo. Dummy hit with: > >AKJxx >AQxx >JTx >K > >When dummy hit, he explained that 4nt was always RKC in their >partnership, so I then asked him why he paused before bidding 5s. >He told me that he was thinking of lying about the HQ. > >Since the opps were off the AK of diamonds, we scored up +100 >on the board. But being the curious sort, I sought out the >chief director, explained the situation, and asked whether we >would have been entitled to a score adjustment if opener had >in fact decided to lie about the HQ and they wound up in 5h >making 5 instead of 6h down 1. > >My argument was that a slow 4nt bid conveys unauthorized information >to partner, suggested a minimal slam try; a full values slam try >would bid an in tempo 4nt. And since there is a logical alternative >to lying, namely telling the truth, the score should be adjusted. > >The director told me that hesitations in a non-competitive auction >are not generally treated in the same way as hesitations in a >competitive auction, and that my interpretation of a slow 4nt >as showing a doubtful or minimum slam try isn't valid. > >This seems highly dubious to me, but I've been wrong before, so >I request explanation, clarification, and enlightenment. >******************************************************************* > > > So, presume the auction was > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5h**** ap > >4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter >4nt** =definite break in tempo >5h**** =showing 2 a's + no hq [but actually holding the hq] > > If 5H makes exactly, how do you rule? > > I would adjust, because the OOT 4NT makes the likelihood of success of lying about the QH greater. I wouldn't be surprised if I got overturned by an AC though. IMO the TD has the easy job here, the AC the hard one. "because of the tempo break and consequent UI, 5H is not a LA so I'm ruling 6H -1, you have a right of appeal" -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 28 12:18:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 12:18:37 +1000 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA06877 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 12:18:24 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-44-71.s71.tnt3.brd.erols.com [207.172.44.71]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA21291 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 22:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805280219.WAA21291@smtp3.erols.com> Reply-To: From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: UI from slow RKCB Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:18:35 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: 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 David > Stevenson > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:01 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: UI from slow RKCB > > > > I have been asked to post this on behalf of someone else: > > ******************************************************************* > During the GNTs yesterday, a disturbing situation arose, and I > request informed opinions on the situation. > > The auction proceeded as follows (opps silent): > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5s*** 6h > ap > > 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter > 4nt** =definite break in tempo > 5s*** =definite break in tempo > > At the time that the 5s bid was made, I called the director > and informed her that both the 4nt and 5s bids were made out > of tempo. Dummy hit with: > > AKJxx > AQxx > JTx > K > > When dummy hit, he explained that 4nt was always RKC in their > partnership, so I then asked him why he paused before bidding 5s. > He told me that he was thinking of lying about the HQ. > > Since the opps were off the AK of diamonds, we scored up +100 > on the board. But being the curious sort, I sought out the > chief director, explained the situation, and asked whether we > would have been entitled to a score adjustment if opener had > in fact decided to lie about the HQ and they wound up in 5h > making 5 instead of 6h down 1. > > My argument was that a slow 4nt bid conveys unauthorized information > to partner, suggested a minimal slam try; a full values slam try > would bid an in tempo 4nt. And since there is a logical alternative > to lying, namely telling the truth, the score should be adjusted. > > The director told me that hesitations in a non-competitive auction > are not generally treated in the same way as hesitations in a > competitive auction, and that my interpretation of a slow 4nt > as showing a doubtful or minimum slam try isn't valid. > Are you sure that 4NT conveys a minimum? Could partner not also be thinking about grand slam continuations? Perhaps the hand has solid values, but with a flaw that makes RKC dubious, such as a small doubleton or some club duplication. I think the inference that the slow 4NT suggests a minimum, or in fact suggests anything useful to partner, is a bit of a stretch. It's not a matter of competitive or not competitive, the slow 4NT is simply not informative. I can't imagine why dummy was thinking of lying about the HQ. He has plenty of extra values for his bidding (particularly if the pair is playing a 2/1 style). > This seems highly dubious to me, but I've been wrong before, so > I request explanation, clarification, and enlightenment. > ******************************************************************* > > > So, presume the auction was > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5h**** ap > > 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter > 4nt** =definite break in tempo > 5h**** =showing 2 a's + no hq [but actually holding the hq] > > If 5H makes exactly, how do you rule? > The slow 5H is more problematical, but again, the UI is not clear. A slow call could be a lie. It could be based on minimum values. It could also be based on a maximum, perhaps a club void and extras. IMO, the hesitations do not tell me if the slow bid suggests a minimum, or suggests a possible grand slam. If I can't tell what the hesitation suggests, I don't think it proper to adjust the score, regardless of outcome. > > -- > 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 ~ > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 12:34:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 12:34:51 +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 MAA06919 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 12:34:44 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-043.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.48]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA13064 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 19:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <356B8081.5FAE@lightspeed.net> Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:54:57 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from slow RKCB References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I have been asked to post this on behalf of someone else: > > ******************************************************************* > During the GNTs yesterday, a disturbing situation arose, and I > request informed opinions on the situation. > > The auction proceeded as follows (opps silent): > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5s*** 6h > ap > > 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter > 4nt** =definite break in tempo > 5s*** =definite break in tempo > > At the time that the 5s bid was made, I called the director > and informed her that both the 4nt and 5s bids were made out > of tempo. Dummy hit with: > > AKJxx > AQxx > JTx > K > > When dummy hit, he explained that 4nt was always RKC in their > partnership, so I then asked him why he paused before bidding 5s. > He told me that he was thinking of lying about the HQ. > > Since the opps were off the AK of diamonds, we scored up +100 > on the board. But being the curious sort, I sought out the > chief director, explained the situation, and asked whether we > would have been entitled to a score adjustment if opener had > in fact decided to lie about the HQ and they wound up in 5h > making 5 instead of 6h down 1. > > My argument was that a slow 4nt bid conveys unauthorized information > to partner, suggested a minimal slam try; a full values slam try > would bid an in tempo 4nt. And since there is a logical alternative > to lying, namely telling the truth, the score should be adjusted. > > The director told me that hesitations in a non-competitive auction > are not generally treated in the same way as hesitations in a > competitive auction, and that my interpretation of a slow 4nt > as showing a doubtful or minimum slam try isn't valid. > > This seems highly dubious to me, but I've been wrong before, so > I request explanation, clarification, and enlightenment. > ******************************************************************* > > So, presume the auction was > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5h**** ap > > 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter > 4nt** =definite break in tempo > 5h**** =showing 2 a's + no hq [but actually holding the hq] > > If 5H makes exactly, how do you rule? No adjustment, probably. Certainly, 5S is a logical alternative, but the question is, what does the hesitation show? Here, in any sort of competent game, it *could* show any number of things (including whether to cue-bid rather than RKC). I don't see how the hesitation is likely to indicate understrength (in my partnerships, I suspect, it wouldn't.) But, this is one of those situations that the ACBL tried to cover with the much-maligned "Rule of coincidence." I do think I'd want to ask the bidders some questions, and determine why the deviation occurred (and with what frequency it occurs.) I would expect to read it right and come up with the right ruling. If I thought the deviation were based on the hesitation, I'd rule 6H off 1. --JRM > 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 May 28 14:16:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:16:18 +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 OAA07064 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:16:12 +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 XAA24967 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 23:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980528001648.4b37b7f2@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 00:16:48 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.16.19980526190505.50bfdfea@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:37 PM 5/27/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Ethical players make sure that their opponents are fully informed as >to their agreements. To suggest that it is unethical in any way not to >tell them things that are not agreements is not fair on the many >ethical players out there. I have perhaps been over zealous. I do not mean to say that players who follow the letter of the law and disclose only agreements are unethical. (I hope I never said otherwise.) I think players who go beyond what is required by law, perhaps to their own detriment, by disclosing what _might_ be agreements are setting a high standard of ethics. > I really think that you should re-consider your definition of ethical >players: in my view a player who follows the ethics of the game, and >even the ACBL Active Ethics pamphlet, is ethical: you require different >standards, and that is not fair or reasonable. It is unreasonable to expect my definition of ethical to match yours or anyone else's. Ethics is defined by a lot of things: time, individuals, and society, amongst others. What was considered ethical 25 years ago may be unethical today or in another part of the world. I don't think ethics, even bridge ethics, can be fully defined in a pamphlet. I know ethical behavior when I see it; you know ethical behaviour when you see it. Of course, we might not both see it at the same time. I don't think that's unfair. At 01:35 AM 5/28/98 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Tim, I've been watching this thread develop and I seriously believe you >are going in the wrong direction. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, >*to have no agreement* then *I have no agreement*. This is actually very hard to do. Even if you sit down with a total stranger, you will have some expectation of his understanding your bidding. >You are entitled to >no more than that. I am not arguing that the laws require more than that. Nor do I mean to suggest you are being unethical by providing me with only that. >*If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have 180 >pages of system notes (and I do so choose with one partner) you are >entitled to the friggin' lot. In the first game it is indeed a bit of a >crap shoot, but when I have no UI, no MI, and no CPU I *cannot* tell you >what I *don't know*. I will tell you what standard practice is if my >pick-up is from the group I frequently play in, when I think you might >not know, otherwise I'll say "No agreement but in this club it is >usually - whatever it is". My guess is that there is almost always a "but" after "no agreement." I especially think this is so when the call had an artificial or conventional intended meaning. I do not understand using an artificial or conventional call if there is not some expectation of partner understanding. And, even if there is no agreement, I think that having an expectation that partner will understand is significant. When you make the call, you are hoping your partner agrees with your intended meaning, or you think that there is some chance that partner agrees with your intended meaning. Even if you have no discussed agreement, there is some expectation that an agreement exists. >Why do you want me tell YOU something partner DOES NOT KNOW? But, there's a chance that partner knows. I would prefer to err on the side of over disclosure rather than under disclosure. >> Tim wrote: >> >There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those >> >agreements are. If not, I think there should be. >David Stevenson wrote: >> Why? Anyway, if you think so, and you really wish to make the game >> unplayable for the vast majority, then you need the Laws changing. >Linda Weinstein wrote: >I sure agree with you, David. In fact, I am surprised, no, make that >*flabbergasted* that anyone would have thought differently. I'm not suggesting that everyone should have pages of system notes, or even fill out all of the sections on a convention card. Discuss what agreements you want and then make a blanket rule such as "natural and non-forcing if undiscussed." (Or does that create a paradox?) This doesn't seem to be much of a burden, and I can't imagine it making the game unplayable. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 19:41:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 19:41:46 +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 TAA07550 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 19:41:40 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:40:43 +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 KAA17414 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:36:46 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:34:47 +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: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > >I applaud the EBU's policy of simplicity in alerting, and I am more than > >happy to put up with the occasional absurdity to avoid added > >complication, but I don't think this is such a case, because an *equally > >simple* set of rules would eliminate the absurdity of alerting 2C > >(natural and non-forcing) to warn the opponents that it is not Stayman > >(artificial and forcing), which is also alertable. > > You can have an equally simple set of rules, but they have tried them > and they do not work. I do not agree that you can get a workable set of > rules that are as simple and do not involve alerting Stayman. Nor do I > believe it to be desirable, either. They haven't tried *every* equally simple set of rules, have they? I think you may have forgotten what I suggested, since it *does* involve alerting Stayman. It was simply to change the rule about alerting unexpectedly forcing/non-forcing bids to say that a natural bid would be alertable if it were forcing/non-forcing in a way the opponents might not anticipate *given the information that the bid was natural*. I say "change the rule", but this is what I would have assumed the existing rule meant if I had not been told otherwise [if you don't alert a non-forcing natural 2C response to 1NT, the opponents will realize it's not Stayman and will anticipate the possibility of it being non-forcing]. I know this isn't very important, since Stayman vs. natural and non- forcing 2C is possibly the only situation where it makes a difference, and almost everybody plays an artificial 2C response to 1NT anyway. It just offends my sense of what is elegant and aesthetically pleasing. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 19:49:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 19:49:20 +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 TAA07583 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 19:49:07 +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 KAA21788 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:49:38 +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 KAA09352 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:49:37 +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 KAA23367 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:49:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 28 May 98 10:49:29 BST Message-Id: <3358.9805280949@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David writes (in replay to Jeremy) > > >I applaud the EBU's policy of simplicity in alerting, and I am more than > >happy to put up with the occasional absurdity to avoid added > >complication, but I don't think this is such a case, because an *equally > >simple* set of rules would eliminate the absurdity of alerting 2C > >(natural and non-forcing) to warn the opponents that it is not Stayman > >(artificial and forcing), which is also alertable. > > You can have an equally simple set of rules, but they have tried them > and they do not work. I do not agree that you can get a workable set of > rules that are as simple and do not involve alerting Stayman. Nor do I > believe it to be desirable, either. I think Jeremy is not proposing that Stayman is not alerted, he is proposing that alerting a natural 2C response should follow the pattern for 2D/2H/2S. i.e. 1NT = 2C (articifial, e.g. Stayman) alertable 1NT = 2D/2H/2S (artificial, e.g. transfers) alertable 1NT = 2C (natural, non-forcing) not alertable 1NT = 2D/2H/2S (natural, non-forcing) not alertable 1NT = 2C (natural, forcing) alertable 1NT = 2D/2H/2S (natural, forcing) alertable He is also saying that this would be achieved by adding "given that it is natural" to 4C1B. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 20:22:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 20:22:49 +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 UAA07660 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 20:22:44 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023810; 28 May 98 10:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:00:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980528001648.4b37b7f2@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >>> Tim wrote: >>> >There must be some obligation to have agreements and to know what those >>> >agreements are. If not, I think there should be. > >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> Why? Anyway, if you think so, and you really wish to make the game >>> unplayable for the vast majority, then you need the Laws changing. > >>Linda Weinstein wrote: >>I sure agree with you, David. In fact, I am surprised, no, make that >>*flabbergasted* that anyone would have thought differently. > >I'm not suggesting that everyone should have pages of system notes, or even >fill out all of the sections on a convention card. Discuss what agreements >you want and then make a blanket rule such as "natural and non-forcing if >undiscussed." (Or does that create a paradox?) This doesn't seem to be >much of a burden, and I can't imagine it making the game unplayable. In most clubs, many people sir down to play with each other without much discussion [Acol, pd? Yes! Multi? No, I prefer Benjamin]. You may want to tell them now what rule they have for the third round of bidding, but I don't see it as necessary or desirable. They just assume that Acol covers everything, and they go on their merry way until suddenly an auction comes up where they have no idea what it means. You would force them to have an agreement to cover it solely for the sake of the opponents. I think that is unnecessary and undesirable. I am pleased that in this article you have changed your approach, but you made it clear in an earlier article that an "ethical" player would now tell the opponents what his call meant. That is extremely unfair, and is not bridge, and will serve to discourage casual players. You may not think it makes the game unplayable to force confused old ladies and silly young men to have agreements but I can assure you that you would be getting rid of low-level players. What good would it do? None whatever - they have not got an agreement, and forcing them to have one *for the sake of their opponents* is not going to do bridge any good. -- 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 May 28 23:23:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:23:32 +1000 Received: from woozle.isode.com (woozle.isode.com [193.133.227.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08169 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:23:26 +1000 Message-Id: <199805281323.XAA08169@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from garfield.isode.com by woozle.isode.com (local) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:23:41 +0100 Received: from isode.com (actually brian.isode.com) by garfield.isode.com with Internet with ESMTP; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:23:32 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: John Probst cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, i.reissmann@isode.com Subject: Re: no agreement In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 May 1998 01:35:38 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 14:27:29 +0100 From: Ian Reissmann Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Tim, I've been watching this thread develop and I seriously believe you > are going in the wrong direction. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, > *to have no agreement* then *I have no agreement*. You are entitled to > no more than that. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have 180 Is it OK deliberately to have no agreement ? If I decide to ascribe no meaning to 1S over a precision 1C, I could now bid 1S on any hand, and partner's explanation would be "No agreement". This sounds like an agreement for "random bids". After the first time I make this bid, there now exists an implicit arrangement, based on the hand actually held. So even if you think I can deliberately not agree the meaning, I may only do this until it actually happens. I then have an agreement. Ian -- Ian Reissmann Tel (H) +44-1491-578249, (W) +44-181-332-9091 I.Reissmann@isode.com http://www.isode.com/ X.400 c=FI;a=MAILNET;p=ISODE;s=Reissmann;i=I 80 Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, England, RG9 2BN From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 28 23:55:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:55:46 +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 XAA08245 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:55:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003274; 28 May 98 13:45 GMT Message-ID: <4$W1L6AR3Tb1Ewgu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:34:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <3358.9805280949@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >David writes (in replay to Jeremy) >> >> >I applaud the EBU's policy of simplicity in alerting, and I am more than >> >happy to put up with the occasional absurdity to avoid added >> >complication, but I don't think this is such a case, because an *equally >> >simple* set of rules would eliminate the absurdity of alerting 2C >> >(natural and non-forcing) to warn the opponents that it is not Stayman >> >(artificial and forcing), which is also alertable. >> >> You can have an equally simple set of rules, but they have tried them >> and they do not work. I do not agree that you can get a workable set of >> rules that are as simple and do not involve alerting Stayman. Nor do I >> believe it to be desirable, either. > >I think Jeremy is not proposing that Stayman is not alerted, he is >proposing that alerting a natural 2C response should follow the pattern >for 2D/2H/2S. > >i.e. > >1NT = 2C (articifial, e.g. Stayman) alertable >1NT = 2D/2H/2S (artificial, e.g. transfers) alertable > >1NT = 2C (natural, non-forcing) not alertable >1NT = 2D/2H/2S (natural, non-forcing) not alertable > >1NT = 2C (natural, forcing) alertable >1NT = 2D/2H/2S (natural, forcing) alertable > >He is also saying that this would be achieved by adding "given that it >is natural" to 4C1B. Aaaaah, gottit! What would an unalerted call mean in these sequences, please? Would it be forcing or non-forcing? 1H x - 2H 1S 2S 3S 4S 1H 1S 2C - 2H - 2S ? I know we aren't likely to have damage from getting these wrong, but we are after all talking of aesthetically pleasing alerting . I accept that your change of rule does not make the rules more complicated: but in the rare cases where it makes a difference it makes their application more difficult. -- 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 May 29 01:54:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 01:54:36 +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 BAA10923 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 01:54:18 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA00633 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 16:55:07 +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 QAA27531 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 16:55:06 +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 QAA26784 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 16:55:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 28 May 98 16:55:03 BST Message-Id: <3523.9805281555@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Most may think this peculiar EBU alerting thread has gone on long enough, if so stop reading now, and I'm sorry to be wasting your time reading this. A light bulb comes on and David write: > Aaaaah, gottit! > > What would an unalerted call mean in these sequences, please? Would > it be forcing or non-forcing? > > 1H x - 2H > 1S 2S 3S 4S > 1H 1S 2C - 2H - 2S ? > > I know we aren't likely to have damage from getting these wrong, but > we are after all talking of aesthetically pleasing alerting . > David But that's easy: nobody has any idea whether these sequences, if natural, are forcing or non-forcing. So they can not be un-expectedly forcing or unexpectedly non-forcong. If natural, they would not need an alert under "unexpectedly forcing/non-forcing, given that the call is natural". Being serious, do you think 1S-2S(natural, NF) is alertable because most people play 2S as two-suited (articial, F)? Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 02:09:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 02:09:59 +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 CAA11168 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 02:09:53 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 May 1998 17:10:45 +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 RAA22687 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 17:07:23 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <4$W1L6AR3Tb1Ewgu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:05:27 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > Robin Barker wrote: > >I think Jeremy is not proposing that Stayman is not alerted, he is > >proposing that alerting a natural 2C response should follow the pattern > >for 2D/2H/2S. > > > >i.e. > > > >1NT = 2C (articifial, e.g. Stayman) alertable > >1NT = 2D/2H/2S (artificial, e.g. transfers) alertable > > > >1NT = 2C (natural, non-forcing) not alertable > >1NT = 2D/2H/2S (natural, non-forcing) not alertable > > > >1NT = 2C (natural, forcing) alertable > >1NT = 2D/2H/2S (natural, forcing) alertable > > > >He is also saying that this would be achieved by adding "given that it > >is natural" to 4C1B. > > Aaaaah, gottit! > > What would an unalerted call mean in these sequences, please? Would > it be forcing or non-forcing? > > 1H x - 2H > 1S 2S 3S 4S > 1H 1S 2C - 2H - 2S ? > > I know we aren't likely to have damage from getting these wrong, but > we are after all talking of aesthetically pleasing alerting . > > I accept that your change of rule does not make the rules more > complicated: but in the rare cases where it makes a difference it makes > their application more difficult. I think the point you're making is that in auctions where "everybody" plays a bid as artificial, it's often unclear whether the "expected, given natural" meaning is forcing or non-forcing. Well, if it's unclear, then neither meaning should be a surprise to the opponents, given that you've told them (by not alerting) that the bid is natural, so *neither* should be alerted. I think this is the case in the first and third of the sequences you give; in the second sequence, at least if 2S is Michaels, I would be surprised if a natural 4S were forcing, so I think it would be alertable if forcing. Of course, there will be some borderline/arguable cases, but there are plenty of these under the existing regulations. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 02:12:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 02:12:47 +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 CAA11191 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 02:12:41 +1000 Received: from [131.217.107.16] (lab11.law.utas.edu.au [131.217.107.16]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA06261 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 02:13:38 +1000 (EST) X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199805281323.XAA08169@octavia.anu.edu.au> References: Your message of "Thu, 28 May 1998 01:35:38 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 02:16:49 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: no agreement Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:27 PM +0100 28/5/98, Ian Reissmann wrote: >Is it OK deliberately to have no agreement ? I don't see anything in the TFLB that mentions the legality or otherwise of the lack of partnership understanding. It's legal to not have an agreement (or the vast majority of bridge players are in breach of the law!!) and I don't see that the deliberate nature of the lack of agreement is relevant. >If I decide to ascribe no meaning to 1S over a precision 1C, I could now bid >1S on any hand, and partner's explanation would be "No agreement". This >sounds >like an agreement for "random bids". After the first time I make this bid, >there now exists an implicit arrangement, based on the hand actually held. No I disagree. Your partnership understanding is that the 1S is non-descriptive. There is no precedent established by whatever hand you happened to hold when you bid it first. If you were playing "Come-as-you-please" a la John Probst, then you have the partnership understanding that the first time a bid is used then an agreement is established. I don't believe this Probstian principle generalises. In general, when hands bid consistently with partnership understandings, we do not consider those hands to define that understanding - why should we treat the first use of a no-meaning bid as definitional when the understanding is that the bid is non-descriptive (and therefore the hand held is consistent with the partnership understanding) ? >So even if you think I can deliberately not agree the meaning, I may only do >this until it actually happens. I then have an agreement. In any case the argument is largely academic - SOs tend to like regulating non-descriptive conventions like Wonderbids. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 02:31:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 02:31:08 +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 CAA11246 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 02:31:02 +1000 Received: from mercury by hermes.dur.ac.uk id (8.8.8/ for dur.ac.uk) with SMTP; Thu, 28 May 1998 17:31:44 +0100 (BST) Received: from vega by mercury id ; Thu, 28 May 1998 17:31:44 +0100 Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 17:31:42 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: Ian Reissmann cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199805281323.XAA08169@octavia.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 28 May 1998, Ian Reissmann wrote: > > > > Tim, I've been watching this thread develop and I seriously believe you > > are going in the wrong direction. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, > > *to have no agreement* then *I have no agreement*. You are entitled to > > no more than that. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have 180 > > Is it OK deliberately to have no agreement ? [snip] Here is a more serious 'non-agreement'. Under EBU regulations it is not permitted to agree that a double may have more than one meaning (ie a multi-way type double). However there are several auctions where it is very convenient for a player to have a multi way double available: eg: (1H)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X or (1H)-P-(1N)-P-(2C)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X You may wish to double here for TO with, say: KJxx x Axxxx Qxx or for penalty, with, say: Kxxx AQJxx x AKx Well, what do you do ? If you have no agreement then partner has to guess (by looking at his H length) on these auctions and make a suitable deduction). Hence by agreeing to have no-agreement you can find yourself able to play an unpermitted agreement. Clearly this is not in the spirit of the Laws/regulations, but it is very hard to catch. cheer, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 03:04:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:04:03 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 DAA11316 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:03:57 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19668 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805281704.KAA19668@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 10:02:18 -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. L. Edwards wrote: > > >Here is one where the ACBL may have even got it right. From the > > alerting regs: > > *In all Alert situations, tournament directors should rule > > with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not > > simply by the letter of the law. > > Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that > > their opponents have neglected to Alert a special > > agreement will be expected to protect themselves. > > ... > > Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects > > what is happening, even though not properly informed, may > > not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed > > without clarifying the situation. > > > > [ACBL Alert procedure, p.1&2] First we are told we have to Alert certain calls, then we are told that if opponents fail to do so we won't get redress. That means I have to continually ask, "Please explain your auction" when a call that may be Alertable is not Alerted. That's a pain. TDs interpret the ACBL language to mean that anyone playing in the top flight of a nationally-rated event should be experienced enough to immediately recognize the possible Alertability of any call when there is no Alert. For myself, I don't mind much, at least if the opponents have a legible convention card within my field of view, but there *are* inexperienced players participating in nationally-rated events, and they should be protected. If my partner is one such, am I supposed to question an opposing call for his/her benefit? That seems to be standard practice these days, but I was brought up differently. To me, "protect themselves" does not mean "protect each other," as TDs are interpeting the ACBL's words. Just the other day a Precision player doubled my partner's overcall of a 2C opening. The double was negative, hence Alertable, but there was no Alert. I knew what was going on, but partner did not. No harm was done, but I know we would not have received redress for injury from this particular TD, who would have said, "You could have asked." However, inexperienced players often don't know to ask, and their partners should not be expected to ask for their benefit. On another occasion my LHO opened first seat, nobody vulnerable, partner overcalled, and RHO jumped in a new suit. I waited, no Alert. I looked at the card, which was within my view, and the weak jump takeout was not checked. These were experienced players, although not expert, so I figured the jump must be strong and passed. Evidently, I thought, partner has overcalled on playing tricks with few HCP, or LHO (an extremely aggressive bidder) opened on garbage, or perhaps has psyched an opening. RHO's bid got passed out, and I called the TD, who of course said, "You could have asked." Had I known the jump was weak I would have made a close double, down one, +100. Just because the opponents do not get redress does not mean that failure to Alert should be condoned. Players who do not follow the ACBL Alert Procedure should be penalized in some way. Assuming the CC is marked correctly, I would suggest a caution (sometimes a PP) if there is no harm done; an assigned score for the OS if harm is done and the opponents deserve no redress; and an assigned score for both sides if harm is done and redress is in order. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 03:15:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:15:36 +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 DAA11355 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:15:29 +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 KAA26918 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA22431; Thu, 28 May 1998 10:18:58 -0700 Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 10:18:58 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199805281718.KAA22431@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from slow RKCB Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson posted on behalf of someone else: | So, presume the auction was | | 1s 2h | 4c* 4nt** | 5h**** ap | |4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter |4nt** =definite break in tempo |5h**** =showing 2 a's + no hq [but actually holding the hq] | | If 5H makes exactly, how do you rule? I'm firmly of the belief that regardless of UI questions, players should think twice before using Blackwood. I *always* plan the remainder of the auction before using Blackwood, so most of my Blackwood auctions include a hesitation. That means that when I think for awhile, then use Blackwood, I'm just me :) What about other players? They *ought* to be thinking about the rest of the auction, and some are, but many might not. I'd guess that they are considering other options than the 4NT bid. Which? Signing off in game? Probably not, but maybe. Blasting slam? Probably not, but maybe. Cue bidding or making some other slam investigation? Probably so. Are they dithering and finally choosing a possibly inferior choice or are they reasoning carefully and deciding that Blackwood will provide the best solution to their problem? Depends--- we all know players who are likely to have performed either of these. Can a committee figure out which of these things the player was thinking about? Probably not, even after looking at his hand. Can his partner? Probably so; at least in an experienced partnership. Can we adjust scores on this basis? In my opinion, no, not after only one case. We need a compendium of evidence that this is a wired pair before we can start claiming that they are reading non-obvious hesitations. --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 May 29 03:29:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:29:07 +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 DAA11385 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:28:53 +1000 Received: from default (client08ef.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.239]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA19161; Thu, 28 May 1998 18:29:34 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: What are my options? Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 18:28:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8a5e$05d75940$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 David Burn wrote: > At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West > "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > options?" \x/ \x/ I would rule this as a TD error if involved as, say, TDiC. On the information available, an adjustment to 3 imps lost by EW and won by NS seems reasonable as rectification of the TD error. ++++ I take it this treats both pairs as non-offending, per 82C ? ++++ +Grattan.+ \x/ \x/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 03:37:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:37:19 +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 DAA11410 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 03:37:13 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-247.uunet.be [194.7.13.247]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13264 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 19:38:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356D99B0.3448660E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:06:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psychic bidding X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > I have a question regarding certain types of psychic bids. > The question came about because of an event which occurred down at MIT > yesterday evening. > > Partner and I were playing a very non-standard system. > 1C is a catch all bid showing 13-16 HCP any shape > 1D = 17+ forcing > 1H = 4+ hearts, 8-12 HCP, might be a minor suit canape > 1S = 4+ spades, 8-12 HCP, might be a minor suit canape > 1N = 12-14 HCP > 2C = weak, both minors or strong and balanced > 2D = 5+ hearts, 4+ minor, longer hearts, 7-12 HCP > 2H = 4+/4+ in both majors, 4-11 HCP > 2S = 5+ spades, 4+ minor, 7-12 HCP > > In first seat, partner opened 1H > Partner's failure to open 2H (essentially) denies more than three cards > in spades. > > I was dealt > > x > xx > KTxxx > AKxxx > > The auction proceeded > > 1H - (P) - ? > > holding this hand, a 1S psyche is extremely attractive > The hand isn't good enough for a 2/1 > 1N lacking a spade stopper doesn't call to me, plus I KNOW that the > opponent's own a nine card spade fit and approximately half the deck > > I would argue that any good bridge player would at least consider the 1S > psyche. > (I certainly did, but decided to bid 1N instead since I wasn't sure if I > could ethically bid 1S) > > My question to the list is when precisely does a psychic bid become > systemic? > > Richard Given the system you describe, and the hand you show, I would say that in this case a 1S bid is systemic on a 1255 and 6-10 count. Now is this alertable ? I don't think so. I'd say that you should also list the more normal hands you would bid 1S on, and then compare the frequency of occurence of those hands. You might come up with something like 'in 98% of the cases this is ..., but in 2% of the case it's something like ...'. Now with that (correct) explanation, no opponent should ever be dealing with that rare occurence. Howevr, if the bidding then continues, it might well be that the 1255 hand becomes ever more likely. At some point, your partner may well find that the possibility has greatly increased. At that time, he should inform opponents of this increased possibility. Of course he may not realise this, since it will be the first time. So he will not inform opponents, and I will rule he should have. But I feel that is simply the effect of you playing a system which has not been thought through completely. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 04:18:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 04:18:11 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.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 EAA11563 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 04:18:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt091n5d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.93]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28150; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805281817.LAA28150@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Eric Landau" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Hint by Defender Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:14:41 -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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > Maybe it is a Philosophical question of ethics , but my opinion > is still that Marv's way to give them a hint , like that "would > you ....." produces more unpleasant taste and disappointment ... > One can think : "... hmmm , they hide from us a lot of things...." > So it's better for defenders to just hide everything that has not been disclosed by the CC or Alert process, or is on the CC but easily missed? Maybe so, since the SO is supposed to provide adequate regulations for disclosure (L40B). There is a paradox here. L40B says we have to disclose "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." But if the regs are inadequate, not providing a method for disclosing all of the defenders' partnership agreements, then what? Taken literally, L40B says we may not have special partnership agreements that are undisclosable in accordance with SO regulations. But everyone does. I think I'll keep "hinting," taking care not to create UI, until the ACBL tells me I can't do that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 04:33:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 04:33:13 +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 EAA11620 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 04:33:07 +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 OAA16433 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 14:05:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980528143354.37f77946@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 14:33:54 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <356D99B0.3448660E@village.uunet.be> References: <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:06 PM 5/28/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Given the system you describe, and the hand you show, I would say that >in this case a 1S bid is systemic on a 1255 and 6-10 count. > >Now is this alertable ? > >I don't think so. > >I'd say that you should also list the more normal hands you would bid 1S >on, and then compare the frequency of occurence of those hands. You >might come up with something like 'in 98% of the cases this is ..., but >in 2% of the case it's something like ...'. In other words, 1S shows either spades or short spades -- a new convention. (If I know the MIT club, at least there is no worry about this convention not being permitted.) Bidding 1S is no longer a psych, but a systemic bid. What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? Tim > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 09:07:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 09:07:57 +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 JAA12234 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 09:07:50 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002545; 28 May 98 23:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 15:35:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199805281323.XAA08169@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian Reissmann wrote: > > >> Tim, I've been watching this thread develop and I seriously believe you >> are going in the wrong direction. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, >> *to have no agreement* then *I have no agreement*. You are entitled to >> no more than that. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have 180 > >Is it OK deliberately to have no agreement ? > >If I decide to ascribe no meaning to 1S over a precision 1C, I could now bid >1S on any hand, and partner's explanation would be "No agreement". This sounds >like an agreement for "random bids". After the first time I make this bid, >there now exists an implicit arrangement, based on the hand actually held. > >So even if you think I can deliberately not agree the meaning, I may only do >this until it actually happens. I then have an agreement. If you ask me I would say that when you _decide_ to ascribe no meaning to this sequence you came to an agreement over it. In other words, I think that YC John [and perhaps yourself] has confused the terms 'no agreement' and 'no meaning'. YC John's strange methods may be acceptable at the YC but I do not believe them to be legal in EBU/WBU competition. If the YC claims to follow EBU licensing methods then his espoused methods would be illegal there as well. If you decide that a sequence has no meaning then you may not use such a sequence under EBU/WBU regs. -- 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 May 29 10:22:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 10:22:50 +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 KAA12418 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 10:22:39 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yfCxH-000499-00; Fri, 29 May 1998 01:23:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 00:56:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > YC John's strange methods may be acceptable at the YC but I do not >believe them to be legal in EBU/WBU competition. If the YC claims to >follow EBU licensing methods then his espoused methods would be illegal >there as well. > I have never suggested that a bid should have no meaning. This is illegal. These dark thoughts have been thrust upon me from another quarter. I have played a method whereby we agree to have "No agreement", but by definition any call we make has to be licenced, otherwise it is illegal. So when partner opens 2C, it will be either precision, or GF (unlikely to be anything else). Provided it has a licence it definitely does have a meaning, and we definitely don't have an agreement. At the end of the hand we now do have an agreement and we enter it on our convention card. (BTW when we did it we agreed that it only applied to opening bids). We also got a large collection of warning letters. Another system we played was "real man's bridge" but that can wait till another time. > If you decide that a sequence has no meaning then you may not use such >a sequence under EBU/WBU regs. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 Fri May 29 10:24:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 10:24:33 +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 KAA12438 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 10:24:24 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008338; 29 May 98 0:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 01:22:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: complex bid out of turn ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts (no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we get there) and also on no opposition bidding: I promised the players I would post this and see what the consensus view is and would let them see the answers next week - as they were very interested (as indeed am I). -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 Fri May 29 10:32:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 10:32:23 +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 KAA12471 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 10:32:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2009540; 29 May 98 0:32 GMT Message-ID: <1LwqQyAktfb1Ewjd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 01:03:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement 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 more serious 'non-agreement'. >Under EBU regulations it is not permitted to agree that a double may have >more than one meaning (ie a multi-way type double). Let us take that as a premise - but see later. >However there are several auctions where it is very convenient for a >player to have a multi way double available: >eg: >(1H)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X >or >(1H)-P-(1N)-P-(2C)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X >You may wish to double here for TO with, say: >KJxx x Axxxx Qxx >or for penalty, with, say: >Kxxx AQJxx x AKx >Well, what do you do ? > >If you have no agreement then partner has to guess (by looking at his H >length) on these auctions and make a suitable deduction). Hence by >agreeing to have no-agreement you can find yourself able to play an >unpermitted agreement. You *cannot* agree to have no agreement because that is an agreement so you do not have no agreement. Pause to bathe temples in eau de cologne. >Clearly this is not in the spirit of the Laws/regulations, but it is very >hard to catch. All cheating is hard to catch but we get there eventually. If you are suggesting this is legal, it isn't. No agreement means exactly that. -------- And now for the good news: I think that Robin has misread the regulations. >(1H)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X I think you can play this as multi-way at Restricted Licence. >(1H)-P-(1N)-P-(2C)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X I think you can play this as multi-way at General or Restricted Licence. I think that from 1st September you can play either sequence as multi- way at Level 2 or higher, ie in anything except Simple systems tournaments. -- 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 May 29 11:08:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 11:08:15 +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 LAA12630 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 11:08:03 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa15850; 28 May 98 18:08 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 May 1998 01:22:41 PDT." Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 18:08:23 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805281808.aa15850@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts > (no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- > > 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT > 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will > do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to > make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) > 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > > I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... > > Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we > get there) and also on no opposition bidding: > > I promised the players I would post this and see what the consensus view > is and would let them see the answers next week - as they were very > interested (as indeed am I). I'm going to pretend North is the dealer. South opened 1C out of turn, West is thinking about bidding 3S. Shame on West for not calling the director immediately. (There might be a misconception floating around that you don't call the director if you're going to accept an illegal bid. One time, RHO made an insufficient bid, I called the director, and director, while explaining my option to accept the insufficient bid, commented that he assumed I wasn't going to do that, since I had called the director. His assumption was wrong.) I think we have to deal with the 1C bid first. Law 29A says that offender's LHO has the right to accept the 1C call and forfeit penalties; but I believe this means only the penalties that would apply to the 1C OOT call, not the 1D call. Thus, assuming West accepts the 1C call and bids 3S, the bidding proceeds normally but the 1D call is UI for South. If West doesn't accept the 1C call, the bidding reverts to North, who must pass (Law 31B). South can now do whatever he likes, but the 1D call is UI. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 11:55:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 11:55:52 +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 LAA12726 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 11:55:46 +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 VAA27768; Thu, 28 May 1998 21:56:39 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id VAA26744; Thu, 28 May 1998 21:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805290156.VAA26744@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:56:36 -0400 (EDT) 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 A point which seems to be missing (or at least not emphasized) in the discussion about "no agreement": Even practiced, established partnerships *frequently* come up against situations and auctions which they have not discussed explicitly, which has never come up before, and in which there is ambiguity in the meaning of a bid. In my long-term partnerships, this probably happens more often than once every 2 sessions, and it might well be several times a session. If someone were to ask me the meaning of partner's bid in such a situation, I would start any explanation with "we have no agreement." However, my obligations do not end there. I also feel that she is entitled to make as good a guess about the meaning of the bid as I am, so will usually elaborate my explanation with related agreements (usually there is at least one), comments about general tendencies and style, etc. If my opponent is inexperienced, I probably add some "general bridge knowledge" as well. I do this not to be nice, but because I think the law requires me to do so. In addition, I have not given any misinformation - everything I said was true, and any inferences my opponent draws she does at her own risk. If we really don't have an agreement, then this puts me and my opponents on equal footing. Except that I probably need to figure out what my partner was trying to say - the opponents could ignore him if they like. We do not feel that the opponents are entitled to know my partner's intentions. If we do have an agreement (or my partner thinks we have one) then my partner will treat my explanation as misinformation, and correct the explanation at the appropriate time, summoning the director if necessary ("Yes, we actually do have an agreement here, partner - we discussed it at 1:30 AM on the car ride back from the tournament 3 years ago. How could you forget?"). David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 13:08:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 13:08:03 +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 NAA12897 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 13:07:57 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lciv2.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.226]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA13774 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980528230819.0074e84c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 23:08:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:27 PM 5/27/98 -0600, Richard wrote: > >My question to the list is when precisely does a psychic bid become >systemic? > The problem is that based on your system and (apparently) your style, there is a much higher probability than normal that this particular 1S response is psychic. Presumably your partner understands this, or will after a very few instances, but there is no way for the opponents to gauge the implications of your opening 2H sequence in terms of the likelihood of a psychic 1S response. This creates a CPU, IMO, _even if neither of you has ever psyched in this situation_! The only reasonable way out of this is to alert the 1H opening, and explain that it denies 4 or more spades. Even then, if you make a habit of psyching the 1S response, that bid, too, would require an alert. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 19:29:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 19:29:31 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA13668 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 19:29:25 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-29.uunet.be [194.7.13.29]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA16163 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 11:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356DA1FF.A35ADE7E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:42:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: no agreement X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Michaels wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 1998, Ian Reissmann wrote: > > > > > > > > Tim, I've been watching this thread develop and I seriously believe you > > > are going in the wrong direction. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, > > > *to have no agreement* then *I have no agreement*. You are entitled to > > > no more than that. *If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have 180 > > > > Is it OK deliberately to have no agreement ? > [snip] > > Here is a more serious 'non-agreement'. > Under EBU regulations it is not permitted to agree that a double may have > more than one meaning (ie a multi-way type double). > However there are several auctions where it is very convenient for a > player to have a multi way double available: > eg: > (1H)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X > or > (1H)-P-(1N)-P-(2C)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X > You may wish to double here for TO with, say: > KJxx x Axxxx Qxx > or for penalty, with, say: > Kxxx AQJxx x AKx > Well, what do you do ? > > If you have no agreement then partner has to guess (by looking at his H > length) on these auctions and make a suitable deduction). Hence by > agreeing to have no-agreement you can find yourself able to play an > unpermitted agreement. > Clearly this is not in the spirit of the Laws/regulations, but it is very > hard to catch. > > cheer, > Robin SO in fact, you DO have an agreement, namely to respond 'no agreement'. We call this 'optional'. Another non-description. But since it is not prohibited, there's no problem in playing this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 20:08:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 20:08:21 +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 UAA13726 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 20:08:15 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-175.uunet.be [194.7.13.175]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA18814 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 12:09:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356E87D1.708215FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 12:02:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psychic bidding X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> <3.0.5.16.19980528143354.37f77946@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 07:06 PM 5/28/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Given the system you describe, and the hand you show, I would say that > >in this case a 1S bid is systemic on a 1255 and 6-10 count. > > > >Now is this alertable ? > > > >I don't think so. > > > >I'd say that you should also list the more normal hands you would bid 1S > >on, and then compare the frequency of occurence of those hands. You > >might come up with something like 'in 98% of the cases this is ..., but > >in 2% of the case it's something like ...'. > > In other words, 1S shows either spades or short spades -- a new convention. > (If I know the MIT club, at least there is no worry about this convention > not being permitted.) Bidding 1S is no longer a psych, but a systemic bid. > What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? > > Tim > No percentage. As described above, and if applied, the bid is made 100% of the time, when holding 1255. The same bid is made 100% of the time on normal spade hands. The 2% that I descrive is just to give the relative frequency of the 1255 shape as opposed the normal spade hand. A conventional 1Cl opening on 4-4 majors and 7-10 points OR 27+, any distribution will come up less than 2% of the time with the strong option, but that does not make it a psych. Now if the bidder above decides to respond 1S with 1255 only 50% of the time, then there is some psychic tendency. If you are asking the treshold percentage on that one, sorry, I would not have enough statistical data to name one. Unless you count my tendency to open 1H on 0-3 in third hand. I believe I do this 80% of the time (once in the last five possible times did I not open it). I suspect this changes this meaning from psychic to systemic. But since my partners do not bid this way, I believe it just changes the 'partnership experience' bit of the obligation to inform opponents. And there should be no percentage limit on that one. (so even if I do it just 20% of the time, opponents are still entitled to know this - what they do with the information is up to them). > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 22:32:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 22:32:00 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA14015 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 22:31:43 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-142.access.net.il [192.116.204.142]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA09954; Fri, 29 May 1998 15:27:29 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356EAA88.B9C33E18@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:31:04 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mallory Voelker CC: bridge laws , Thomas Wisser , Richard Bley , Ralf Teichmann , Klaus Amann , "Karin Bruchhäuser" , Carina Tetal , Ansgar Seiter Subject: Re: Split Score - Now readable :)))) SORRY !! References: <199805261906.VAA11440@mail2.rmcnet.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome to the Club..... I mean to the List , Mallory I use Kaplan's methodology : a) there was an irregularity. b) there was a damage (for E-W) c) is any connection between the irregularity and the damage ??? As you told , there were screens - I assume they were (hope still are !!!!!) high level players. West's bid 4S - instead of doubling 4H is a very peculiar action..... I guess the only connection between West's 4S and the lack of Alert is - "he/she got furious and didn't know what to do" - in my opinion not enough for an adjustment . Only a very specific Est - hand , which is less than 28% probable , will give a better result for E-W (someone painted it , as Jxx-x-xx-AJxxxxx ..and Spades are 3-2 and ..... hmmmm). My decision should be - according to the facts I read above : Score stands , no split score . As about PP to N-S for lack of alert - it is a question of general regulations and usual behavior at that high level contests and SO . Friendly Dany Mallory Voelker wrote: > > First of all, I apologize of the fact that my E-mail > wasn't readable, I didn't know that tabs > have such a devastating effect :)))))) > > So let's try again: > > Hi all, > > I'm Vice Chairman of the German National Laws Comittee > and I encounter a rather interesting question in a case > we have to decide on: > > E/E-W, IMPs, Screens are used > > 97 > KJ76 > J952 > J95 > KQ832 54 > A842 T7 > AT 73 > Q4 AKT7632 > > AJT6 > Q53 > KQ864 > 8 > > E S W N > 3C 3D* 3NT 4H > p p 4S all pass > > * 3D was alerted on the N/E side of > the screen and explained as take > out double (Fishbein). S didn't alert > his screenmate and thought that 3D > was natural. Convention card says > it's Fishbein. > > W went down 4 in 4S. Director maintained the score as did the appeals > committee. > > W claims that he has been damaged by the non-alert of the 3D bid. Director > and committee deemed that the 4S bid > (or at least East's pass on the 4S bid by his partner) was wild, gambling > action, therefore forfeiting the right to obtain > an adjusted score. > > W claims that he bid 4S in believing that 4H X would go 2 off at most and > that N had a real H suit for his bid (facing > a diamond one-suiter) and probably a diamond fit. E may now take 4S out > into 5C with a misfit or pass 4S with 3 cards > in S. Appeals committee deemed that W needs better S for his bid and that > he got mad on this one; and E could not pass as his partner denied a 6 card > S suit (he would have bid 3S instead of 3NT). W objects that with 6S and 9 > tricks he still > bids 3NT in IMPS because he doesn't want to create problems for his > partner. More: E got the right explanation, so he > thinks that W bid 4S knowing that S won't break (because of the take out > double), so he must have solid S. If he had > known that S showed D, he would have understood that 4S wanted to give him > a choice of contracts. > > W argues further that even if he would be forced to play in 4S, he would > only go 3 down, he misplayed the hand because > he didn't think that trumps split so bad, because of the misinformation he > played for a 3-3 split. > > 1) What do you think of W's arguments? We still deem that 4S is wild > action, and that W needs at least better S spots > to let this bid enter into consideration. > For sake of information, in a earlier ruling, we precised "wild or gambling > action" as follows: > "Wild or gambling action is an action that: > - less than 5% of all players with comparable Bridge ability would have > chosen and > - among the remaining (at least) 95% of all players of comparable > capability all of them would have eliminated > it after consideration, because it goes against Bridge logic and has only > disadvantages of heavy weight" > > 2) What score do you give? > Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X - 2 > for N/S > The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the > dammage is no longer consequent to the irregularity > but subsequent. Then the conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you > CAN'T apply Law 12 C 2 as this Law only > allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law > 12 needs another Law who says that > Law 12 applies. And as the conditions of Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there > is no such law... > You may think this is harsh reasoning, perhaps you can give me arguments > why this should not be so. > Many colleagues think it is not possible to let the offending side profit > of the error of the non-offending side as this error > would never have come up without the irregularity committed by the > offending side (hypothetical causality!). > So that the offending side must never profit from an opponent's wild action > after an irregularity committed by the other > side. So split scores only applie when the "likely" and the "at all > probable" score are not the same and in no other > situation... > > GRATTAN??? What do you think of this one? In your commentary, all examples > concerning wild or gambling > action (see ex. 12 B, D) maintain the score throughout so I come to think > that you agree with me. > > 3) If you decide that you are not allowed to give a split score on this > one, are you then allowed to circumvent the > spirit of this by giving a procedural penalty that is so heavy that it > takes away to N/S the benefit of the wild action of > W? Should one do so? > > 4) If not, do you give a PP for the lack of alert having indirectly caused > damage to the non-offending side? > > I would be pleased to have opinions on those questions who are - at least I > believe it - of general interest. It seems > very important to me that Directors agree on this frequent problem! > > Sincerily yours > > Mallory Voelker From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 22:34:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 22:34:00 +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 WAA14034 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 22:33:54 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA17853 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 12:34:33 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529083520.006f0ad8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 08:35:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: SPLIT SCORE In-Reply-To: <54AFqLCPa0a1Ew4n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.16.19980526021657.36f71278@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:47 PM 5/26/98 +0100, David wrote: >Mallory Voelker wrote [edited by Robert Nordgren]: > >>I'm Vice Chairman of the German National Laws Comittee > >>2) What score do you give? >>Some of us are thinking about a split score: 4S - 3 for E/W and 4H X - 2 >>for N/S >>The problem with that is that if you deem that 4S is wild action, the >>damage is no longer consequent to the irregularity but subsequent. Then the >>conditions of Law 40 C are not given. And then you CAN'T apply Law 12 C 2 >>as this Law only >>allows an adjusted score if the Laws empower the Director to do so! So Law >>12 needs another Law who says that Law 12 applies. And as the conditions of >>Law 40 C are not fulfilled, there is no such law... >> >>You may think this is harsh reasoning, perhaps you can give me arguments >>why this should not be so. Many colleagues think it is not possible to let >>the offending side profit of the error of the non-offending side as this error >>would never have come up without the irregularity committed by the >>offending side (hypothetical causality!). So that the offending side must >>never profit from an opponent's wild action after an irregularity committed >>by the other >>side. So split scores only applie when the "likely" and the "at all >>probable" score are not the same and in no other situation... > > Assuming that we are going to treat this as wild or gambling action, >you are correct that that means the causal link has been snapped. As >far as the NOs are concerned L40C does not apply and there is no reason >to adjust the score. As regular readers of BLML are well aware, the question of whether "snapping the causal link" should have any effect on adjudications has been controversial every since Edgar Kaplan proposed it about 25 years ago. Mallory's "many colleagues" would have a lot of support from BLML (including mine) and from the bridge-playing world in general. From David's reply, it sounds like Kaplan's doctrine is generally accepted in the EBU. The ACBL has not taken any official position on it, and practice in North America varies from one tournament to the next. So before you decide whether the action in question was "wild or gambling", you must first decide the larger question of whether that matters. Mallory, as Vice Chairman of the GNLC, you might suggest that the committee consider offering your SO an official interpretation of law on this point. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 23:04:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:04:25 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14162 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:04:17 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-142.access.net.il [192.116.204.142]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA17607; Fri, 29 May 1998 16:03:39 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356EB329.800E4730@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:07:53 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike dodson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Club game ruling References: <007101bd88eb$f0a6d780$0169ffd0@pavilion> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Huh.. I take it the usual way - none chats or ..worse. Very unpleasant , but it is clear for everyone , no UI and reasonable brain-judgment . Just keep track of that player in order to remove (or ..hope not) the bad feelings , that he psyches or ..... Dany mike dodson wrote: > > Turn out for Monday's holiday club game was very small but this deal caused > a bit of ill will when the playing > director and a very erratic partner bid this hand: > > dealer E vul none > > 8xxx > xx > 10xxx > xxx > QJxx Kxx > Jx AKxx > xx QJ > Axxxxx KJxx > Ax > Q10xxx > AKxxx > Q > N E S W > 1NT 2S* x > P P 3D x > P P P > *2S alerted as brozel, spades and a minor, CC agrees. > Making 3. > > East is furious contending three things: > 1)passing 2SX is LA, contract should be 2SX down many. > 2)north should preference back to 3S over 3D, I'm not sure why except it > doesn't work. > 3)as a matter of active ethics, declarer should announce his error before > the opening lead. > > I was not at the table but received my share of disdain when I suggested > 1)passing wasn't LA, > 2)north had no UI and was under no obligation to make what might be an > encouraging noise > to a partner known by all at the table capable of any mistake or bad > judgment. > 3)cackling about his mistake half way through the play was in poor taste but > he was not > required to inform his opponents of his misbid. > > This morning I'm not so sure of 1 and would welcome opinions on the others. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 23:10:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:10:58 +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 XAA14192 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:10:53 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA18704 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 13:11:33 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529091220.006f55d4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:12:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980525153217.006dae88@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:24 PM 5/26/98 +0100, David wrote: > Surely, L27B1A says that the knowledge of partner's 1H is AI, but >L27B1B says that you may not gain from this AI? I don't understand. I thought that the whole point of distinguishing AI from UI is that the former is information you are permitted to use freely to your own advantage, whereas the latter is information you may not. If that is the point, then there can be no such thing as AI that you may not gain from. If it's not, what is? 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 May 29 23:32:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:32:27 +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 XAA14276 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:32:21 +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 JAA06083; Fri, 29 May 1998 09:33:16 -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-1998May30.091600.1189.214980; Fri, 29 May 1998 09:23:42 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws), hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) Message-ID: <1998May30.091600.1189.214980@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:23:42 -0600 Subject: RE: Psychic bidding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following block of text is Herman, quoting Tim, quoting Herman >>Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> At 07:06 PM 5/28/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >Given the system you describe, and the hand you show, I would say that >> >in this case a 1S bid is systemic on a 1255 and 6-10 count. >> > >> >Now is this alertable ? >> > >> >I don't think so. >> > >> >I'd say that you should also list the more normal hands you would bid 1S >> >on, and then compare the frequency of occurence of those hands. You >> >might come up with something like 'in 98% of the cases this is ..., but >> >in 2% of the case it's something like ...'. >> >> In other words, 1S shows either spades or short spades -- a new convention. >> (If I know the MIT club, at least there is no worry about this convention >> not being permitted.) Bidding 1S is no longer a psych, but a systemic bid. >> What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? >> >> Tim >> >No percentage. As described above, and if applied, the bid is made 100% >of the time, when holding 1255. The same bid is made 100% of the time >on normal spade hands. The 2% that I describe is just to give the >relative frequency of the 1255 shape as opposed the normal spade hand. If I can comment on my own system for a moment. :) In his original comment, Herman made an assumption that 1S is the systemic bid with 1255 shape and 6-10 HCP. This lead to Tim's comment that if 1S is systemic on 1255 shape, than the 1S response is a convention showing either 4+ spades or no spades. Whether this convention can be played is not germane to the current discussion. The catch is the following. Even if I am dealt the "perfect" hand, I do not pysch 100% of the time. (It isn't a good thing to be that predictable) If I did pysch 100% of the time, then as Tim has noted, I am actually playing a convention. If I pysche 0% of the time, then we have no problem what-so-ever. So Let the N represent the percentage chance that I will bid a pyschic style 1S with a "perfect" holding. So, I repeat Tim's earlier question >> What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? I have the gut feeling that within the United States at least, there is no point at which this bid changes from a pysch to a systemic bid, however, as soon as a partnership is able to quantify "N" with any degree of accuracy, this becomes a concealed partnership understanding. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 29 23:50:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:50:35 +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 XAA14305 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:50:29 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA19479 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 13:51:08 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529095156.006fabec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:51:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (1) In-Reply-To: <356BA3B1.BE8079D4@xtra.co.nz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:25 PM 5/27/98 +1200, wayne wrote: >David and all others please accept my apologies. I've just got used to >cutting the bridge-laws address and replacing it when replying to a post >and I thought that I could simply do this and change the Subject but >alas I have learned that this does not work. The mail programs I've seen that offer threading let you select whether to thread by subject or by reference. Wayne's technique will start a new thread for recipients who have configured their software to thread by subject. Always starting new "threads by reference" as well as by subject makes it much harder to incorporate a previous post into a message when changing the subject. I'd suggest that anyone who is threading by reference now change to threading by subject if their software supports this. 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 May 29 23:54:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:54:14 +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 XAA14320 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:54:08 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA27547 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 May 1998 08:51:43 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199805291351.IAA27547@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 08:51:43 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I have perhaps been over zealous. I do not mean to say that players who > follow the letter of the law and disclose only agreements are unethical. > (I hope I never said otherwise.) I think players who go beyond what is > required by law, perhaps to their own detriment, by disclosing what _might_ > be agreements are setting a high standard of ethics. I agree that players should inform their opponents about bids that might be agreements. > >*If I choose*, and I can so choose, *to have 180 > >pages of system notes (and I do so choose with one partner) you are > >entitled to the friggin' lot. In the first game it is indeed a bit of a > >crap shoot, but when I have no UI, no MI, and no CPU I *cannot* tell you > >what I *don't know*. I will tell you what standard practice is if my > >pick-up is from the group I frequently play in, when I think you might > >not know, otherwise I'll say "No agreement but in this club it is > >usually - whatever it is". > > My guess is that there is almost always a "but" after "no agreement." I > especially think this is so when the call had an artificial or conventional > intended meaning. I do not understand using an artificial or conventional > call if there is not some expectation of partner understanding. And, even > if there is no agreement, I think that having an expectation that partner > will understand is significant. When you make the call, you are hoping > your partner agrees with your intended meaning, or you think that there is > some chance that partner agrees with your intended meaning. Even if you > have no discussed agreement, there is some expectation that an agreement > exists. I agree that there is usually a 'but', and that when I make a conventional call I _hope_ partner will understand it. But there are many situations where I think my partner may expect _some_ conventional call. In those situations, the fact that I choose a conventional call doesn't necessarily mean I have any particular expectation of partner getting it right. The example given is as case in point. You sit down with a pick-up partner and agree to a basic system. [Let's say you're in my local club, and you agree 'Standard American'.] Maybe you agree to some conventions, maybe you don't, but you forget to say anything about cue-bids. Now RHO opens 1C and it's up to you. If you hold a long club suit, would you bid 2C natural assuming partner will understand? I guarantee that at my club most of your partners _won't_ assume 2C is natural. They will assume it is Michaels, or a strong take-out, or _something_, but probably _not_ natural. So now suppose that instead you have been dealt a Michaels hand. You don't know if this partner usually plays Michaels, and you have no idea if he'll guess right. But you figure that most people play a cue-bid means _something_ conventional, and you just hope he guesses right. Now if you do that at my club, and I'm your partner, and my RHO asks me about your bid, I'll say "We have no agreement--we never discussed anything about cue-bids". If you inquire further, or if you aren't a regular at my club, or whatever, I might go on to point out that most people at this club play this as Michaels or a strong take-out. I will not tell them which guess I am going to make, and I will not expect you to tell me to leave the table so that you can tell them for sure. > >Why do you want me tell YOU something partner DOES NOT KNOW? > > But, there's a chance that partner knows. I would prefer to err on the > side of over disclosure rather than under disclosure. But if partner knows, then partner should be able to say so! Let us assume for the sake of argument that my partner is as ethical as I am. [And, while we're at it, let's assume I am ethical. :)] If partner really knows what my bid means [on the basis of something other than general bridge knowledge or the contents of his own hand], then he will of course tell you. If he doesn't tell you [he says "We have no agreement, and there's nothing I can think of to clarify that bid"], then he _doesn't_ "Know" what my bid means. If he doesn't know, then I cannot be expected to tell you. Put it another way. You seem to be worried that the fact that I made a conventional bid is itself good reason to suspect that partner will know what it means. So to protect opponents from the possibility that partner knows what it means, you want me to tell opponents what it means. But I can only tell opponents what the bid means after they have asked partner for an explanation, and he has told them he _doesn't_ know what the bid means. If I tell opponents, then I am accusing my partner of lying. I don't see any other way around this. > I'm not suggesting that everyone should have pages of system notes, or even > fill out all of the sections on a convention card. Discuss what agreements > you want and then make a blanket rule such as "natural and non-forcing if > undiscussed." (Or does that create a paradox?) This doesn't seem to be > much of a burden, and I can't imagine it making the game unplayable. I agree with you that players would be well advised to make such agreements. But I see no reason to _compel_ them to make such agreements if they haven't, or to make them pretend they have such agreements when they don't. Certainly, if you have such agreements they should be revealed. > Tim > Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 00:18:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 00:18:15 +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 AAA16620 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 00:18:10 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA20216 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 14:18:47 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529101935.006fa380@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:19:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <356BFF35.365D01C3@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19980526133121.00695538@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:55 PM 5/27/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >No. Full disclosure is satisfied when the opponents know everything >there is to know. Which is more than the player actually knows. It seems like an odd law that would require someone to disclose more than he actually knows. >There is indeed no obligation on the player to make up information, but >if he doesn't, he will not escape the penalty for misinformation, simply >because he told them everything he knew. Granted, you can and should, in the appropriate circumstances, be penalized for MI even if you have told the opponents everything you know. But in my view, this should happen only if you have failed to tell them everything you *should* know, whether you actually know it or not. The law does not (yet, although some would have it be otherwise) require you to have agreements about every action, but does require you to reveal any agreements you do have. So I see a critical distinction between having an agreement which you have forgotten or are confused about and not having an agreement at all. >So it might well be better for him to "make up" one explanation, and >hope he has picked the right one. Yes, it might. >I feel the opponents have the right to at least a guess as to what the >system should be. I too feel that the opponents should have the right to hear at least a guess as to the meaning of an action, although the consensus interpretation over here (ACBL) is that they do not. The point at issue, however, is whether they should have the right to treat an explicit guess as though it were offered as a fact rather than a guess. 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 May 30 00:41:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 00:41:51 +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 AAA16701 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 00:41:28 +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 PAA25423 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 15:41:07 +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 PAA10028 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 15:41:06 +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 PAA03398 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 15:41:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 29 May 98 15:41:03 BST Message-Id: <3652.9805291441@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > > At 07:24 PM 5/26/98 +0100, David wrote: > > > Surely, L27B1A says that the knowledge of partner's 1H is AI, but > >L27B1B says that you may not gain from this AI? > > I don't understand. I thought that the whole point of distinguishing AI > from UI is that the former is information you are permitted to use freely > to your own advantage, whereas the latter is information you may not. If > that is the point, then there can be no such thing as AI that you may not > gain from. If it's not, what is? The status of corrected insufficient bids in L27 is a different kind of beast from the UI/AI distinction in the rest of the laws. The bracket in L27B1a says that a corrected insufficient bid is not UI and so the partner of the insufficient bidder is not constrained by L16B: he may use the fact that partner made, and corrected, an insufficient bid throughout the rest of the auction (and play). However, once the auction and play are complete, the director will assess whether he should assign an adjusted score under L27B1b. The test is whether the insufficient bid conveyed information as to damage the non-offending side, not whether the parter of the insufficient bidder made calls suggested by the information from the insufficient bid. This is similar to the test under L23: were the non-offending side damaged by the choice of final contract, not by the auction which got to the final contract. I usually interpret this to mean that if the offending side reach a contract that they could not (would not) have reached without the insufficient bid then the non-offending side were damaged. I am not sure to what extent this interpretation is bourne out by the wording of L27B1b. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 00:46:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 00:46:55 +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 AAA16725 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 00:46:50 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA20960 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 14:47:30 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529104818.006fa380@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:48:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:27 PM 5/27/98 -0600, Richard wrote: >I would argue that any good bridge player would at least consider the 1S >psyche. >(I certainly did, but decided to bid 1N instead since I wasn't sure if I >could ethically bid 1S) You could have ethically and legally bid 1S at MIT the other evening. What you can't do is bid 1S every time you hold this hand and have this auction. I don't consider the latter unethical per se, but it is illegal (by ACBL regulation). >My question to the list is when precisely does a psychic bid become >systemic? When either: (a) You have a partnership agreement (explicit or implicit) to make the bid whenever the hand and auction are appropriate, or (b) You have a partnership agreement that provides a means to inquire whether the bid was a psych. 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 May 30 01:51:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 01:51:29 +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 BAA16896 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 01:51:23 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA22292 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 15:52:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529115246.006932d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:52:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The role of a screening director In-Reply-To: <356CA402.1084@popd.ix.netcom.com> References: <199805271932.PAA17232@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:38 PM 5/27/98 -0700, jonbriss wrote: >Screeners are forbidden from warning players explicitly that they are >risking a frivolous appeal sanction, and justifiably so. Players with a >righteous appeal may choose to drop the matter in fear of the sanction. >A screener will, however, dance around the issue through explaining the >law, burden of proof, evidentiary standards, etc. They may be forbidden, but they do seem to do it fairly often. And it does have the effect of getting players with meritorious appeals to refuse to pursue them lest they lose their deposit. It has happened to me. In a major championship event, playing against nationally known experts, I was on opening lead against a slam, inquired of declarer what her partner's 4NT bid was, and was given the one-word answer "Blackwood". I subsequently misdefended the hand when it turned out she had the "wrong" number of aces. On subsequent questioning, it turned out that the pair's actual agreement was 14-30 Roman Key Card. Both opponents had been aware of this; there had been no misunderstanding or confusion. I felt that "Blackwood" by itself was misleading (I won't say deliberately misleading, although at the time I wasn't so sure), and filed an appeal. The screener on duty informed me that it was clear that at this level I would be expected to protect myself by further asking "What kind of Blackwood?", and that if I went to committee it was *certain* that I would be fined for bringing a frivolous appeal. With little more than a few positions in the low overall awards at stake, I chose not to risk (no, lose -- surely I'm supposed to believe that the directors know more than I do about this kind of stuff!) my $50 and withdrew my appeal. When I subsequently related this incident to several top-level players I was severely excoriated for letting this pair "get away with" their clearly inappropriate behavior -- two top experts even offered to put up the $50 for me if it wasn't too late (it was). Of course, TDs aren't perfect, and do make mistakes some times. But almost every time I tell this story to a group of bridge players, I get "you know, the same sort of thing happened to me..." or "a friend of mine had something similar..." Mistakes aside, though, it seems to me that the only acceptable justification for having screeners is that they provide something that's of value to the players, not just to the committee members. They should be there to provide advice and guidance to players who may not be sophisticated enough in matters of bridge law and appeals procedures to know whether a contemplated appeal is meritorious or frivolous. How are they supposed to help these players out if they are not permitted to offer opinions on the very point at issue? What they are expected to do now is just what Jon says: convey their opinion to the players while being careful not to explicitly state it officially. Which means that if the screener believes that an appeal has merit, but is flat out wrong, he -- who is paid to understand these situations -- having made no official pronouncement, suffers no sanction, while the appellant -- who is neither required nor expected to understand the subtleties of what makes an appeal meritorious -- is fined $50 for listening to him. 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 May 30 02:43:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 02:43:55 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17147 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 02:43:47 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-161.access.net.il [192.116.204.161]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA16590; Fri, 29 May 1998 19:42:56 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356EE692.3A3C1D31@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 19:47:14 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: no agreement References: <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19980526133121.00695538@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980529101935.006fa380@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Eric Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:55 PM 5/27/98 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >No. Full disclosure is satisfied when the opponents know everything > >there is to know. Which is more than the player actually knows. > > It seems like an odd law that would require someone to disclose more than > he actually knows. > > >There is indeed no obligation on the player to make up information, but > >if he doesn't, he will not escape the penalty for misinformation, simply > >because he told them everything he knew. > > Granted, you can and should, in the appropriate circumstances, be penalized > for MI even if you have told the opponents everything you know. But in my > view, this should happen only if you have failed to tell them everything > you *should* know, whether you actually know it or not. The law does not > (yet, although some would have it be otherwise) require you to have > agreements about every action, but does require you to reveal any > agreements you do have. So I see a critical distinction between having an > agreement which you have forgotten or are confused about and not having an > agreement at all. > > >So it might well be better for him to "make up" one explanation, and > >hope he has picked the right one. > > Yes, it might. > > >I feel the opponents have the right to at least a guess as to what the > >system should be. > > I too feel that the opponents should have the right to hear at least a > guess as to the meaning of an action, although the consensus Here is the worst breach of Laws ( 75C !!!! ) either you like them or not - my philosophical approach is that must respect the LAW as long as didn't change . I believe the lawmakers were experienced when published that Law and I explained in a thread why IMHO it is a gorgeous Law , when you have to implement it. Dany interpretation > over here (ACBL) is that they do not. The point at issue, however, is > whether they should have the right to treat an explicit guess as though it > were offered as a fact rather than a guess. > > 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 May 30 02:50:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 02:50:22 +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 CAA17163 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 02:50:16 +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 MAA04639 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 12:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9805281808.aa15850@flash.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Fri, 29 May 1998 01:22:41 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 12:56:32 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MadDog wrote: >> Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts >> (no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- >> >> 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >> 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >> do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >> make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) >> 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. >> >> I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... >> >> Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we >> get there) and also on no opposition bidding: >> >> I promised the players I would post this and see what the consensus view >> is and would let them see the answers next week - as they were very >> interested (as indeed am I). Adam replied: >I'm going to pretend North is the dealer. South opened 1C out of >turn, West is thinking about bidding 3S. >>I think we have to deal with the 1C bid first. Law 29A says that >offender's LHO has the right to accept the 1C call and forfeit >penalties; but I believe this means only the penalties that would >apply to the 1C OOT call, not the 1D call. Thus, assuming West >accepts the 1C call and bids 3S, the bidding proceeds normally but the >1D call is UI for South. But doesn't West's acceptance and bid of 3S now convert the 1D call to a bid out of rotation? So first, East gets to decide whether to accept the (now insufficient) 1D call; if so, then the auction proceeds without any penalty from that point. If East refuses to accept the 1D call, then South is going to be barred, North must make a legal call, and there may be lead penalties if North doesn't bid diamonds. _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 03:10:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:10:35 +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 DAA17189 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:10:30 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA23812 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 17:11:10 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529131158.006eaa18@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:11:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI from slow RKCB In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:00 AM 5/28/98 +0100, David wrote: >My argument was that a slow 4nt bid conveys unauthorized information >to partner, suggested a minimal slam try; a full values slam try >would bid an in tempo 4nt. And since there is a logical alternative >to lying, namely telling the truth, the score should be adjusted. > >The director told me that hesitations in a non-competitive auction >are not generally treated in the same way as hesitations in a >competitive auction, and that my interpretation of a slow 4nt >as showing a doubtful or minimum slam try isn't valid. > >This seems highly dubious to me, but I've been wrong before, so >I request explanation, clarification, and enlightenment. >******************************************************************* > > So, presume the auction was > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5h**** ap > >4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter >4nt** =definite break in tempo >5h**** =showing 2 a's + no hq [but actually holding the hq] > > If 5H makes exactly, how do you rule? You'd need to make quite a strong case to convince me that the tempo break before 4NT demonstrably suggested 5H over 5S, so I'd almost certainly rule no adjustment. I tend to agree with the director that the hesitation doesn't particularly suggest minimal values; players typically hesitate simply because they believe in one of the rules Aunt Tillie taught me when I was a wee nipper: Never ask for aces until you know what you're going to do over any possible response. Moreover, even if it *did* suggest minimal values, it still says that partner has decided that key cards are more important than aggregate valuation in deciding whether to bid a slam, and you have no reason to believe that he's wrong about that, huddle or no huddle, minimal values or not. Still further, if responder did catch all those supposed inferences and, based on them, decided to slow the auction down, why 5H and not 5D? 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 May 30 03:36:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:36:12 +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 DAA17239 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:36:05 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA24518 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 17:36:44 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529133733.006ec000@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:37:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Weekend Misinformation (2) In-Reply-To: <199805281704.KAA19668@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:02 AM 5/28/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >First we are told we have to Alert certain calls, then we are told >that if opponents fail to do so we won't get redress. That means I >have to continually ask, "Please explain your auction" when a call >that may be Alertable is not Alerted. That's a pain. > >TDs interpret the ACBL language to mean that anyone playing in the >top flight of a nationally-rated event should be experienced enough >to immediately recognize the possible Alertability of any call when >there is no Alert. For myself, I don't mind much, at least if the >opponents have a legible convention card within my field of view, but >there *are* inexperienced players participating in nationally-rated >events, and they should be protected. If my partner is one such, am I >supposed to question an opposing call for his/her benefit? That seems >to be standard practice these days, but I was brought up differently. >To me, "protect themselves" does not mean "protect each other," as >TDs are interpeting the ACBL's words. I don't think that either ACBL regulations or TD practice at any level of play suggest that you are required to "protect yourself" whenever your opponents miss an alert. What they do require is that you protect yourself when you have an obvious reason to suspect that they may have done so. Such as the case that started the thread, in which the lack of an alert should have meant that the bid was forcing, but responder had already passed it. Or when the non-alertable meaning of an unalerted bid would require a 50-HCP deck. 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 May 30 03:39:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:39:51 +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 DAA17255 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:39:45 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-079.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.84]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA03308 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 10:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <356DA624.3840@lightspeed.net> Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:00:04 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The role of a screening director References: <199805271932.PAA17232@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> <3.0.1.32.19980529115246.006932d0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Eric's comments and context below] I don't understand the argument against using screeners to determine if the appeal is frivolous. Some have said that appellants will misstate the facts to the screener if that's the rule; I don't see that as a problem: Committee: He argued there was no UI from the hesitation Blackwood, and we want to keep his deposit. What'd you tell him? Screener: "He told me 4NT was Blueberry, and that 5H was a grand slam try." Committee: "OK, they lied to you, and we're keeping the deposit." Or: Screener: "Well, they told me what happened, and I told them I thought it was borderline on this auction." I think this should make a difference. In my estimation, few directors and a slightly lower percentage of players understand the rules well. We should not punish those who appeal based on good faith and bad advice. My foray into appealing (rather than being on a committee, which came later) came when I had about 200 points (not many in ACBL land) and was playing in a non-life master event at the Nationals. I discovered that *screeners* may be forbidden from advising on the frivolity of appeals, but directors feel no such compunction. In my one national appeal, the original director told me: "You cannot appeal this ruling." Now frosted, I talked to next director up the chain, who urged me not to appeal, but, after three requests I got an appeal form. These directors told pre-screening director (number 3) that I had been rude. To his credit, he believed that my tone had been frozen but my words and volume had been appropriate (probably because with him my tone was frozen, etc.). He advised that my appeal was frivolous. Director 4, a bypasser who I knew, volunteered that my appeal was frivolous but that I was "entitled to waste everyone's time." By this time, I'd talked to my partner and explained the potential of disciplinary action if we pursued it, but told him I thought I was right and everyone else was wrong. He advised to continue to pursue it. Director 5, Brian Moran, who was screening the appeals, said my appeal appeared to have substantial merit, and that he'd review the decision with the directors before sending it to appeal. We won the appeal, although I didn't get the score I expected. (Side note which applies to another thread: We gathered all of the scores on that board to show it was logical to miss a game; the committee ignored it and believed the opponents. Also, although a score adjustment that would have moved us from 4th to 2nd was ruled, we were never credited with that adjustment.) This was several years ago in a low-rated event; it could be better now. (ha ha.) I have seen many occasions since where directors use heavy-handed tactics to stop potential appellants. This often leads to players misunderstanding the rules of the game. And it leads to the question: Suppose the directors tell you your appeal is frivolous. Should that affect disciplinary action for frivolous appeals? --JRM Eric Landau wrote: > [Jon Brissman's comments snipped, Eric is replying.] > They may be forbidden, but they do seem to do it fairly often. And it does > have the effect of getting players with meritorious appeals to refuse to > pursue them lest they lose their deposit. > > It has happened to me. In a major championship event, playing against > nationally known experts, I was on opening lead against a slam, inquired of > declarer what her partner's 4NT bid was, and was given the one-word answer > "Blackwood". I subsequently misdefended the hand when it turned out she > had the "wrong" number of aces. On subsequent questioning, it turned out > that the pair's actual agreement was 14-30 Roman Key Card. Both opponents > had been aware of this; there had been no misunderstanding or confusion. I > felt that "Blackwood" by itself was misleading (I won't say deliberately > misleading, although at the time I wasn't so sure), and filed an appeal. > The screener on duty informed me that it was clear that at this level I > would be expected to protect myself by further asking "What kind of > Blackwood?", and that if I went to committee it was *certain* that I would > be fined for bringing a frivolous appeal. With little more than a few > positions in the low overall awards at stake, I chose not to risk (no, lose > -- surely I'm supposed to believe that the directors know more than I do > about this kind of stuff!) my $50 and withdrew my appeal. When I > subsequently related this incident to several top-level players I was > severely excoriated for letting this pair "get away with" their clearly > inappropriate behavior -- two top experts even offered to put up the $50 > for me if it wasn't too late (it was). > > Of course, TDs aren't perfect, and do make mistakes some times. But almost > every time I tell this story to a group of bridge players, I get "you know, > the same sort of thing happened to me..." or "a friend of mine had > something similar..." > > Mistakes aside, though, it seems to me that the only acceptable > justification for having screeners is that they provide something that's of > value to the players, not just to the committee members. They should be > there to provide advice and guidance to players who may not be > sophisticated enough in matters of bridge law and appeals procedures to > know whether a contemplated appeal is meritorious or frivolous. How are > they supposed to help these players out if they are not permitted to offer > opinions on the very point at issue? > > What they are expected to do now is just what Jon says: convey their > opinion to the players while being careful not to explicitly state it > officially. Which means that if the screener believes that an appeal has > merit, but is flat out wrong, he -- who is paid to understand these > situations -- having made no official pronouncement, suffers no sanction, > while the appellant -- who is neither required nor expected to understand > the subtleties of what makes an appeal meritorious -- is fined $50 for > listening to him. > > 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 May 30 03:55:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:55:26 +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 DAA17304 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 03:55:20 +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 AA118874569; Fri, 29 May 1998 13:56:10 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA082834568; Fri, 29 May 1998 13:56:08 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:55:53 -0400 Message-Id: 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 Adam replied: I'm going to pretend North is the dealer. South opened 1C out of turn, West is thinking about bidding 3S. I think we have to deal with the 1C bid first. Law 29A says that offender's LHO has the right to accept the 1C call and forfeit penalties; but I believe this means only the penalties that would apply to the 1C OOT call, not the 1D call. Thus, assuming West accepts the 1C call and bids 3S, the bidding proceeds normally but the 1D call is UI for South. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 04:04:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:04:53 +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 EAA17350 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:04:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015494; 29 May 98 18:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:53:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <1998May30.091600.1189.214980@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >So, I repeat Tim's earlier question > >>> What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? > >I have the gut feeling that within the United States at least, there is >no point at which this bid changes from a pysch to a systemic bid, >however, as soon as a partnership is able to quantify "N" with any degree >of accuracy, this becomes a concealed partnership understanding. Whatever the general answer to this, the actual sequence seems special. It seems designed to aid psyching. Now, I am a simple soul. If I play a 1H opening to deny four spades then I would play a 1S response to show five+ spades. What I am not happy about is a 1S response to show four spades which partner will not raise. If you psyche it and partner does not raise, please tell me the difference between this and a controlled psyche? --------- The general answer is that a few occurrences of a type of sequence [it does not have to be the identical sequence] gives an implicit understanding: an isolated case does not. The best example I know of the latter occurred in Jersey, where a player opened 2NT showing 6-10 HCP, 5/5+ in the minors with a 5/5 20-count! Her partner, clearly her husband, said "She opened 2NT on a strong hand a couple of weeks ago, and I told the silly cow NEVER to do it again". We felt this did not constitute an agreement to open this hand! :))) -- 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 May 30 04:07:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:07:26 +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 EAA17409 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:07:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015495; 29 May 98 18:03 GMT Message-ID: <1IxaAeAjmsb1EwzD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:43:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980529091220.006f55d4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:24 PM 5/26/98 +0100, David wrote: > >> Surely, L27B1A says that the knowledge of partner's 1H is AI, but >>L27B1B says that you may not gain from this AI? > >I don't understand. I thought that the whole point of distinguishing AI >from UI is that the former is information you are permitted to use freely >to your own advantage, whereas the latter is information you may not. If >that is the point, then there can be no such thing as AI that you may not >gain from. If it's not, what is? Go argue with the law-makers! I don't care what the *point* is: the Law says that L16C does not apply, but you may not benefit from the use of the info. -- 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 May 30 04:20:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:20:22 +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 EAA17503 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:20:15 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-27.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.57]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA12717 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 14:21:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <356EFC73.224445B0@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:20:36 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The bidding had been: - - 1D (1), 3S(2), 1C(3) (1) OOT at partners turn to call (2) accepted the bid OOT (3) by the legal opener. In this sequence, I would rule that the 1D was condoned by the 3S bidder and the 1C is now and insufficient bid and if not accepted must be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid but if the bid is changed but cannot double then partner is barred for life or the end of the auction, (whichever comes first). Lead penalty may apply depending how the auction continues. Nancy John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts > (no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- > > 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT > 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will > do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to > make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) > 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > > I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... > > Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we > get there) and also on no opposition bidding: > > I promised the players I would post this and see what the consensus view > is and would let them see the answers next week - as they were very > interested (as indeed am I). > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 30 04:32:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:32:47 +1000 Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17561 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:32:39 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with SMTP id OAA32403; Fri, 29 May 1998 14:33:35 -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-1998May29.142229.1189.215224; Fri, 29 May 1998 14:24:01 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998May29.142229.1189.215224@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:24:01 -0600 Subject: RE: Psychic bidding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk] >Whatever the general answer to this, the actual sequence seems >special. It seems designed to aid psyching. >Now, I am a simple soul. If I play a 1H opening to deny four spades >then I would play a 1S response to show five+ spades. >What I am not happy about is a 1S response to show four spades which >partner will not raise. If you psyche it and partner does not raise, >please tell me the difference between this and a controlled psyche? I do not see any difference between this and a controlled pysch. 1H - 1S is explicitly defined as forcing in our system. Partner is expected to raise 1S with Hxx and a side ruffing value. With a minimum balanced hand unsuitable for a raise, partner will rebid 1N. With a minor suit canape, partner will bid naturally. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 04:45:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:45:25 +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 EAA17620 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 04:45:19 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA23287; Fri, 29 May 1998 13:45:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca3-12.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.108) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023234; Fri May 29 13:44:43 1998 Message-ID: <356F0177.47BA@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:41:59 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix18.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John R. Mayne" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The role of a screening director References: <199805271932.PAA17232@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> <3.0.1.32.19980529115246.006932d0@pop.cais.com> <356DA624.3840@lightspeed.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote, inter alia: > > I discovered that *screeners* may be forbidden from advising on the > frivolity of appeals, but directors feel no such compunction. > Alas, you're right. If I had a dollar for every instance in which a director has tried to warn appellants off an appeal by threatening the meritless appeal sanction and then the AC overturned the director, I'd be able to retire now. My observation is that insecure TDs make these threats, perhaps in fear of having their rulings subjected to scrutiny. Competent, self-confident TDs do not make such statements to potential appellants. > Director 5, Brian Moran, who was screening the appeals, said my appeal > appeared to have substantial merit, and that he'd review the decision > with the directors before sending it to appeal. Brian is one of our bright lights, an ideal screener. On many occasions he has overturned the floor director's ruling on his own motion (in consultation with the other screeners). Generally, the screeners' knowledge level regarding the Laws far exceeds that of directors assigned to the tournament floor. Rarely, one needs to climb the ladder of hierarchy to obtain the correct ruling. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 05:05:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 05:05:32 +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 FAA17675 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 05:04:33 +1000 Received: by flash.irvine.com id aa13037; 29 May 98 12:04 PDT Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12517; 29 May 98 11:56 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 May 1998 14:20:36 PDT." <356EFC73.224445B0@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:56:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805291156.aa12517@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think you got the 1D and 1C backwards . . . I've corrected them. > The bidding had been: - - 1C (1), 3S(2), 1D(3) > (1) OOT at partners turn to call > (2) accepted the bid OOT > (3) by the legal opener. > > In this sequence, I would rule that the [1C] was condoned by the 3S > bidder and the [1D] is now and insufficient bid and if not accepted > must be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid but if the bid is > changed but cannot double then partner is barred for life or the end > of the auction, (whichever comes first). Lead penalty may apply > depending how the auction continues. Nancy This makes sense, but only if the 1D call is treated as a second OOT call. I missed the possibility that the 1D could also be treated as a call out of rotation. I don't think it's clear from the Laws whether this is the case; at the time the 1D call was made by the legal opener, it's not really clear whose turn it was to call. I suppose we could say, once 4th hand accepted the 1C bid, that it was 4th hand's turn to call and this applies *retroactively* to the time the 1D call was made, so that Law 31A now applies. However, the 1C bidder isn't necessarily barred for the auction. If the 1D bid isn't accepted and 1st hand corrects to any diamond bid, 3rd hand must pass for one round (Law 31A2(a)). I don't think Law 27 (on insufficient bids) applies at all, since the 1D call wasn't insufficient at the time it was made. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 05:14:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 05:14:31 +1000 Received: from uno.minfod.com (uno.minfod.com [207.227.70.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA17705 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 05:14:21 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by uno.minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yfUcR-001b7QC; Fri, 29 May 98 14:15 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:15:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <3116.9805261320@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_16566952==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_16566952==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:20 PM 5/26/98 , Robin Barker wrote: > >I wonder what would happen if you offer L25B: > >W: "Stop - 3H" >W: "Oops! Director please," (waits) >W: "Director, this is what happened [the aution]. What are my options?" >TD: "Let me read you L25B," (reads) > "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when ..." >N: (interupts) "Pass" >TD: "Oh. Now you (West) have no options." > >Robin I cancel North's pass based on L9B2 ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty.") and warn North that a Procedural Penalty could be applied to further such violations. John S. Nichols --=====================_16566952==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:20 PM 5/26/98 , Robin Barker wrote:
>
>I wonder what would happen if you offer L25B:
>
>W:  "Stop - 3H"
>W:  "Oops! Director please," (waits)
>W:  "Director, this is what happened [the aution].  What are my options?"
>TD: "Let me read you L25B," (reads)
>    "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when ..."
>N:  (interupts) "Pass"
>TD: "Oh.  Now you (West) have no options."
>
>Robin

I cancel North's pass based on L9B2 ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty.") and warn North that a Procedural Penalty could be applied to further such violations.


John S. Nichols
--=====================_16566952==_.ALT-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 05:42:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 05:42:48 +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 FAA17755 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 05:42:34 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA27230 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 19:43:14 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980529154337.006f1d58@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:43:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.16.19980528143354.37f77946@maine.rr.com> References: <356D99B0.3448660E@village.uunet.be> <1998May27.122710.1189.214146@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:33 PM 5/28/98, Tim wrote: >In other words, 1S shows either spades or short spades -- a new convention. > (If I know the MIT club, at least there is no worry about this convention >not being permitted.) Bidding 1S is no longer a psych, but a systemic bid. > What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? In the ACBL, at least, the threshold has nothing to do with frequency. It becomes a systemic bid as soon as you and your partner discuss the possibility of doing it, or do it enough times (twice in a lifetime, regardless of how much you play, seems to the be the ACBL's rule of thumb for psychs) to create an "implicit 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 May 30 06:46:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 06:46:56 +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 GAA17933 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 06:46:50 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-27.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.193]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26222 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 16:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <356F1ED5.F84A069E@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:47:17 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling References: <9805291156.aa12517@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > I think you got the 1D and 1C backwards . . . I've corrected them. > > > The bidding had been: - - 1C (1), 3S(2), 1D(3) > > (1) OOT at partners turn to call > > (2) accepted the bid OOT > > (3) by the legal opener. > > > > In this sequence, I would rule that the [1C] was condoned by the 3S > > bidder and the [1D] is now and insufficient bid and if not accepted > > must be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid but if the bid is > > changed but cannot double then partner is barred for life or the end > > of the auction, (whichever comes first). Lead penalty may apply > > depending how the auction continues. Nancy > > This makes sense, but only if the 1D call is treated as a second OOT > call. > > I missed the possibility that the 1D could also be treated as a call > out of rotation. I don't think it's clear from the Laws whether this > is the case; at the time the 1D call was made by the legal opener, > it's not really clear whose turn it was to call. I suppose we could > say, once 4th hand accepted the 1C bid, that it was 4th hand's turn to > call and this applies *retroactively* to the time the 1D call was > made, so that Law 31A now applies. > > However, the 1C bidder isn't necessarily barred for the auction. If > the 1D bid isn't accepted and 1st hand corrects to any diamond bid, > 3rd hand must pass for one round (Law 31A2(a)). I don't think Law 27 > (on insufficient bids) applies at all, since the 1D call wasn't > insufficient at the time it was made. > > -- Adam Unless I am completely confused by this bidding sequence, isn't the 1st hand the partner of the person who bid opened the bidding OOT. (third hand)? 4th hand now bid 3S condoning the OOT bid. 1st hand now bids 1C which is insuffiecent (not out of turn. I think there are only 4 players at the table!!!! ;-) ) and to make the whole thing more fun, the partner of the 3spade bidder could now bid 1 spade!!! Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 07:00:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:00:00 +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 GAA18021 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 06:59:54 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-27.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.193]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA27336 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 17:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <356F21E5.66831BA1@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:00:21 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: re: complex bid out of turn ruling correction. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry I messed those bids up again. The 1 diamond bid by the first hand I would consider insufficient, not a bid out of turn! So to repeat,-- Unless I am completely confused by this bidding sequence, isn't the 1st hand the partner of the person who bid opened the bidding 1C OOT. (third hand)? 4th hand now bid 3S condoning the OOT bid. 1st hand now bids 1D which is insuffiecent (not out of turn. I think there are only 4 players at the table!!!! ;-) ) and to make the whole thing more fun, the partner of the 3 spade bidder could now bid 1 spade!!! Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 07:16:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:16:06 +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 HAA18127 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:16:00 +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 QAA14072; Fri, 29 May 1998 16:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980529171447.0c17a4b4@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:14:47 To: "Grant C. Sterling" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199805291351.IAA27547@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:51 AM 5/29/98 -0500, Grant C. Sterling wrote: > Put it another way. You seem to be worried that the fact that I >made a conventional bid is itself good reason to suspect that partner will >know what it means. So to protect opponents from the possibility that >partner knows what it means, you want me to tell opponents what it means. >But I can only tell opponents what the bid means after they have asked >partner for an explanation, and he has told them he _doesn't_ know what >the bid means. If I tell opponents, then I am accusing my partner of >lying. I don't see any other way around this. Let's suppose your partner cue-bids 2C. You guess, for whatever reason, there is a 45% chance it is strong takeout, a 45% chance that it is Michaels and a 10% chance that it is natural. And, let's suppose for simplicity that there are no other possible meanings. Sometimes you and partner will both guess the same thing. Even if this chance is slim, I think the opponents should be entitled to know. One option is that you could tell the opponents which option you are selecting (but, this would also require partner to leave the table since your guess is UI to partner). This way, the opponents are informed of your agreement when you both get it right, they are in the dark just as much as you when you get it wrong. Another option is for your partner to tell the opponents what his bid means. This way the opponents are informed of your agreement when you both get it right, but they are also informed of his intention even if you guess wrong. I understand both options are more than the Laws require, which brings up another option: no one tell the opponents what they think partner has. Everyone still reading this thread, knows that I prefer the second option. It is most informative to the opponents and it allows the opponents to select which counter-methods to use. I could probably be convinced that there is no need to inform the opponents what type of raise an undiscussed 1S=3S is. But, when the undiscussed bid is intended as artificial or conventional, I definitely think that should be enough to indicate there might be an agreement and whatever that agreement might be should be disclosed to the opponents. Even if only the person who made the call is sure of the intended meaning and thus only he can give the opponents the information. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 07:17:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:17:14 +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 HAA18141 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:17:08 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22750; 29 May 98 14:17 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 May 1998 16:47:17 PDT." <356F1ED5.F84A069E@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:17:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9805291417.aa22750@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Unless I am completely confused by this bidding sequence, isn't the 1st > hand the partner of the person who bid opened the bidding OOT. Yes. Here's an excerpt from John's original message: >> 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >> 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >> do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >> make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) >> 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. 1st in hand was supposed to call 1st, but his partner (3rd in hand) called 1C out of turn. 1st in hand *then* called 1D. So, if 4th hand accepted the OOT 1C and bid 3S, the bids have come in the order 1C-3S-1D, not 1D-3S-1C. > (third hand)? 4th hand now bid 3S condoning the OOT bid. 1st hand > now bids 1C Nope, check John's message. 1st hand now bids 1D. > which is insuffiecent (not out of turn. I think there are only 4 players > at the table!!!! ;-) ) It's debatable whether the 1D is out of turn. In any case, though, I don't think we can call 1D an insufficient bid, since it actually came before the 3S call, and it was sufficient at the time it was made. Suppose we have a less complex situation. North, the dealer, opens 1C, and South bids 1D before East has a chance to call. They call the director, and East decides to bid 1S. Does this make 1D an insufficient call? Nope. It means the 1D call is cancelled. It no longer exists. South is now allowed to call (and to decide whether his partner will be barred for one round or for the entire auction); if he THEN bids 1D again, NOW the call is an insufficient bid, and the insufficient bid laws apply. In fact, the same would apply even if North had opened 1D and South had bid 1C before East has a chance to call. If East bids, the 1C call is cancelled, and there is no insufficient bid penalty, just the penalties of Law 31A2. If East chooses to pass, however, South must repeat the 1C call (Law 31A1), and then the insufficient bid laws are applied. John's situation is similar, except with the added complexity of the opening bid out of turn. However, I still don't think the insufficient bid laws have any relevance to John's case. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 07:42:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:42:07 +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 HAA18180 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:42:00 +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 RAA02072 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 17:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04836; Fri, 29 May 1998 17:43:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:43:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805292143.RAA04836@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychic bidding X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > ... there is no way for the opponents to gauge the > implications of your opening 2H sequence in terms of the likelihood of a > psychic 1S response. ...The only reasonable way out of this is to > alert the 1H opening, and explain that it denies 4 or more spades. Mike makes an excellent point, applicable to many other sequences. If your bidding system provides a different bid for some hands that seemingly fall within the description of the bid that was made, you need to explain the negative implications of failing to make the other bid. In the system described, 1H is 8-12 points and 4+ hearts, but _also_ (if I understood the first message) either fewer than four spades or exactly 12 points. There may be additional negative implications from other bids not made, for example 1NT. The opponents are entitled to this information any time they ask about the 1H bid. Perhaps the most common example is the nebulous 1D, which "shows" (say) 11-15 HCP and any diamond length. But it also _denies_ (for most pairs) a five card major unless holding six or more diamonds, six cards in clubs unless holding six or more diamonds, and a balanced hand within the notrump range. So the _real_ description might be "11-12 balanced, or 11-15 primary diamonds 5+, or 4441 any shortness." How many pairs give the real description? From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 07:47:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:47:09 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18213 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 07:46:58 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24cf.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.207]) by sand2.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA11191 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 22:47:45 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 22:49:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8b4b$a138bc60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 1:50 AM Subject: complex bid out of turn ruling >Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts >(no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- > >3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) >1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > >I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... > >Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we >get there) and also on no opposition bidding: I am going to rule that 4th in hand may excersise his Law 28A right to accept the 1C BOOT. This means that it is his turn to call. The original dealer who now bid 1D has bid when it was the turn of his/her RHO, and as such Law 31 applies. We have been told that the bidding would be 1C-3S -?. Offender may make any legal call and if this repeats the D denomination the 1C opener is silent for one round,Law32A2a, otherwise the 1C opener is silenced throughout. Law 31A2b and lead penalties of Law 26 may apply. If L32A2b applies then Law 16C2 applies re.UI. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 08:29:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 08:29:31 +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 IAA18327 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 08:29:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014615; 29 May 98 22:26 GMT Message-ID: <1k4abwAEtwb1EwRm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 20:23:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The role of a screening director In-Reply-To: <356CA402.1084@popd.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon C. Brissman wrote: >David has some good ideas, but they are probably unworkable. In >practice at NABCs, sometimes 10-12 cases appear for screening by two or >three screeners (it's a madhouse). As soon as the case survives the >screening process, the screener immediately brings the parties to an >awaiting AC. The screener presents the facts of the case and represents >the TD staff at the appeal. The screener then rushes back to screen the >next case. There is no time between the screening and the presentation >of the case during which a screener could write a summary. > >Screeners are forbidden from warning players explicitly that they are >risking a frivolous appeal sanction, and justifiably so. Players with a >righteous appeal may choose to drop the matter in fear of the sanction. >A screener will, however, dance around the issue through explaining the >law, burden of proof, evidentiary standards, etc. Having read this I would like to retract any suggestions that I might have made that the ACBL's screening process is the same as the EBU process. It shows how easy it is to make presumptions. When an EBU TD gives a ruling, a player who wishes to appeal can talk to an Appeals consultant. Details are in the program and the TD will often point it out to the players, especially if they are inexperienced or if the TD considers his ruling very clear. The Appeals Consultant is *not* a Director: he is an Appeals Chairman. It is normal for him to advise on whether he considers the deposit at risk, and how best to present a case to an Appeal committee. I think it is better to have an Appeals Chairman to give advice rather than a TD. TDs are more likely to see the TD approach than an AC approach, so are less likely to be able to judge well whether the deposit is at risk. >Let's take an example. A defender holds the ace of trumps against a >grand slam, but hasn't played it at the time his partner's revoke >becomes established. Making seven, rules the TD. "But that's not fair >- I want to appeal!" A screener will explain that the ruling is a >matter of law and that the AC is powerless to overturn the TD's ruling; >any rational being will now make the leap of logic that pursuing the >appeal will result in a sanction for bringing a meritless appeal. >Nonetheless, it is a player's right to have the matter heard by an AC; >the screener can dissuade but cannot prevent the appellant from >pursuance. Of course our Appeals Consultant will explain the same thing in a case as clear as this, and there is no reason why he should not say that the player is about to lose 20 ukp. >Screeners should not be placed in the position of indemnifying >appellants against meritless appeal sanctions. Agreed. >The upshot of this discussion is that the screening process at NABCs >works very well as is, and I adhere to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix >it" school of thought. --------- But what is this about >The screener presents the facts of the case and represents >the TD staff at the appeal. ? Are you saying that the one person who really knows the facts, namely the TD who attended at the table, does not talk to the AC? How can they decide what happened? Or have I misunderstood? -- 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 May 30 09:08:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:08:43 +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 JAA18416 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:08:37 +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 TAA02664 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 19:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04929; Fri, 29 May 1998 19:09:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 19:09:51 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199805292309.TAA04929@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > However, once the auction and play are complete, the director will > assess whether he should assign an adjusted score under L27B1b. The > test is whether the insufficient bid conveyed information as to damage > the non-offending side, not whether the parter of the insufficient > bidder made calls suggested by the information from the insufficient > bid. This is similar to the test under L23: were the non-offending > side damaged by the choice of final contract, not by the auction which > got to the final contract. The above sounds right to me; perhaps looking at it another way will make it clearer. If you were going to assign an AS, what score would you give? You would look at L12C2, and for the NOS give "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." If this result is _better_ than the result at the table (and the insufficient bid was the cause), you should adjust under L27B1b. Going back to the original hand (and assuming you ruled under 27B1 and not 27B2), ask whether the OS had a "likely" route to 4H absent the insufficient bid. If so, the NOS have not been damaged. If not -- the two hands were not easily biddable in their methods -- the NOS have been damaged. What isn't clear to me is whether to adjust for the OS based on the stricter standard "at all probable." Suppose you decide it is not likely that the OS will stop in part score, but it is possible (meeting the local standard of "at all probable") they will. Do you assign a split score? And should you consider auctions that include the insufficient bid? The example auction is a good one: 1NT-1H(oops)2H. Suppose you judge: With no irregularity, the OS have easy methods to get to 4H. But: It is possible that some players would consider 2H a signoff and pass (but clearly the 1NT bidder at the table didn't). From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 09:23:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:23:33 +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 JAA18456 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:23:27 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA27836; Fri, 29 May 1998 18:23:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-21.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.85) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027701; Fri May 29 18:23:12 1998 Message-ID: <356F42BB.2319@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:20:27 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix15.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The role of a screening director References: <1k4abwAEtwb1EwRm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote, inter alia: > > But what is this about > >The screener presents the facts of the case and represents > >the TD staff at the appeal. ? > > Are you saying that the one person who really knows the facts, namely > the TD who attended at the table, does not talk to the AC? How can they > decide what happened? Or have I misunderstood? > You understood correctly - the TD who gave the floor ruling does not attend the AC. Screeners roam throughout the playing areas during the session in order to converse with floor TDs who have given rulings on which a party has requested an appeal form. The screener absorbs the facts given by the floor TD, and later relates these facts to the AC. I can recall no case in which the players disputed the screener's second-hand recitation of events which transpired at the table. On the very rare occasions when an AC wishes to hear directly from the floor TD (perhaps one-in-a-hundred cases), the latter usually can be quickly located and summoned. When I said that the screener "represented" the TD staff, I meant only that he relays the operant facts and laws on which the floor TD based his ruling. I did not mean that the screener was in any way an advocate for the TDs - he strives to make a balanced presentation, devoid of indicia as to his personal stance on the matter. And of course, no screener would ever articulate to an AC his feelings regarding the relative merit of the appeal. There are some plusses to having an appeals person, rather than a TD, act as screener. The disadvantage is that few of the former have the experience and depth of knowledge regarding the Laws as do the latter. This is especially true at NABCs, where only TDs of the highest competence are selected to act as screeners. Regardless, I do not envision any change in procedure at NABCs; the structure performs rather well as currently constituted. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 09:43:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:43:34 +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 JAA18504 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:43:23 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yfYos-0004Q9-00; Fri, 29 May 1998 23:44:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 00:32:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-Reply-To: <356F1ED5.F84A069E@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <356F1ED5.F84A069E@pinehurst.net>, Nancy T Dressing writes > > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> I think you got the 1D and 1C backwards . . . I've corrected them. >> >> > The bidding had been: - - 1C (1), 3S(2), 1D(3) >> > (1) OOT at partners turn to call >> > (2) accepted the bid OOT >> > (3) by the legal opener. >> > If this is what had happened the ruling is straight forward, the 1D bid is insufficient, and nothing more need be done than sort that out (3S bidder having lost the opportunity to penalise), but 4th in did not bid at all before 1st in made a 2nd OOT call. >> > In this sequence, I would rule that the [1C] was condoned by the 3S >> > bidder and the [1D] is now and insufficient bid and if not accepted >> > must be corrected to the lowest sufficient bid but if the bid is >> > changed but cannot double then partner is barred for life or the end >> > of the auction, (whichever comes first). Lead penalty may apply >> > depending how the auction continues. Nancy >> >> This makes sense, but only if the 1D call is treated as a second OOT >> call. >> >> I missed the possibility that the 1D could also be treated as a call >> out of rotation. I don't think it's clear from the Laws whether this >> is the case; at the time the 1D call was made by the legal opener, >> it's not really clear whose turn it was to call. I suppose we could >> say, once 4th hand accepted the 1C bid, that it was 4th hand's turn to >> call and this applies *retroactively* to the time the 1D call was >> made, so that Law 31A now applies. >> >> However, the 1C bidder isn't necessarily barred for the auction. If >> the 1D bid isn't accepted and 1st hand corrects to any diamond bid, >> 3rd hand must pass for one round (Law 31A2(a)). I don't think Law 27 >> (on insufficient bids) applies at all, since the 1D call wasn't >> insufficient at the time it was made. >> >> -- Adam > > Unless I am completely confused by this bidding sequence, isn't the 1st >hand the partner of the person who bid opened the bidding OOT. (third >hand)? 4th hand now bid 3S condoning the OOT bid. 1st hand now bids 1C >which is insuffiecent (not out of turn. I think there are only 4 players >at the table!!!! ;-) ) and to make the whole thing more fun, the partner >of the 3spade bidder could now bid 1 spade!!! Nancy > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 30 09:43:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:43:35 +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 JAA18506 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:43:26 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yfYos-0000cN-00; Sat, 30 May 1998 00:44:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 00:42:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >Adam replied: > I'm going to pretend North is the dealer. South opened 1C out of > turn, West is thinking about bidding 3S. > I think we have to deal with the 1C bid first. Law 29A says that > offender's LHO has the right to accept the 1C call and forfeit > penalties; but I believe this means only the penalties that would > apply to the 1C OOT call, not the 1D call. Thus, assuming West > accepts the 1C call and bids 3S, the bidding proceeds normally but > the > 1D call is UI for South. > Aha! the difficulty is emerging. Which do we do first? 1C or 1D? obviously the analysis above is ok if we decide to treat 1C first. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 30 09:46:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:46:51 +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 JAA18543 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:46:40 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010424; 29 May 98 23:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 00:27:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-Reply-To: <356EFC73.224445B0@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <356EFC73.224445B0@pinehurst.net>, Nancy T Dressing writes >The bidding had been: - - 1D (1), 3S(2), 1C(3) >(1) OOT at partners turn to call >(2) accepted the bid OOT >(3) by the legal opener. >In this sequence, I would rule that the 1D was condoned by the 3S bidder and the >1C is now and insufficient bid and if not accepted must be corrected to the >lowest sufficient bid but if the bid is changed but cannot double then partner >is barred for life or the end of the auction, (whichever comes first). Lead >penalty may apply depending how the auction continues. Nancy > Nancy, he hadn't got round to bidding before the 1D bid hit the deck, so we have 3rd in 1C, pause, 1st in 1D. I was asking how you rule at the table, giving the players *all* the options dependent on who does what and when after this start. However I also said that if *if* we get back to a 1C bid OOT (and IMO we might not :) ) then 4th in will bid 3S. However what if he rejects the 1C OOT? It took me nearly 3 minutes to explain what I believe the ruling should be, which is why I'm asking for other opinion. >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts >> (no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- >> >> 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >> 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >> do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >> make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) >> 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. >> >> I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... >> >> Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we >> get there) and also on no opposition bidding: >> >> I promised the players I would post this and see what the consensus view >> is and would let them see the answers next week - as they were very >> interested (as indeed am I). >> >> -- >> John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >> 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >> London E3 4PA | /\ __) / --} |john@probst.demon.co.uk >> +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .\:. /\ /~~ |This line intentionally nul > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 30 09:47:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:47:22 +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 JAA18559 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:47:16 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021685; 29 May 98 23:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 00:34:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-Reply-To: <9805291417.aa22750@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9805291417.aa22750@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >> Unless I am completely confused by this bidding sequence, isn't the 1st >> hand the partner of the person who bid opened the bidding OOT. > >Yes. Here's an excerpt from John's original message: > >>> 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >>> 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >>> do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >>> make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) >>> 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > >1st in hand was supposed to call 1st, but his partner (3rd in hand) >called 1C out of turn. 1st in hand *then* called 1D. So, if 4th hand >accepted the OOT 1C and bid 3S, the bids have come in the order >1C-3S-1D, not 1D-3S-1C. > >> (third hand)? 4th hand now bid 3S condoning the OOT bid. 1st hand >> now bids 1C > >Nope, check John's message. 1st hand now bids 1D. > >> which is insuffiecent (not out of turn. I think there are only 4 players >> at the table!!!! ;-) ) > >It's debatable whether the 1D is out of turn. In any case, though, I >don't think we can call 1D an insufficient bid, since it actually came >before the 3S call, and it was sufficient at the time it was made. > >Suppose we have a less complex situation. North, the dealer, opens >1C, and South bids 1D before East has a chance to call. They call the >director, and East decides to bid 1S. Does this make 1D an >insufficient call? Nope. It means the 1D call is cancelled. It no >longer exists. South is now allowed to call (and to decide whether >his partner will be barred for one round or for the entire auction); >if he THEN bids 1D again, NOW the call is an insufficient bid, and the >insufficient bid laws apply. > >In fact, the same would apply even if North had opened 1D and South >had bid 1C before East has a chance to call. If East bids, the 1C >call is cancelled, and there is no insufficient bid penalty, just the >penalties of Law 31A2. If East chooses to pass, however, South must >repeat the 1C call (Law 31A1), and then the insufficient bid laws are >applied. > >John's situation is similar, except with the added complexity of the >opening bid out of turn. However, I still don't think the >insufficient bid laws have any relevance to John's case. > > -- Adam I agree, insufficient bids IMO did not come into this auction until a lot later. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 30 09:49:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:49:38 +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 JAA18577 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 09:49:31 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010425; 29 May 98 23:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 00:39:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-Reply-To: <01bd8b4b$a138bc60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bd8b4b$a138bc60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 1:50 AM >Subject: complex bid out of turn ruling > > >>Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts >>(no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- >> >>3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >>4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >>do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >>make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) >>1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. >> >>I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... >> >>Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we >>get there) and also on no opposition bidding: > > >I am going to rule that 4th in hand may excersise his Law 28A right to >accept the 1C BOOT. This means that it is his turn to call. The original >dealer who now bid 1D has bid when it was the turn of his/her RHO, and >as such Law 31 applies. We have been told that the bidding would be >1C-3S -?. Offender may make any legal call and if this repeats the D >denomination the 1C opener is silent for one round,Law32A2a, otherwise >the 1C opener is silenced throughout. Law 31A2b and lead penalties of >Law 26 may apply. If L32A2b applies then Law 16C2 applies re.UI. > >Anne > I think this is OK so far as it goes, but the question I now want this thread to address is:- Should I give 2nd in the opportunity to condone or reject the 1D bid? IMO I should, because if I don't 2nd in *never* gets an opportunity to take advantage of the 2nd infraction. If he rejects then i can roll back the 1D bid, and we have a whole new ball game. Finally supposing 4th in rejects the 1C bid? Who is allowed to do what? I didn't say i thought it easy, and I'm not sure my interpretation of the Law is correct anyway. The end result could be very silly. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 May 30 11:34:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 11:34:24 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 LAA18769 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 11:34:18 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093nab.san.rr.com [204.210.49.171]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA08970 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 18:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805300134.SAA08970@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re; Weekend Information (2) Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 18:32:32 -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 Eric Landau wrote: - mlfrench wrote: > > >First we are told we have to Alert certain calls, then we are told > >that if opponents fail to do so we won't get redress. That means I > >have to continually ask, "Please explain your auction" when a call > >that may be Alertable is not Alerted. That's a pain. > > > >TDs interpret the ACBL language to mean that anyone playing in the > >top flight of a nationally-rated event should be experienced > >enough to immediately recognize the possible Alertability of any call > >when there is no Alert. For myself, I don't mind much, at least if the > >opponents have a legible convention card within my field of view, > >but there *are* inexperienced players participating in nationally-rated > >events, and they should be protected. If my partner is one such, > >am I supposed to question an opposing call for his/her benefit? That > >seems to be standard practice these days, but I was brought up > >differently. To me, "protect themselves" does not mean "protect > >each other," as TDs are interpeting the ACBL's words. > > I don't think that either ACBL regulations or TD practice at any > level of play suggest that you are required to "protect yourself" > whenever your opponents miss an alert. I thought I quoted the regulation. Did you miss it? I'll quote it again: Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. ... Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. As to TD practice, you are wrong. I have had this regulation thrown in my face at every level of play, including nationally-rated championships. TDs read "may not be entitled" as "are not entitled," no matter how inexperienced my partner may be. Do you really want me to "clarify the situation" for an inexperienced partner? What about L73B, which says "Partners shall not communicate ...through questions asked...of the opponents"? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 12:05:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 12:05:36 +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 MAA18831 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 12:05:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001695; 30 May 98 2:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 01:26:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Usenet Bridge Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBU Welsh Bridge Union ZT Zero Tolerance [for Unacceptable Behaviour] Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on my Bridgepage. -- 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 May 30 12:10:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 12:10:17 +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 MAA18849 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 12:10:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001694; 30 May 98 2:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 01:30:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts >(no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- > >3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) {I presume this means over an original 1C OOT in 3rd seat} >1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. So S deals, N bids 1C OOT, S bids 1D because he has not seen N's call, E wishes to call 3S over the 1C. Having looked at a few other answers let us exterminate a red herring: whatever E intends, he has not bid 3S at this time and S's bid is not insufficient, being of higher rank than the last bid. Right. Time to open TFLB, I think. According to L29A E has a right to accept the 1C call, and there is no way that his right can be taken away by the Os taking some other action. Wait a mo! Isn't there something about a call at a players turn to call making things legal? Let's see: L28B: no, of course, that only applies if an oppo has called OOT. Obvious, when you think about it: he can't legalise his partner's infraction! After N bid 1C whose turn was it to call? There are two possible answers: no-one's because it is now a matter for the TD: alternatively E's because bidding goes clockwise, as L28A proves, by giving E the right to make a call. Let us assume the latter makes sense. So S's 1D is _out of turn_ [either way]. It is considered a reasonable interpretation that if there are multiple infractions they are dealt with in order of occurrence. While this does not seem to be laid down anywhere I believe it to be an accepted approach. OK, let's do that. 1C is a BOOT. L29A gives E the right to accept it, "thereby forfeiting the right to penalise". If he does not then 1C is cancelled, and the bidding reverts to S, and per L31B S is required to pass throughout [plus possible lead penalties]. Suppose that E does accept it. I do not believe you can now deal with S's 1D OOT, and consider that forfeiting the right to penalise covers this as well. This is not so clear from the Laws, but it is difficult to see how you can do much about the 1D OOT if E wishes to bid 3S! I would rule that the 1C is effectively legal, the 1D is cancelled, but is UI to the Os because of L16C. I think that is the only practical ruling if E accepts 1C. If he does not, then we have a cancelled 1C, and must now deal with the 1D OOT. Of course, under L29A W can now accept the 1D bid if he wishes to do so, in which case the bidding goes on from there. Again, this is an interpretation since we have already agreed that S has to pass through out, but I cannot see why this should jeopardise the NOs' rights to accept 1D. Furthermore, again we have this phrase "thereby forfeiting the right to penalise" and we have to consider whether this overrides the instruction to S to pass throughout. I believe so. Now consider the case where E does not accept 1C and W does not accept 1D. By L29B both calls are cancelled. S has to pass throughout. What about N? Unfortunately TFLB has missed an obvious scenario ! We read L31A because it was RHO's turn in effect, but this tells us what to do if RHO passes [L31A1] or bids, doubles or redoubles [L31A2]. The lawmakers have missed the case where RHO does not call at all [shame on you, Grattan ] so there is no apparent penalty. To summarise, E may accept the 1C, making it legal, and the 1D is cancelled [but it is UI] and both N and S can bid thereafter. If he doesn't, W may accept the 1D, making it legal, and the 1C is cancelled [but it is UI] and both N and S can bid thereafter. If neither E nor W accept then S is silenced, N is not, and there may be lead penalties from S's 1C, and N's 1D is UI. I actively dislike giving A6040 and there is no real reason to cancel this board if you accept the above is correct. However, not all that I have written is clear from the Laws, and for once I would have some sympathy with a TD who cancelled the board for that reason. Is this what you did, John? >I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... > >Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we >get there) and also on no opposition bidding: > >I promised the players I would post this and see what the consensus view >is and would let them see the answers next week - as they were very >interested (as indeed am I). -------- This article contains more than the usual number of abbreviations. A list of bridge ones is always available on my Bridgepage, but I also post it from time to time, and feel the time has come! -- 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 May 30 12:40:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 12:40:18 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA18878 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 12:40:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004201; 30 May 98 2:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 03:37:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The role of a screening director In-Reply-To: <356F42BB.2319@popd.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon C. Brissman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote, inter alia: >> >> But what is this about >> >The screener presents the facts of the case and represents >> >the TD staff at the appeal. ? >> >> Are you saying that the one person who really knows the facts, namely >> the TD who attended at the table, does not talk to the AC? How can they >> decide what happened? Or have I misunderstood? >> > >You understood correctly - the TD who gave the floor ruling does not >attend the AC. Screeners roam throughout the playing areas during the >session in order to converse with floor TDs who have given rulings on >which a party has requested an appeal form. The screener absorbs the >facts given by the floor TD, and later relates these facts to the AC. I >can recall no case in which the players disputed the screener's >second-hand recitation of events which transpired at the table. > >On the very rare occasions when an AC wishes to hear directly from the >floor TD (perhaps one-in-a-hundred cases), the latter usually can be >quickly located and summoned. > >When I said that the screener "represented" the TD staff, I meant only >that he relays the operant facts and laws on which the floor TD based >his ruling. I did not mean that the screener was in any way an advocate >for the TDs - he strives to make a balanced presentation, devoid of >indicia as to his personal stance on the matter. And of course, no >screener would ever articulate to an AC his feelings regarding the >relative merit of the appeal. This is not my worry with this procedure. If there is a dispute as to whether there was a hesitation, for example, it is generally believed here that the person who attended at the table is the one most likely to be able to judge whether there was a hesitation: better able to judge than the AC. Not to get the input from that person makes it very difficult to see how an AC can judge such matters. Hearing from the players maybe two hours after an incident tells one very little about such things, and I cannot conceive of a balanced judgement without his input. ACs are great for bridge judgement: that is their forte. However, I would be very unhappy as a player if they are going to make the decision as to what happened. Or do they routinely take the absent TD's view as to whether there was a hesitation? >There are some plusses to having an appeals person, rather than a TD, >act as screener. The disadvantage is that few of the former have the >experience and depth of knowledge regarding the Laws as do the latter. >This is especially true at NABCs, where only TDs of the highest >competence are selected to act as screeners. Regardless, I do not >envision any change in procedure at NABCs; the structure performs rather >well as currently constituted. Well, maybe. But I hear as many complaints about NABC appeals as I do about appeals from top EBU tournaments. Within the last 24 hours I have had two severe shocks about your procedures. Is there any chance that you are looking at your appeal procedures through rose-tinted spectacles? -- 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 May 30 13:03:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 13:03:30 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 NAA18930 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 13:03:24 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093nab.san.rr.com [204.210.49.171]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19119 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 20:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805300303.UAA19119@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Trumping One's Own Trick Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 20:01:35 -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 player revoked in a local duplicate today, resulting in an interesting end game. Because of a revoke on the second round of the suit, declarer's side suit of KQxx in dummy and Axx in hand did not produce four tricks even though the suit split 3-3. The TD was called when the revoker followed on the next round of diamonds, and play continued. Declarer came down to three cards, a last trump and two losers, with the lead in dummy. Leading the fourth diamond from dummy, the revoker covering, declarer unthinkingly trumped instead of sluffing one of the losers. The TD awarded one trick as the revoke penalty instead of the two tricks declarer would have obtained had he sluffed instead of ruffing. L64A2 says the second trick is awarded only if a card that could have been legally played to the revoking trick takes a trick later on, and declarer did not let that card win a trick. Since the trick would have been awarded to his side had he not trumped, declarer had trumped his own trick! Should the TD have explained when called, "Since the opponents did not win the revoke trick, you will get a one-trick penalty. However, if the revoker wins a trick with a diamond that he could have played to the revoke trick, you will get a second trick"? Or is that coddling declarer too much? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 14:16:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 14:16:17 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 OAA19039 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 14:16:12 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093nab.san.rr.com [204.210.49.171]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA28505 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 21:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805300416.VAA28505@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas Appeal Case #7 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:14:19 -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 This case, and #8, were not printed in the Dallas NABC Daily Bulletin, hence not viewable on any website that I know of, so I'll show them on BLML. #7 has little interest other than the amazing nerve of the player (West) who insisted on the appeal. Evidently some people regard $50 in the same way that I regard 50 cents. Vulnerability: N/S Dealer: North S- QT9 H- 853 D- A6 C- T9865 S- 53 S- K8 H- AK H- QJT97 D- 7543 D- KQJ8 C- AQ743 C- J2 S- AJ7642 H- 642 D- T92 C- K West North East South (usual directions) P 1H 1S Dbl 2S 3D P 3S Dbl 3NT * P 4H All pass * Break in tempo The TD ruled 3NT down one (!), and his ruling was appealed. I wonder how the TD came to that assigned score. Could it be that expert East convinced him/her that she surely would have led a low club toward dummy at trick two? The AC ruled 3NT down two, and retained the $50 deposit. An additional procedural penalty was considered, but rejected. In a later case, an appellant with no apparent care about losing $50 was socked with a matchpoint penalty besides. Hit 'em where it hurts! ACs (this one with five members) work late at night after playing all day, and should not have to be bothered with cases like this. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 14:46:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 14:46:49 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.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 OAA19118 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 14:46:44 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093nab.san.rr.com [204.210.49.171]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA02065 for ; Fri, 29 May 1998 21:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805300447.VAA02065@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 21:44:26 -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 Like #7, this appeal did not get into the Dallas NABC Daily Bulletin, and hence is not on any website that I know of. So, here it is: NABC Swiss Teams Vulnerability: Both Dealer: East S- AK63 H- D- AQJ9742 C- A8 S- QJT5 S- 82 H- AT64 H- KQJ83 D- 3 D- 5 C- QJ73 C- KT654 S- 974 H- 9752 D- KT86 C- 92 West North East South (usual directions) P P P 1D 1H P 3D 3H 4H P P Dbl* P 5D All pass The TD ruled that passing the double was not LA, and allowed 5D, making five, to stand. E-W, a new partnership that had no agreement about the meaning of 3D except that it showed heart support, appealed. An AC majority thought that a significant number of South's peers (defined as those who would pass on earlier rounds) would "seriously consider" (the guideline) passing the double, because: South had four hearts; South was not sure that 5D would make; two passed hands had bid game; and the contract rated to be defeated. The score was changed to 4H doubled down one, plus 200 for N-S and -200 for E-W. This was a close decision, but it looks right to me. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 19:30:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:30:41 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19360 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:30:31 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-156.access.net.il [192.116.204.156]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id MAA03603; Sat, 30 May 1998 12:29:46 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <356FD27D.B0E5BD55@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 12:33:49 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good morning all . as seen bellow , life is interesting.... I think the ruling is very well-defined by laws, based on the facts as I refined them following : John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts > (no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- > > 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT > 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid {## it is not important what he wants to bid ##---- 3S (which he will > do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to > make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat)---## it is important if he said "....I considered to bid 3S ...." and his partner heard it or told only to the director's ear , none else heard it ....## > 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > > I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... > > Please proceed basing your assumptions on 4th player bidding 3S (if we > get there) and also on no opposition bidding: > < snip> NOW ==== The Old Fox's RULING ( I write Mrs. , both for Mr. or Mrs.): Dear Mrs. D : 1. The bid of Mrs. C is OOT at Partner's Turn , so : ...a) If you accept it , everything goes on , as if nothing unusual ......happened up to this moment == L29 applied for Mrs.C ==, and : ........1) If you bid or double , Mrs. A's 1D is withdrawn ..........and she can call as she likes , but == L31A2 for Mrs. A == : .............(a) if she bids 1 to 7 D (sufficient !) - her partner .................must pass once at her turn to call . .............(b) if she bids/calls anything else , her partner .................must pass until the auction's end. ........2) If you pass , Mrs.A must bid 1D and == L31A1 for Mrs.A == ...........everything perfect now- the auction goes on (no penalties). ...b) If you don't accept Mrs.C's 1Cl bid , then the right to call ......returns to Mrs.A, who is compelled to PASS == L31B for Mrs.C== ......and the leads penalties of L26 may apply , if your side ......becomes declarer ....Your partner Mrs. B will call at her turn, ......after Mrs.A's Pass , accordingly to her own holding ......(probably Pass..). ......Mrs.A is Pass , until the auction's end and her 1D is ......UI for Mrs.C , who can call/bid anything she wants at her turn ......accordingly to her own hand holding ! 2. If you"ll be damaged by this compelled Passes I"ll use ...Law 23 to achieve equity (very unexpected.........). 3. Depends on what Mrs. D actually did/said (see the remark above): Either (if Mrs. C said it loud at table - I consider to bid Z ): 3. Your announcement to bid Z is UI for Mrs.B and if A+C side ...will become declarer , Law 26 will apply for your leads.... Or ( if Mrs. C didn't say anything specific , but thought what to do): 3. Your Partner , Mrs.B is allowed to use every information arising ...from A+C irregularities , to play or bid == L16C1 for Mrs. B == Good luck all TDs , amused or pressed (smile always !!!) by life's tricky events...... Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 19:49:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:21 +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 TAA19393 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:15 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14190 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 11:50:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356FAA08.66ECFC42@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 08:41:12 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: no agreement X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980526092157.006e695c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980525093810.006caed0@ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.19980526133121.00695538@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980529101935.006fa380@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:55 PM 5/27/98 +0200, Herman wrote: > > >No. Full disclosure is satisfied when the opponents know everything > >there is to know. Which is more than the player actually knows. > > It seems like an odd law that would require someone to disclose more than > he actually knows. > And yet that's how the Law really is ! The Law does not tell you that you must tell them everything you KNOW, but that you must tell them everything there IS to know. If you have forgotten, then still 'I don't remember', while completely honest and true, does NOT satisfy the rules of bridge. (Eric goes on to describe that he indeed understands this the same way - I was a bit too fast in jumping down your throat, Eric - sorry) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 19:49:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:37 +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 TAA19407 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:30 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14194 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 11:50:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356FB037.500F1816@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 09:07:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: no agreement X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.5.16.19980529171447.0c17a4b4@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (written in reply to Tim Goodwin, but more general comments in here) OK, let's get our background lined up. In this thread, we have dealt with people forgetting agreements, or getting them wrong. No problem there, we all agree (I suppose) We have dealt with people not having discussed certain situations, but relying on general principles to get the meaning accross. I believe we have come to agree that these general principles must be made available to opponents, and that the resulting "meaning" for the call should thus be "told" to opponents. I still prefer the player making the explanation reply a positive "that is ..." rather than a temptative "we have not discussed this, but following general principles, it should be ...", but that is just personal preference. IMHO, when misinformation is concerned, both explanations are equal, and where UI is concerned, the second is worse than the first. Note the H in IMHO, and let's leave that discussion for another time. What Tim is NOW talking about is the case where a player, knowing full well an agreement is lacking, makes a call which in no way can be interpreted using either general principles, or inferred meaning from other agreement. I would submit this is a very rare case. A much more common case is that where the player making the call is under the impression that either they DO have an agreement, or that barring special agreement, one meaning rather than another is to be presumed, or has inferred from the scant agreements there are that the call ought to mean the hand he has. In those cases, I would still rule that, since there is no proof of an opposite agreement, and some evidence for the existence of some understanding, that the call in fact indicated the hand of bidder. So misinformation. So in that case too, I would rule that 'no agreement' is misinformation and I would advise against it. Which leaves us only with the exceptional case of a player knowingly bidding under "no agreement". I would have to agree with the principles exposed by several posters in that particular case. But since it will be even less frequently proven than occuring, I don't see why we should make theoretical statements over it. So let's return to what Tim wrote : Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > Let's suppose your partner cue-bids 2C. You guess, for whatever reason, > there is a 45% chance it is strong takeout, a 45% chance that it is > Michaels and a 10% chance that it is natural. And, let's suppose for > simplicity that there are no other possible meanings. Sometimes you and > partner will both guess the same thing. Even if this chance is slim, I > think the opponents should be entitled to know. As I outlined above, it is not important what you guess it is, or what percentages you put on it, but rather what partner has meant it to be. If for whatever reason he was more certain than you that he was describing his hand correctly, then that is the meaning which has to be told to opponents. I would advise you to pick one or the other and take your 45% chance of getting it right. > One option is that you > could tell the opponents which option you are selecting (but, this would > also require partner to leave the table since your guess is UI to partner). Now that is not a problem - If your partner did indeed make a call which you had not discussed, then whatever you do, you will give UI. But if partner WAS intending just the one thing, and you happen to pick the correct one, then there is no UI. Your expressing doubt, when in his opinion there was no doubt, would constitute UI. Again the best advise is : pick one and stick to it. > This way, the opponents are informed of your agreement when you both get > it right, they are in the dark just as much as you when you get it wrong. So you have a 45% chance of escaping without being hurt. > Another option is for your partner to tell the opponents what his bid > means. This way the opponents are informed of your agreement when you both > get it right, but they are also informed of his intention even if you guess > wrong. This option has the advantage of correct information to opponents, but the disadvantage of them being able to tell that you are in the dark. Since the Laws do not require your partnership to tell the opponents that you are in disagreement, this is not a good option. > I understand both options are more than the Laws require, which > brings up another option: no one tell the opponents what they think partner > has. Everyone still reading this thread, knows that I prefer the second > option. It is most informative to the opponents and it allows the > opponents to select which counter-methods to use. > The second option is too informative to opponents. The option of simply picking one also allows the opponents which counter-methods to use. > I could probably be convinced that there is no need to inform the opponents > what type of raise an undiscussed 1S=3S is. But, when the undiscussed bid > is intended as artificial or conventional, I definitely think that should > be enough to indicate there might be an agreement and whatever that > agreement might be should be disclosed to the opponents. Even if only the > person who made the call is sure of the intended meaning and thus only he > can give the opponents the information. > You have the correct line of thought, but I believe you draw the wrong conclusion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 19:49:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:51 +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 TAA19421 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14203 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 11:50:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356FB20B.254367E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 09:15:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psychic bidding X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1998May30.091600.1189.214980@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > If I can comment on my own system for a moment. :) > In his original comment, Herman made an assumption that 1S is the > systemic bid with 1255 shape and 6-10 HCP. This lead to Tim's comment > that if 1S is systemic on 1255 shape, than the 1S response is a > convention showing either 4+ spades or no spades. Whether this > convention can be played is not germane to the current discussion. > Richard has well understood what I have been saying. > The catch is the following. Even if I am dealt the "perfect" hand, I do > not pysch 100% of the time. (It isn't a good thing to be that > predictable) If I did pysch 100% of the time, then as Tim has noted, I > am actually playing a convention. > Correct, and my point exactly > If I pysche 0% of the time, then we have no problem what-so-ever. > > So > Let the N represent the percentage chance that I will bid a pyschic style > 1S with a "perfect" holding. > > So, I repeat Tim's earlier question > > >> What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? > > I have the gut feeling that within the United States at least, there is > no point at which this bid changes from a pysch to a systemic bid, Obviously it can only be called "systemic" when it becomes 100%. But it may be hard to prove that one occurence is not the first, and thus 100%. > however, as soon as a partnership is able to quantify "N" with any degree > of accuracy, this becomes a concealed partnership understanding. > Please delete the word "concealed" from this sentence ! It becomes partnership understanding, but it does not need to remain concealed. It might very well be communicated to opponents. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 19:49:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:52 +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 TAA19423 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:49:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-44.uunet.be [194.7.13.44]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA14204 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 11:50:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <356FB20B.254367E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 09:15:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psychic bidding X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1998May30.091600.1189.214980@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > If I can comment on my own system for a moment. :) > In his original comment, Herman made an assumption that 1S is the > systemic bid with 1255 shape and 6-10 HCP. This lead to Tim's comment > that if 1S is systemic on 1255 shape, than the 1S response is a > convention showing either 4+ spades or no spades. Whether this > convention can be played is not germane to the current discussion. > Richard has well understood what I have been saying. > The catch is the following. Even if I am dealt the "perfect" hand, I do > not pysch 100% of the time. (It isn't a good thing to be that > predictable) If I did pysch 100% of the time, then as Tim has noted, I > am actually playing a convention. > Correct, and my point exactly > If I pysche 0% of the time, then we have no problem what-so-ever. > > So > Let the N represent the percentage chance that I will bid a pyschic style > 1S with a "perfect" holding. > > So, I repeat Tim's earlier question > > >> What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? > > I have the gut feeling that within the United States at least, there is > no point at which this bid changes from a pysch to a systemic bid, Obviously it can only be called "systemic" when it becomes 100%. But it may be hard to prove that one occurence is not the first, and thus 100%. > however, as soon as a partnership is able to quantify "N" with any degree > of accuracy, this becomes a concealed partnership understanding. > Please delete the word "concealed" from this sentence ! It becomes partnership understanding, but it does not need to remain concealed. It might very well be communicated to opponents. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 20:40:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 20:40:53 +1000 Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA19503 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 20:40:47 +1000 Received: from BillS ([192.168.3.4]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.03/64) id 9224500 ; Sat, 30 May 1998 06:38:28 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980530064541.007e9100@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:45:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Maintaining tempo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following appeared yesterday on another mailing list, in the context of the hesitation blackwood thread which also made its way to BLML: >> I know a silver LM who has the (good) habit of waiting about 30-40 >> secs before ANY bid or play she makes; I have never seen her called >> by opps for hesitation. >This has a couple of problems. >First, this kind of self-indulgence slows down the game - to the extent of >guaranteeing running out of time. >Secondly, the uniform pause, irrespective of the difficulty of your >decision, appears to be an effort to hide the actual problems faced - he is >varying his tempo (from the natural tempo of bidding or playing when you >know what your decision is) to conceal information from the opponents. It >may not be a common view, but I believe it is reasonable to perceive this >as grossly unethical. He is regularly pausing for thirty seconds when there >is no problem to conceal when there is. >Yes, the mandatory pauses might shield partner from some awkward ethical >positions, but at the expense of misleading the opponents, and that is too >great a cost. While I agree that 30" is *way* too long (if all did it, it would take ~25'/board, by my calculations), I strongly disagreed with the suggestion that there is an obligation to reveal the existence of a problem that takes precedence over the Law 73D endorsement of maintaining a steady tempo. Would greatly appreciate your collective wisdom on this matter. Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 30 23:47:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 May 1998 23:47:22 +1000 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19726 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 23:47:13 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-159.access.net.il [192.116.204.159]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA04427; Sat, 30 May 1998 16:46:27 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35700EB7.A5792BA4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 16:50:47 +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: UI from slow RKCB References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hi David and colleagues I don't know what level is GNT (what is it please ???) , but it will not be too bold to say " something stinking here ...." The opener's slow 5Sp is unforgivable - there is a stack of zillion extra values ; any way his hesitation should be penalized (PP if they intermediate or less- assigning score for good up). If the players are good - it is very clear that Responder is the weakest hand to go slam and the Opener is afraid they miss 2 key cards (because Responder's UI ! ) and is upset to bypass 5H... In this case I would consider even to push them .. out of the club !! If they are not experienced players , it is clear that Opener is afraid to bid over 5H , with or without Responder's hesitation . IMO the implementation of the Law in this case would be better if you know who are the Actors. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > I have been asked to post this on behalf of someone else: > > ******************************************************************* > During the GNTs yesterday, a disturbing situation arose, and I > request informed opinions on the situation. > > The auction proceeded as follows (opps silent): > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5s*** 6h > ap > > 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter > 4nt** =definite break in tempo > 5s*** =definite break in tempo > > At the time that the 5s bid was made, I called the director > and informed her that both the 4nt and 5s bids were made out > of tempo. Dummy hit with: > > AKJxx > AQxx > JTx > K > > When dummy hit, he explained that 4nt was always RKC in their > partnership, so I then asked him why he paused before bidding 5s. > He told me that he was thinking of lying about the HQ. > > Since the opps were off the AK of diamonds, we scored up +100 > on the board. But being the curious sort, I sought out the > chief director, explained the situation, and asked whether we > would have been entitled to a score adjustment if opener had > in fact decided to lie about the HQ and they wound up in 5h > making 5 instead of 6h down 1. > > My argument was that a slow 4nt bid conveys unauthorized information > to partner, suggested a minimal slam try; a full values slam try > would bid an in tempo 4nt. And since there is a logical alternative > to lying, namely telling the truth, the score should be adjusted. > > The director told me that hesitations in a non-competitive auction > are not generally treated in the same way as hesitations in a > competitive auction, and that my interpretation of a slow 4nt > as showing a doubtful or minimum slam try isn't valid. > > This seems highly dubious to me, but I've been wrong before, so > I request explanation, clarification, and enlightenment. > ******************************************************************* > > So, presume the auction was > > 1s 2h > 4c* 4nt** > 5h**** ap > > 4c* =alerted and explained, upon query, as splinter > 4nt** =definite break in tempo > 5h**** =showing 2 a's + no hq [but actually holding the hq] > > If 5H makes exactly, how do you rule? > > -- > 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 May 31 03:05:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:05:21 +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 DAA22624 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:05:12 +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 TAA29138 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:06:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805301706.TAA29138@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 19:06:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are my options? Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Jens & Bodil > > > David Burn wrote: > > > At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West > > "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > > options?" > > \x/ \x/ > > I would rule this as a TD error if involved as, say, TDiC. On the > information available, an adjustment to 3 imps lost by EW and won by > NS seems reasonable as rectification of the TD error. > > ++++ I take it this treats both pairs as non-offending, per 82C ? ++++ > +Grattan.+ That was my intention. 3 imps lost must be the best score likely for the (original) offenders, and I was assuming that 3 imps won would be the best score likely for the non-offenders. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 03:05:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:05:23 +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 DAA22630 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:05:16 +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 TAA29150 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:06:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805301706.TAA29150@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 19:06:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are my options? Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson asked > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >David Burn wrote: > > > >> At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West > >> "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my > >> options?" > >> More to the point, > >> do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call > >> and play for average minus? > > > >Certainly. Scratch "should", substitute "shall". > > Let's just get this one straight, Jens. Why? Because the player seems to be saying, though not in so many words, "Something went wrong. Have I got the option of changing my call?" Well, yes, the player has that option. What is the TD supposed to do? Not tell the player about it? I was tempted to just write "L9B1c, L10C1", but that might be stretching it. Of course L10C1 would give me the "shall" that I was claiming. I guess I am willing to back down on the shall, but not very far, because I still think we should rule director's error for not giving that option. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 03:05:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:05:22 +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 DAA22622 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:05:11 +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 TAA29135 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 19:06:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805301706.TAA29135@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 19:06:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are my options? Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > To be sincer I become not understanding the matter: expierenced > and respected TD's seriously discussed rights of offender to change the > bid (to correct his bridge mistake!) - after at the table TD establish > that W intended to bid 3 hearts (by mistake this W thought that the bid > was with jump). And why should anybody to allow such correction?:) I don't like it any better than you do, but the laws were changed to that effect in 1997. When acting as TD or as member of an AC or the NA, my duty is to uphold the law. We must distinguish between lobbying for a change of the laws and administering the laws. > Moreover - after (suppously) opponents' paid attention... > Any bridge mistake is an integral part of game. Permission to > forgive the bid of 3 Hearts (in that circumstances) is the same as > permission to forgive revoke: it might take place in home game - not > at the tournament:)) And both (the Laws and the Legend) forbid such > doing. I support TD decision in full. And if the case would appear in > AC > - as AC member I would vote the appeal as frivolous. How can you take the money from someone who appeals with the reasoning "On BLML, in articles written by the Chief tournament directors of many NCBOs, and in articles written by Ton Kooijman in the bulletin of zonal championships, they hint that L25B might be interpreted differently"? You can rule that you don't interpret L25B this way and thus won't ask the TD to change his ruling, but considering the appeal as frivolous would be an insult, I think. > Sorry for being disagree with most of BLMLers BLML wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed all the time. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 03:45:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:45:36 +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 DAA22742 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 03:45:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017172; 30 May 98 17:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 11:36:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick In-Reply-To: <199805300303.UAA19119@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >A player revoked in a local duplicate today, resulting in an >interesting end game. > >Because of a revoke on the second round of the suit, declarer's side >suit of KQxx in dummy and Axx in hand did not produce four tricks >even though the suit split 3-3. The TD was called when the revoker >followed on the next round of diamonds, and play continued. Declarer >came down to three cards, a last trump and two losers, with the lead >in dummy. Leading the fourth diamond from dummy, the revoker >covering, declarer unthinkingly trumped instead of sluffing one of >the losers. > >The TD awarded one trick as the revoke penalty instead of the two >tricks declarer would have obtained had he sluffed instead of >ruffing. L64A2 says the second trick is awarded only if a card that >could have been legally played to the revoking trick takes a trick >later on, and declarer did not let that card win a trick. Since the >trick would have been awarded to his side had he not trumped, >declarer had trumped his own trick! > >Should the TD have explained when called, "Since the opponents did >not win the revoke trick, you will get a one-trick penalty. However, >if the revoker wins a trick with a diamond that he could have played >to the revoke trick, you will get a second trick"? Or is that >coddling declarer too much? The TD is certainly required to make it clear what the penalty is. If he did not, then I would rule TD error on appeal, and give both sides a good score under L82C. -------- Quick story [sorry, I know this isn't RGB, and I know two posters who will give me h**l for this]: About twelve years ago a young Londoner was playing in a grand slam. Owing to an excess of exuberance by his partner it was a no-play slam, and in fact appeared to be going four down! At some point in the play he led a winner from dummy, RHO ruffed and he over-ruffed and went off. Perhaps he had not thought sufficiently about the play! He should, of course, have discarded a loser on this trick [three losers left]. If he does, RHO is endplayed [two losers left]. Furthermore, RHO had revoked [one loser left] and won the revoke trick [no losers!]. He thus failed by over-ruffing to become the first player to make a grand slam on an endplay! -- 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 May 31 05:51:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 05:51:01 +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 FAA23035 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 05:50:54 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012079; 30 May 98 19:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:38:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts >>(no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- >> >>3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT >>4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will >>do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to >>make a call over an original 1C OOT in 3rd seat) ^ corrected >>1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > > So S deals, N bids 1C OOT, S bids 1D because he has not seen N's call, >E wishes to call 3S over the 1C. > snip > To summarise, E may accept the 1C, making it legal, and the 1D is >cancelled [but it is UI] and both N and S can bid thereafter. If he >doesn't, W may accept the 1D, making it legal, and the 1C is cancelled >[but it is UI] and both N and S can bid thereafter. If neither E nor W >accept then S is silenced, N is not, and there may be lead penalties >from S's 1C, and N's 1D is UI. > > Is this what you did, John? > >>I made the ruling(s) I believe to be correct but ... >> It was close but I did something else, although it turned out ok, and I wouldn't dream of cancelling this board, everyone was having too much fun :) I figured that one should unscramble the infractions in REVERSE order, rather than the order they happened - and this in itself is a point worth discussing. So I gave 2nd in hand the opportunity to condone the 1D call *first* (L29a), explaining that if he didn't then 1D would be cancelled, and his partner would get the opportunity to condone the 1C bid or reject it. If he condoned then the 1D call would be treated per (L31a2) and a minimum Dia bid would enforce a one round pass, or any other call [etc] If the 1C call was rejected, we returned to Dealer, whose partner had silenced him by the original 3rd in hander, but 3rd in hand could bid except he had UI. So in summary, there are two schools of thought: You unscramble in REVERSE order OR you unscramble in the order occuring FWIW, 1C was condoned, 3S overcall and there was an easy 3N bid from the 1D bidder, partner was silenced (I told her this was no bad thing under the circumstances) and we got the hand played after a lot of giggling. Thanks to everyone who contributed, the players will be very touched by your care and attention. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|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 Sun May 31 06:08:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 06:08:13 +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 GAA23090 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 06:08:07 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h33.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.51) id AAA24558; Sun, 31 May 1998 00:08:58 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <357101F1.1851@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 00:08:33 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jens@alesia.dk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What are my options? References: <199805301706.TAA29135@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jens & Bodil wrote: > I don't like it any better than you do, but the laws were changed to > that effect in 1997. When acting as TD or as member of an AC or the > NA, my duty is to uphold the law. We must distinguish between > lobbying for a change of the laws and administering the laws. > > How can you take the money from someone who appeals with the > reasoning "On BLML, in articles written by the Chief tournament > directors of many NCBOs, and in articles written by Ton Kooijman in > the bulletin of zonal championships, they hint that L25B might be > interpreted differently"? You can rule that you don't interpret > L25B this way and thus won't ask the TD to change his ruling, but > considering the appeal as frivolous would be an insult, I think. Thank you for your remarks, Jens, but I based my position on the Laws-97, especially on L12A1. For my opinion there happened "particular type of violation of law" (especially if it was opponent who made that West awaken). And I would (as TD) explain my ruling to players. And I hope that after having got to know such interpretation AC would vote appeal as frivolous. Guess that L12 gives TD enough power for making contest more sportish:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 06:19:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 06:19:44 +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 GAA23123 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 06:19:37 +1000 Received: from default (cph6.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.6]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA02714 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 22:20:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805302020.WAA02714@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 22:21:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French described this TiDbit: > Should the TD have explained when called, "Since the opponents did > not win the revoke trick, you will get a one-trick penalty. However, > if the revoker wins a trick with a diamond that he could have played > to the revoke trick, you will get a second trick"? Or is that > coddling declarer too much? 1. I always go through these explanations. Similarly, the revoking side has the right to know that it may be worth the revoking partner's while to overtake his partner's trick in certain circumstances (not applicable here). 2. Not doing so is a TD error that may have caused damage to be rectified under L82. 3. I would say we are in or possibly only near L10C1 territory here. 4. Because these explanations are so complicated, I find myslef wondering now and then whether it is worthwhile to have this intricate one-or-two-trick penalty. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 08:00:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:00:43 +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 IAA23257 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:00:37 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA09478 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 22:01:16 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980530180149.006f2900@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 18:01:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency In-Reply-To: <3652.9805291441@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:41 PM 5/29/98 BST, Robin wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> >> At 07:24 PM 5/26/98 +0100, David wrote: >> >> > Surely, L27B1A says that the knowledge of partner's 1H is AI, but >> >L27B1B says that you may not gain from this AI? >> >> I don't understand. I thought that the whole point of distinguishing AI >> from UI is that the former is information you are permitted to use freely >> to your own advantage, whereas the latter is information you may not. If >> that is the point, then there can be no such thing as AI that you may not >> gain from. If it's not, what is? Robin has given a superbly clear answer to my question that explains just what David meant. If I missed David's point, it's because I take a very different (theoretical, at least) view of the parenthetical in L27B1(a). I would rephrase Robin's interpretation as follows... >The status of corrected insufficient bids in L27 is a different kind of >beast from the UI/AI distinction in the rest of the laws. The bracket >in L27B1a says that a corrected insufficient bid is not UI and so the >partner of the insufficient bidder is not constrained by L16B: "...L27B1(a) says that a corrected insufficient bid *is* UI *but* the partner of the insufficient bidder is not constrained by L16B:" >he may >use the fact that partner made, and corrected, an insufficient bid >throughout the rest of the auction (and play). "he may *not*..." >However, once the auction and play are complete, the director will >assess whether he should assign an adjusted score under L27B1b. The >test is whether the insufficient bid conveyed information as to damage >the non-offending side, not whether the parter of the insufficient >bidder made calls suggested by the information from the insufficient >bid. This is similar to the test under L23: were the non-offending >side damaged by the choice of final contract, not by the auction which >got to the final contract. "Once the auction and play are complete, the director will assess... under L27B1(b). The test is whether the partner of the insufficient bidder may have made any call or play predicated on information from the insufficient bid (that may have damaged the non-offending side), not whether he may have chosen from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the insufficient bid." I took the "predicated on information" language from the old L16 ("any call or play predicated on the unauthorized information") before the introduction of today's considerably more stringent language, which has given us the positive obligation to "bend over backwards" in situations covered by L16 rather than merely proceed as one would have absent the UI, and before language was inserted into L27 providing for adjusting the score under L27 specifically. I read the L27B1(b) parenthetical not as similar to L23, but as more of a throwback to old UI law that gave us the "would the bidding have been different?" rule of thumb. >I usually interpret this to mean that if the offending side reach >a contract that they could not (would not) have reached without the >insufficient bid then the non-offending side were damaged. I am not >sure to what extent this interpretation is bourne out by the wording >of L27B1b. This is the correct criterion for adjusting under either interpretation, since if the offenders reach the same contract there will be no damage. The point of the wording of L27B1(b) is that this is not necessarily true under L16C2, which (since 1975) requires that the same contract would have been reached had the offender chosen the least favorable from among his LAs at each decision point. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 08:15:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:15:36 +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 IAA23303 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:15:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012246; 30 May 98 22:14 GMT Message-ID: <1w4aeIAajEc1Ewo6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 18:58:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What are my options? In-Reply-To: <199805301706.TAA29150@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 asked > >> Jens & Bodil wrote: >> >David Burn wrote: >> > >> >> At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >> >> "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >> >> options?" > >> >> More to the point, >> >> do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call >> >> and play for average minus? >> > >> >Certainly. Scratch "should", substitute "shall". >> >> Let's just get this one straight, Jens. Why? > >Because the player seems to be saying, though not in so many words, >"Something went wrong. Have I got the option of changing my call?" > >Well, yes, the player has that option. What is the TD supposed to >do? Not tell the player about it? > >I was tempted to just write "L9B1c, L10C1", but that might be >stretching it. Of course L10C1 would give me the "shall" that I was >claiming. I guess I am willing to back down on the shall, but not >very far, because I still think we should rule director's error for >not giving that option. But do you agree with me that you are offering this because of the form of the question? Or do you always offer it at every ruling? -- 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 May 31 08:16:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:16:30 +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 IAA23314 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:16:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012244; 30 May 98 22:14 GMT Message-ID: <1w9aOFAOgEc1EwI7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 18:55:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychic bidding In-Reply-To: <356FB20B.254367E3@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Obviously it can only be called "systemic" when it becomes 100%. I don't see this. If I have a good five card suit and about eight points, I might open 3 of the suit or I might not. It is not a psyche - I play non-vulnerable pre-empts to show at least five cards - but I allow for judgement. I don't play agreements in defensive situations that I shall bid with a particular hand 100% of the time. It depends on opponents, state of match, what I feel, what happened last hand, and mentally tossing a coin. But we shall describe the system accurately that we _might_ make such a bid with such a hand. -- 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 May 31 08:20:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:20:27 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23340 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 08:20:17 +1000 Received: from modem57.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.57] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yfu03-0005E9-00; Sat, 30 May 1998 23:21:16 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 23:18:12 +0100 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-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > \x/ \X/ > It is considered a reasonable interpretation that if there are > multiple infractions they are dealt with in order of occurrence. While > this does not seem to be laid down anywhere I believe it to be an > accepted approach. OK, let's do that. ++++ [ Maybe it is present in some SO's regulations? I do not think it would conflict with any law. It is widespread practice, to which I was first introduced by H. Franklin.] ++++ > Now consider the case where E does not accept 1C and W does not accept > 1D. By L29B both calls are cancelled. S has to pass throughout. What > about N? Unfortunately TFLB has missed an obvious scenario ! We > read L31A because it was RHO's turn in effect, but this tells us what to > do if RHO passes [L31A1] or bids, doubles or redoubles [L31A2]. The > lawmakers have missed the case where RHO does not call at all [shame on > you, Grattan ] so there is no apparent penalty. > ++++ [That is why we have such a big committee. If something goes awry we can each look at the others (g) - 'obvious' ? - well, it is now maybe. ] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 10:40:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:40:10 +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 KAA23659 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 10:40:04 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-26.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.192]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA24303 for ; Sat, 30 May 1998 20:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3570A706.17A8EA98@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:40:38 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4219EEC59003355ACCDE7109" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------4219EEC59003355ACCDE7109 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts > (no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:- > > 3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT > 4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will > do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to > make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat) > 1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > If allowed to take another shot, after reading the problem more carefully...If the above was explained to you as what happened before you got to the table, I would apply Law 28B. "Call by the correct player cancelling calls out of rotation : A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it is to call before a penalty has been assessed.... Then I would apply law 82 to correct the error in procedure. I would allow the auction to continue normally with the 1C & 3S cancelled and the 1D bid as the opening bid. I would caution the players not to take any advantage of the unauthorised information given by both sides. Before the opening lead, I would assess lead penalties if required I think the key to the solution to this problem is that the Director was not called when the first irregularity occurred but only after what the table thought was the third error. Nancy > > > > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_Yes! /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | / ;\__. / *\__ not?|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | /\ __) / --} |john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .\:. /\ /~~ |This line intentionally nul --------------4219EEC59003355ACCDE7109 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

John (MadDog) Probst wrote:

Directing at the Acol tonight, I was called to the table and the facts
(no dispute) are that in sequence the following occurs:-

3rd in hand bids 1C (nat) OOT
4th in hand is considering whether to condone and bid 3S (which he will
do if you find that in the process of unscrambling he has an option to
make a call over an original 1D OOT in 3rd seat)
1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid.
 

If allowed to take another shot, after reading the problem more carefully...If the above was explained to you as what happened before you got to the table, I would apply Law 28B. "Call by the correct player cancelling calls out of rotation :
A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it is to call before a penalty has been assessed....   Then I would apply law 82 to correct the error in procedure.  I would allow the auction to continue normally with the 1C & 3S cancelled and the 1D bid as the opening bid.  I would caution the players not to take any advantage of the unauthorised information given by both sides.   Before the opening lead, I would assess lead penalties if required
I think the key to the solution to this problem is that the Director was not called when the first irregularity occurred but only after what the table thought was the third error.  Nancy
 
 
 

--
John (MadDog) Probst|    /|_Yes!     /{_ Ah!Why |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947
451 Mile End Road   |   /  ;\__.    /  *\__ not?|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA       |  /\    __)   /     --}    |john@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\  .\:.  /\    /~~     |This line intentionally nul

  --------------4219EEC59003355ACCDE7109-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 19:40:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:40:07 +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 TAA24537 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:39:58 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (C5300-1-11.nt.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.13]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA00878 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 12:40:54 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:40:54 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199805310940.MAA00878@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: What are my options? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:36:52 To: David Stevenson From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: What are my options? At 06:58 PM 30/5/98 +0100, you wrote: >> >David Burn wrote: >>> > >>> >> At Bournemouth this weekend, the bidding went: West 1S, East 2H, West >>> >> "Stop - 3H." The TD, being called, was asked by West: "What are my >>> >> options?" >> >>> >> More to the point, >>> >> do you believe that a TD should tell West that she may change her call >>> >> and play for average minus? >>> > >>> >Certainly. Scratch "should", substitute "shall". >>> >>> Let's just get this one straight, Jens. Why? >> >>Because the player seems to be saying, though not in so many words, >>"Something went wrong. Have I got the option of changing my call?" >> >>Well, yes, the player has that option. What is the TD supposed to >>do? Not tell the player about it? >> >>I was tempted to just write "L9B1c, L10C1", but that might be >>stretching it. Of course L10C1 would give me the "shall" that I was >>claiming. I guess I am willing to back down on the shall, but not >>very far, because I still think we should rule director's error for >>not giving that option. > > But do you agree with me that you are offering this because of the >form of the question? Or do you always offer it at every ruling? > >-- I offer it at every ruling: I think there is a similarity between this and David's post to *trumping one's own trick*, quote: --Should the TD have explained when called, "Since the opponents did --not win the revoke trick, you will get a one-trick penalty. However, --if the revoker wins a trick with a diamond that he could have played --to the revoke trick, you will get a second trick"? Or is that --coddling declarer too much? -- (David answered): The TD is certainly required to make it clear what the penalty -- -- is. If he did not, then I would rule TD error on appeal, and give both sides a good score under L82C.***** end quote In the revoke case if we do not make the 2 trick possibility clear we are also giving a certain advantage to a declarer if he happens to know the revoke laws well. In the Law 25B2 case the same principle applies: I think West should be told about the option of changing her call and the penalties involved - 40% max. or passing next etc - because the TD is required to to make it clear what the penalty is, and also because West is disadvantaged because she doesn't know Law 25B2. In other words, a player who knows the laws would have an advantage over one who doesn't. This may be unavoidable in some circumstances but is easily rectified here by the TD giving all the options with their relevant penalties. I shouldn't have written *easily rectified* above because in practice it is not easy to explain this 40% rule - my first explanation of options is usually followed by a chorus of "what?", but I still think that the options should be offered at every ruling. Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 19:51:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:51:37 +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 TAA24561 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:51:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026206; 31 May 98 9:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 02:54:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-Reply-To: <3570A706.17A8EA98@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >If allowed to take another shot, after reading the problem more carefully...If >the above was explained to you as what happened before you got to the table, I >would apply Law 28B. "Call by the correct player cancelling calls out of >rotation : >A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it is to >call before a penalty has been assessed.... Sorry Nancy: this Law goes on "... for a call out of rotation by an opponent ..." but in the actual case the call out of turn was by partner. This is obviously correct: we cannot have a player condoning his partner's infraction! -- 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 May 31 20:21:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 20:21:55 +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 UAA24623 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 20:21:49 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-70.uunet.be [194.7.13.70]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23495 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 12:22:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35712D28.A0329ABD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:12:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick 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: > > -------- > > Quick story [sorry, I know this isn't RGB, and I know two posters who > will give me h**l for this]: > > He thus failed > by over-ruffing to become the first player to make a grand slam on an > endplay! > I was on the opposite side of such a story just last friday. BTW, our fifth friday tournament was somewhat of a success, with seven centers participating. I won the section in Antwerpen, but it does not appear I score more than 51% globally. Which goes to prove what the result for a small tournament is really worth. One way to winning a tournament is to make all your blunders on the same hand : deal 21 : (NS, N) A7654 KQT6 A Q63 T8 KQ32 AJ9 8432 T62 Q74 KJ874 T9 J9 75 KJ9853 A52 North is declarer in the normal contract of 2S, after an uncontested auction (this contract was normal in Antwerpen, some more people bid higher - and went down - globally). She had thrown a club on the diamond king, and had allowed us to make a dimond and a heart. I am on lead to the 9th trick with : 76 T - Q - KQ - 8 - - KJ87 T - - 98 52 Thinking I'm thrown in (and forgetting my King is high), I lead a small club. Two minutes later, we tell declare she has made the trick. So she leads the trump six. After some reflection, my partner throws his bad heart on this. While declarer is pondering how in heaven's name she has made these two tricks, my partner triumphantly lays down his two high trumps and explains "these are mine". They weren't. I don't know how a score of +200 was reached in other centers around the world, but that was how we did it in Antwerpen. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 31 23:53:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 May 1998 23:53:19 +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 XAA25005 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 23:53:13 +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 PAA00620 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 15:54:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3571342A.7B742B93@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:42:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: I had to RTFLB ... X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I directed the strawberry tournament together with blml reader Jan Boets. For the first time in weeks, I had to RTFLB for a ruling I was not certain over. Mind you, when have you last seen the bidding sequence : 1 Cl - pass - 1 He - pass pass - pass - pass - 1 SP guess and then RTFLB (BTW, my guess was right ...) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html