From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 00:52:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:52:14 +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 AAA27372 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:52:07 +1000 Received: from cph14.ppp.dknet.dk (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA29136 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 16:53:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 16:53:02 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35746e0c.4927895@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 21 May 1998 21:27:24 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: [about pointing out that a player has turned a played card the wrong way] >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. This is the usual interpretation, and it is also the way we rule in Denmark. But is it correct? and is it reasonable? [We've had something like this discussion before - but I don't think we seriously discussed the point I'm making below, so I hope you'll forgive me for re-opening it.] A card turned the wrong way is an irregularity (violation of L65B), and L9A2a gives defenders the right to call attention to an irregularity "unless prohibited by Law". The argument for the usual interpretation is that calling attention to this irregularity is communication prohibited by L73. The arguments against are that L73B's specific list of illegal ways of communication does not mention calling attention to irregularities and that it is difficult to establish exactly which irregularities such a principle should cover. For instance, if my partner makes an insufficient bid, am I allowed to call attention to it, thus communicating with partner (and possibly enabling him to make a L25A correction that he might otherwise not be able to make in time)? My personal opinion is that the usual interpretation ought to be changed to one that allows defenders to call attention to wrongly turned cards. A wrongly turned card is an irregularity that can be perfectly corrected, and if we allow it to be corrected more boards will give a result undisturbed by irregularities - which must surely be good for the game. I'd also like dummy to be allowed to point out declarer's wrongly turned card, but that will require a law change. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 00:52:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:52:15 +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 AAA27373 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:52:08 +1000 Received: from cph14.ppp.dknet.dk (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA29140 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 16:53:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 16:53:05 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35756e63.5014660@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199805302020.WAA02714@isa.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199805302020.WAA02714@isa.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 May 1998 22:21:30 +0200, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: [about explaining the revoke penalty details before play continues] >2. Not doing so is a TD error that may have caused damage to be=20 >rectified under L82. Yes. >4. Because these explanations are so complicated, I find myslef=20 >wondering now and then whether it is worthwhile to have this=20 >intricate one-or-two-trick penalty. I have stopped wondering and my conclusion is: there are two situations in which TDs routinely have to present players with long complicated instructions that the players usually do not understand, and these laws ought to be simplified. These two situations are established revokes and major penalty cards. =46or established revokes, I'd much prefer a fixed penalty of one trick transferred (with L64C to ensure that the NOS is not damaged, of course). =46or penalty cards, I'd prefer one of two solutions: (a) The "good" one: exposed cards are retracted without penalty and are UI to partner. (b) The easy one for the TD: exposed cards are retracted and one trick is transferred. This would be quite unfair in many situations, but so is any other simple solution, including the one we've got now. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 02:57:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 02:57:12 +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 CAA27802 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 02:57:03 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (C5300-1-110.nt.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.113]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA09501 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:58:02 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 19:58:02 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199805311658.TAA09501@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: I had to RTFLB ... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:42 PM 31/5/98 +0200, you wrote: >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 > I would rule: The fourth pass and the 1SP are cancelled (L35D) but despite the words *without penalty* in 35D there is a lead penalty as a defender has bid (L39B). I have noticed this appararent contradiction between the two laws before, but I think the meaning is that if LHO bids after the 1SP then lead penalty would not apply to the 1SP. Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 04:11:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:11:53 +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 EAA27955 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:11:45 +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 VAA15029; Sun, 31 May 1998 21:10:42 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35719E2B.BF9EA957@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 21:15:07 +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: 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 Dear David David Stevenson wrote: > > 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 > 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. Sorry David - I don't think you can accept it ,after East didn't accept the 1C , OOR . I think that you should use Law 37 for North's 1D and his bid canceled - which means that both N & S will pass until the end ....... This I explained in my message , but there I gave a possibility to S (the 1C bid ) to bid... I think it was wrong ...... To conclude : If the LHO of 1C doesn't accept it , N & S must shut up until the end of this auction. 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 think the written above is wrong - if the LHO of 1C doesn't accept it , then both 1C and 1D can't bid anymore (Law 31B & Law 37). In my opinion , the laws give a full answer . < snip > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 04:20:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:20:28 +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 EAA28013 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:20:17 +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 VAA16309; Sun, 31 May 1998 21:19:20 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3571A02D.721A3E22@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 21:23:41 +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 Dear John John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > 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 I don't think it is right by the existing Laws , as I explained in my message and in the answer to David's ruling ....... The existing Laws deal with such events and they have a special one - Law 37 - to deal with the "...violation obligation to pass" If you ruled the "reversal unscrambling" ... well , for a club game could be OK , only using my "Law 00" , but IMO it is not a legal decision for a high level tournament. Cheers Dany T > > 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 Mon Jun 1 04:30:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:30:53 +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 EAA28069 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:30:44 +1000 Received: from modem15.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.143] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygCtU-0008Sn-00; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:31:44 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: no agreement Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:00:40 +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: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: no agreement > Date: 28 May 1998 11:00 > > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > >>David Stevenson wrote: > > ++++ [ I was unclear whether David was saying that you should or should not alert a call if, on the basis of general bridge experience, but not discussed or implicit agreement, you decide to treat it as conventional? ] ++++ Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 04:30:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:30:54 +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 EAA28068 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:30:44 +1000 Received: from modem15.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.143] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygCtS-0008Sn-00; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:31:43 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 11:58:42 +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: 29 May 1998 15:43 > > 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. ++++ [What am I missing here?] Law 27B1(a) excludes the provisions of Law 16C2 from application in this situation. It then provides a safety net by establishing that 27B1(b) over-rides 27B1(a) if the TD decides to make use of the power it gives him. 27B1(b) says that it is a matter for the TD to judge whether the non-offending side has been damaged by the insufficient bid; the Director is actually given the strength to decide what acts unfairly upon the NOs. [ I interpret this as saying that information gained is AI and may be used up to the point where the Director considers the law begins to act unfairly upon NOs. If this is the case who cares what Law 16 says, since it has no relevance in 27B rulings? On the other hand to say 'you may not benefit' is perhaps too sweeping.] ++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 04:31:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:31:00 +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 EAA28070 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:30:45 +1000 Received: from modem15.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.143] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygCtV-0008Sn-00; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:31:45 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Psychic bidding Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:19:22 +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: Psychic bidding > Richard Willey wrote: > >So, I repeat Tim's earlier question > > > >>> What is the threshold % for moving from a psych to a systemic bid? > ++++ [Is this a valid question once the matter is discussed in a partnership? It seems to me that an action may be part of your system even though you have never, yet, used it. The mere fact of discussing a concept and recognising that one day it may happen incorporates it in your partnership agreements, does it not? ## Grattan,##]++++ Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 04:31:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:31:04 +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 EAA28077 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:30:49 +1000 Received: from modem15.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.143] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygCtW-0008Sn-00; Sun, 31 May 1998 19:31:46 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 13:05:38 +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 { My cat has nine tails.} ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 25 May 1998 20:58 > > 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:> > \x/ \x/ > ...> > 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; > \x/ \x/ ++++ [ Oh, dear me, yes....... They told me to be cautious....... I should have put in the general stance of the Committee as a qualification of my words : it reads 'subject always to the conformance of interpretation with the Committee's intentions'. The Committee does say that the meaning of the laws is what they intended it should be when making them (per the 'Kaplan dictum'}. It must be allowed that one could expect several members of the Committee to be highly conversant with American Standard and various derivations from it, and none of them suggested there was any case to add words to the definition to exclude the kind of extreme position you are ecstatic to adopt; it was just not given credence that it should be argued that good old fashioned style natural openers entailed subsidiary understandings that would step over the boundary of the intended applications of the definition. It may just be that we should have put in 'special' before 'partnership agreement' but I do not really think your legalistic case is sufficiently sensible to require it. On the other hand :-))) I am inclining to a definition of 'convention' which says "any call or play deemed by the SO to be capable of regulation under Law 40D." That would produce a nice continuous loop such as the bridge world has already nearly achieved in practice.] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 04:33:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:33:48 +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 EAA28121 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 04:33:40 +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 VAA18148; Sun, 31 May 1998 21:33:00 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3571A363.749C4A4B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 21:37:23 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eitan Levy CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... References: <199805311658.TAA09501@alpha.netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Eitan Why do you think that Law 39B wouldn't apply "letter by letter" ?? I have no doubt the bid 1S is UI , and the "gadgets" of L26 will apply .. Dany P.S. Herman , I hope you take it as a humorist joke : ' very happy that HERMAN went to his own school and opened TFLB being able to read up to paragraph 39 ..........." your friend Dany Eitan Levy wrote: > > At 12:42 PM 31/5/98 +0200, you wrote: > >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 > > > I would rule: > The fourth pass and the 1SP are cancelled (L35D) but despite the words > *without penalty* in 35D there is a lead penalty as a defender has bid (L39B). > I have noticed this appararent contradiction between the two laws before, > but I think the meaning is that if LHO bids after the 1SP then lead penalty > would not apply to the 1SP. > > Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 05:27:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 05:27:21 +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 FAA28261 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 05:27:09 +1000 Received: from modem124.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.124] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygDlz-0000tb-00; Sun, 31 May 1998 20:28:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: no agreement Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:24:35 +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 Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} ------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > \x/ \x/ \x/ > > 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. > ++++ This might be the right moment to recall that to play the game entirely according to its laws is unassailably ethical and proper. A player cannot be attacked for doing so. ['Active ethics' or like concepts are, one presumes, to amplify the understanding of what the law requires, not to substitute for it. The game should be played strictly as the laws provide (72A1) and gratuitous comment for which the laws make no room is to be considered a discourtesy (74B2). There is a limit to the extent to which one should go down the path of volunteering what the laws of the game do not call for, and in my view that limit is overreached at the moment when partner gains UI or when opponents are misled by it.] ## Grattan ## ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 05:46:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 05:46:14 +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 FAA28286 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 05:46:07 +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 WAA28099; Sun, 31 May 1998 22:45:10 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3571B44B.E731B46C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:49:31 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick References: <199805302020.WAA02714@isa.dknet.dk> <35756e63.5014660@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jesper Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sat, 30 May 1998 22:21:30 +0200, "Jens & Bodil" > wrote: > > [about explaining the revoke penalty details before play > continues] > > >2. Not doing so is a TD error that may have caused damage to be > >rectified under L82. > > Yes. > > >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. > > I have stopped wondering and my conclusion is: there are two > situations in which TDs routinely have to present players with > long complicated instructions that the players usually do not > understand, and these laws ought to be simplified. These two > situations are established revokes and major penalty cards. > > For established revokes, I'd much prefer a fixed penalty of one > trick transferred (with L64C to ensure that the NOS is not > damaged, of course). > > For penalty cards, I'd prefer one of two solutions: > (a) The "good" one: exposed cards are retracted without penalty > and are UI to partner. > (b) The easy one for the TD: exposed cards are retracted and one > trick is transferred. This would be quite unfair in many > situations, but so is any other simple solution, including the > one we've got now. I don't agree with your proposal above - it is very strong in contradiction with my addition to Laws - Law 00 : "the game is for players , not for TDs or bridge lawyers....". The players are entitled to know what's going on when there was an irregularity . The TD should explain it , smiling and very polite - even if it takes a while - and , as we were taught , the TD should even quote it form the FLB ..... Now, to the point for each irregularity : The Laws for established revoke are very well defined and they serve the main stream of the game (smile - for sure accordingly with my Law 00 ) : a revoke produces a damage to the NO side , at least in the regular way of counting ..... the optional penalty of one trick is for this damage ! { this is why there is no revoke at trick 12 ; there is nothing more to count there - smile = some people don't remember the count even after trick 13 !!!!} . Optional , because if the offending side didn't win that trick or any other subsequent trick , there was no damage and no compensation !!! Now , if the Revoker himself won that trick , there is no Penalty , just giving back the "illegal stolen" trick !!!! IMO there are never two penalty tricks for an established revoke , just one penalty trick and giving back the "illegal stolen" one. When the damage produced by the illegal play distorted the whole stream of the play , it means the damage can't be recovered by the usual penalty the TD is allowed to use his divine gift - the brains { see my Law 99 } - and assign a score {see TFLB's Law 64C} For Penalty card - your (b) solution is very ..... you defined it !! I don't like the Laws' general approach that ".... the ^xyzw^ is UI for the offender's partner and he should ignore it ..." . No normal brain can implement it ; this is why there are many trials to improve it , like using "demonstrably" , etc... . This Laws are written in order to let the game flow { I believe the lawmakers had written Law 00 , but didn't publish it in TFLB , I don't know why ....}. I don't think someone will find a better solution soon and we will try very hard to live with this regulations for some other centuries ... The fact that the card faced is known to all people and "the table should be cleaned as quick as possible" is the best from all possible bad solutions . Let it be this way as much as we don't find another genial way to deal with. Friendly {and smiling} Dany > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 06:02:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:02:00 +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 GAA28327 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:01:51 +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 XAA00230; Sun, 31 May 1998 23:00:40 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3571B7E1.399BDBFA@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:04:49 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: 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 evening Sir My final ruling proposal : (Players A,B,C,D - A the dealer; I write Mrs. , both for Mr. or Mrs.) OOR = out of rotation (this is the laws' definition for calls !) Dear Mrs. D : 1. The bid of Mrs. C is OOR 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 , and she must pass = Law 37 == because ......Mrs.A' s bid 1D 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 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 == I should like to have your [personal] opinion ....... Thank you Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 06:34:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:34:39 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA28441 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:34:33 +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 WAA06919 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 22:35:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199805312035.WAA06919@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:36:29 +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 : > 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? > > 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? Yes, I agree with you. No, I don't offer it at every ruling. This last question of yours made me ponder how often a situation arises where it is relevant to offer this opportunity. I haven't actually had that opportunity since the laws were changed. But I believe Jesper has had this opportunity as a player and used it, losing 3 imps in the process, while his opponents scored a flat board (teams). That makes me reconsider my opinion on the correct score in the original case. It would also be possible to award the bid-changing side -3 imps and the oppponents a flat board, depending on the details of the analysis of what could have happened. result likely). -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 06:54:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:54:37 +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 GAA28471 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:54:31 +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 NAA10462; Sun, 31 May 1998 13:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805312054.NAA10462@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 13:52:21 -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 Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > 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). Good point. Another one is that the revoker should avoid cashing a trick in the suit, and should follow low to the lead of the suit in hopes that partner can win the trick. I am going to put all these matters in an article for *Table Talk*, the La Jolla and Beach unit newsletter. Many players don't understand the rules governing revokes and certainly are not aware of tactics for taking advantage of, or lessening the penalty for, revokes. > 2. Not doing so is a TD error that may have caused damage to be > rectified under L82. Most TDs (maybe all) need a standard "instruction," analogous to a judge's standardized instructions to a jury regarding the law. How about this, when the revoking side has not won the revoke trick: "The next trick won by the revoking side will be transferred to the other side. If the revoking side wins more than one subsequent trick, any one of which is won by the revoker with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick, there will be an additional one-trick penalty. The revoking side should avoid letting that happen, while the other side might want to arrange for it to happen. If compensation for the revoke is not sufficient for any damage caused, I shall assign an adjusted score." And when revoker's partner has won the revoke trick: "The trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the other side. If a subsquent trick is won by the revoker with a card..." And when the revoker has won the revoke trick: "The trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the other side. The next trick won by the revoking side will also be transferred to the other side. If compensation for the revoke..." > 3. I would say we are in or possibly only near L10C1 territory > here. I would say near, but not in. > > 4. Because these explanations are so complicated, I find myself > wondering now and then whether it is worthwhile to have this > intricate one-or-two-trick penalty. I was leaning toward increasing the complexity, changing L64A2 from "was subsequently won" to "was subsequently won, or could have been won,..." However, like Jens (apparently), I would be in favor of just going back to the old two-trick rule, if only for the sake of rubber bridge players. Few of them know the new law, and most of those don't understand it thoroughly. Moreover, the current law favors knowledgeable players, who know how to extract the maximum penalty from a revoker, and how to avoid the maximum penalty when his/her side revokes. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 06:58:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:58:52 +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 GAA28487 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 06:58:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029164; 31 May 98 20:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:38:10 +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 Grattan wrote: > > >---------- >> From: David Stevenson >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: no agreement >> Date: 28 May 1998 11:00 >> >> Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> >>David Stevenson wrote: >> > >++++ [ I was unclear whether David was saying that you >should or should not alert a call if, on the basis of general >bridge experience, but not discussed or implicit agreement, >you decide to treat it as conventional? ] ++++ No, *I* did not say anything to do with this whatever! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 07:05:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:05:09 +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 HAA28511 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:05:02 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (C5300-1-59.nt.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.62]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA18435 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:05:59 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:05:59 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199805312105.AAA18435@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: I had to RTFLB ... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:37 PM 31/5/98 +0300, you wrote: >Hi Eitan > >Why do you think that Law 39B wouldn't apply "letter by letter" ?? >I have no doubt the bid 1S is UI , and the "gadgets" of L26 >will apply .. > >Dany Hi Dany Because Law 39B says *if offender's LHO calls, see law 35D* and law 35 says *..the lead penalties of Law 26 do not apply* Eitan > >P.S. Herman , I hope you take it as a humorist joke : >' very happy that HERMAN went to his own school and opened >TFLB being able to read up to paragraph 39 ..........." >your friend Dany > >Eitan Levy wrote: >> >> At 12:42 PM 31/5/98 +0200, you wrote: >> >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 >> > >> I would rule: >> The fourth pass and the 1SP are cancelled (L35D) but despite the words >> *without penalty* in 35D there is a lead penalty as a defender has bid (L39B). >> I have noticed this appararent contradiction between the two laws before, >> but I think the meaning is that if LHO bids after the 1SP then lead penalty >> would not apply to the 1SP. >> >> Eitan Levy > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 07:08:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:08:36 +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 HAA28544 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 07:08:26 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-162.access.net.il [192.116.204.162]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA24360; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:08:34 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3571C792.9D3A2A87@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 00:11:46 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Hint by Defender References: <199805281817.LAA28150@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E15A3F3CD1F51AE5C70EFC70" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E15A3F3CD1F51AE5C70EFC70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Marv I agree it sounds like a paradox . As I wrote bellow , I believe there should be a need to disclose as much as possible , but from some level/quantity on ???? For some events , it reminds me the story about the very well educated scout who had to do a "good thing" that day : He helped the old men to move to the other sidewalk , but didn't ask or know if the old men wanted to walk on the other sidewalk.... I think Grattan tried to solve it in one of his answers to "no agreement" , which I attach to this message. Cheers DANY Marvin L. French wrote: > > 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) --------------E15A3F3CD1F51AE5C70EFC70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined; name="na.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="na.txt" From - Sun May 31 23:52:19 1998 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with SMTP id XAA03808 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 23:06:02 +0300 (IDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 05:27:21 +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 FAA28261 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 05:27:09 +1000 Received: from modem124.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.124] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygDlz-0000tb-00; Sun, 31 May 1998 20:28:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: no agreement Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:24:35 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-UIDL: 6ef0dbe495898782994920f081c86cbd X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} ------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > \x/ \x/ \x/ > > 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. > ++++ This might be the right moment to recall that to play the game entirely according to its laws is unassailably ethical and proper. A player cannot be attacked for doing so. ['Active ethics' or like concepts are, one presumes, to amplify the understanding of what the law requires, not to substitute for it. The game should be played strictly as the laws provide (72A1) and gratuitous comment for which the laws make no room is to be considered a discourtesy (74B2). There is a limit to the extent to which one should go down the path of volunteering what the laws of the game do not call for, and in my view that limit is overreached at the moment when partner gains UI or when opponents are misled by it.] ## Grattan ## ++++ --------------E15A3F3CD1F51AE5C70EFC70-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 08:21:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:21:03 +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 IAA28722 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:20:56 +1000 Received: from default (client08c5.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.197]) by sand2.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA14838; Sun, 31 May 1998 23:21:39 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 22:57:25 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8cdf$18e505e0$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: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 May 1998 16:15 Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" On Thu, 21 May 1998 21:27:24 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: [about pointing out that a player has turned a played card the wrong way] My personal opinion is that the usual interpretation ought to be changed to one that allows defenders to call attention to wrongly turned cards. A wrongly turned card is an irregularity that can be perfectly corrected, and if we allow it to be corrected more boards will give a result undisturbed by irregularities - which must surely be good for the game. Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). +++ I would like to hear Jesper comment upon the relevance of Law 74C4. # Grattan # ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 08:21:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:21:00 +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 IAA28721 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:20:50 +1000 Received: from default (client08c5.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.8.197]) by sand2.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA14855 for ; Sun, 31 May 1998 23:21:46 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:21:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8ce2$6e5f9fa0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 May 1998 05:33 Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II >At 04:33 PM 5/25/98 -0400, Eric wrote: >>At 11:18 AM 5/23/98 -0700, jonbriss >>> \x/ \x/ >> >>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. > >Mike Dennis #### [It would seem to me that there are highly intelligent monkeys, who play at international level, who could be guaranteed 100% to ruff high and play trumps from the top down. I would judge it to be irrational to force such monkeys to do anything else. Grattan. ] #### From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 09:05:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:05:44 +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 JAA28837 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:05:38 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client251b.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.27]) by sand2.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA19287 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:06:37 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:08:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8ce8$ff2ecb40$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 >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. Even if "certain" I think it is good player relations to always RTFLB. Mind you, when have you last seen the bidding >sequence : > >1 Cl - pass - 1 He - pass >pass - pass - pass - 1 SP I am going to rule L35D, the fourth Pass and the 1S bid cancelled without penalty. I consider that L39 does not apply. Fiendishly confusing though it may be! I wonder why the Law makers chose to put L35 in Section Four (Call out of Rotation) and L36-39 in Section Five ( Inadmissible Calls). There is of course nothing new about this, the 1987 Code has not been ammended in this respect. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 09:42:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:42:19 +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 JAA28960 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:42:12 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-178.access.net.il [192.116.204.178]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA01188; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 02:42:22 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3571EBA3.2866DC4D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:45:39 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: Jesper Dybdal , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" References: <01bd8cdf$18e505e0$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well Grattan You convinced me again , what I was sure since I read the first time T F L B .!!!!! The laws makers weren't so , but they had a very great advantage on us : they read carefully and remembered ALL the paragraphs/laws.............. As much as I remember , during the last year no one pointed any event to law 74C ... Cheers Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > gester@globalnet.co.uk > Grattan Endicott > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 31 May 1998 16:15 > Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" > > On Thu, 21 May 1998 21:27:24 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > [about pointing out that a player has turned a played card the > wrong way] > My personal opinion is that the usual interpretation ought to be > changed to one that allows defenders to call attention to wrongly > turned cards. A wrongly turned card is an irregularity that can > be perfectly corrected, and if we allow it to be corrected more > boards will give a result undisturbed by irregularities - which > must surely be good for the game. > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > > +++ I would like to hear Jesper comment upon the > relevance of Law 74C4. # Grattan # ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 09:47:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:47:04 +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 JAA28985 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:46:57 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-178.access.net.il [192.116.204.178]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA02137; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 02:47:19 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3571ECCE.D5761FD1@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 02:50:38 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Careless or irrational II References: <01bd8ce2$6e5f9fa0$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > #### [It would seem to me that there are highly intelligent > monkeys, who play at international level, who could be > guaranteed 100% to ruff high and play trumps from > the top down. I would judge it to be irrational to force > such monkeys to do anything else. Grattan. ] #### I am sure you saw many of them , more than I saw , at the World Championships or Olympic Games .... Dany N.B. - I claim there is no connection with any real player !!!!!!! From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 11:09:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:09:30 +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 LAA29113 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:09:26 +1000 Received: from acrobat (acrobat [150.203.20.55]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA23189; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:10:38 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980601111012.00942610@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:10:12 +1000 To: "Bob Lake" From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: set digest Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G'day Robert, and the list. >Please set my bridge-laws mail to digest. Unfortunately at this stage BLML doesn't support digest-ing. Is it a serious problem for you ? I can have a look at setting up the necessary bits if several people would prefer this. Keep in mind that digests are fiddlier to use for reply-to-sender, if that's an issue for you. 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 Jun 1 12:36:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 12:36:14 +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 MAA29291 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 12:36:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023325; 1 Jun 98 2:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 00:18:50 +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: <199805312054.NAA10462@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: >Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > >> 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). > >Good point. Another one is that the revoker should avoid cashing a >trick in the suit, and should follow low to the lead of the suit in >hopes that partner can win the trick. I am going to put all these >matters in an article for *Table Talk*, the La Jolla and Beach unit >newsletter. Many players don't understand the rules governing revokes >and certainly are not aware of tactics for taking advantage of, or >lessening the penalty for, revokes. > >> 2. Not doing so is a TD error that may have caused damage to be >> rectified under L82. > >Most TDs (maybe all) need a standard "instruction," analogous to a >judge's standardized instructions to a jury regarding the law. How >about this, when the revoking side has not won the revoke trick: > >"The next trick won by the revoking side will be transferred to the >other side. If the revoking side wins more than one subsequent trick, >any one of which is won by the revoker with a card that could have >been played to the revoke trick, there will be an additional >one-trick penalty. The revoking side should avoid letting that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >happen, while the other side might want to arrange for it to happen. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >If compensation for the revoke is not sufficient for any damage >caused, I shall assign an adjusted score." No, Marv, under no circumstances should TDs tell people how to play bridge: that is not in their remit. I also think that your explanation is too complicated anyway. It needs to be simple enough to give the lesser players a chance. -- 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 Jun 1 13:57:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:57:49 +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 NAA29431 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:57:43 +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 UAA00131; Sun, 31 May 1998 20:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806010358.UAA00131@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 20:55:00 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >Most TDs (maybe all) need a standard "instruction," analogous to a > >judge's standardized instructions to a jury regarding the law. How > >about this, when the revoking side has not won the revoke trick: > > > >"The next trick won by the revoking side will be transferred to the > >other side. If the revoking side wins more than one subsequent trick, > >any one of which is won by the revoker with a card that could have > >been played to the revoke trick, there will be an additional > >one-trick penalty. The revoking side should avoid letting that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >happen, while the other side might want to arrange for it to happen. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >If compensation for the revoke is not sufficient for any damage > >caused, I shall assign an adjusted score." > > No, Marv, under no circumstances should TDs tell people how to play > bridge: that is not in their remit. I have to agree with that. This was just a strawman to be knocked down. > > I also think that your explanation is too complicated anyway. It > needs to be simple enough to give the lesser players a chance. It needs to be simpler than L64A1/A2, while giving lesser players a chance to do the right thing. Second try: 1. The revoker has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: "You lose that trick, and you also lose the next trick your side takes." 2. Revoker's partner has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker's partner: "You lose that trick, and if your partner ever wins a trick with a [name the revoke suit], you lose that trick too." 3. The NOS has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: "If you ever win a trick with a [name the revoke suit], you lose that trick. You also lose the first of any other tricks your side may take." Best I can do. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 15:04:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:04:35 +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 PAA29506 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:04:29 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-14.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.180]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA22158 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 01:05:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3572367D.18839DBC@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 01:05:02 -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: Trumping One's Own Trick References: <199806010358.UAA00131@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: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > >Most TDs (maybe all) need a standard "instruction," analogous to a > > >judge's standardized instructions to a jury regarding the law. How > > >about this, when the revoking side has not won the revoke trick: > > > > > >"The next trick won by the revoking side will be transferred to > the > > >other side. If the revoking side wins more than one subsequent > trick, > > >any one of which is won by the revoker with a card that could have > > >been played to the revoke trick, there will be an additional > > >one-trick penalty. The revoking side should avoid letting that > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >happen, while the other side might want to arrange for it to > happen. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >If compensation for the revoke is not sufficient for any damage > > >caused, I shall assign an adjusted score." > > > > No, Marv, under no circumstances should TDs tell people how to > play > > bridge: that is not in their remit. > > I have to agree with that. This was just a strawman to be knocked > down. > > > > I also think that your explanation is too complicated anyway. It > > needs to be simple enough to give the lesser players a chance. > > It needs to be simpler than L64A1/A2, while giving lesser players a > chance to do the right thing. > > Second try: > > 1. The revoker has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: > > "You lose that trick, and you also lose the next trick your side > takes." > > 2. Revoker's partner has won the revoke trick. TD says to the > revoker's partner: > > "You lose that trick, and if your partner ever wins a trick with a > [name the revoke suit], you lose that trick too." > > 3. The NOS has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: > > "If you ever win a trick with a [name the revoke suit], you lose that > trick. You also lose the first of any other tricks your side may > take." > > Best I can do. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) How often is the director called to the table in time to make this type of explanation. I would think if he had time to do this he should be able to correct the revoke. I have found that most calls are made either several tricks after the revoke or after the hand has been completed. Perhaps it would work if somewhere in a player's bridge career, the players is taught some of the rules. It would make things so much easier. My novices all learn this stuff in their first year of play. (Some of the standard director calls.) Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 18:26:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:26:46 +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 SAA29888 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:26:40 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-112.uunet.be [194.7.9.112]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29970 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:27:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35726398.B0A48B69@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:17:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: In my dreams X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This one came to me in a dream, of all places. And the cards were sufficiently clear to be able to recount to you : Declarer is in 3NT and after the spade lead starts shouting at dummy. He plays the 5 to the trick, but in the following caffuffle this is replaced by the club three. Declarer plays the spade five (again) to trick three, and wins trick four with the spade queen. At that moment I woke up. Ruling ? Let's assume that without the slight-of-hand, defenders make their 4 spade tricks and nothing more.(spades are 4-4, 3with declarer, 2 in dummy) Let's assume that the problem is discovered after trick eight. All players still hold 5 cards, but the three of clubs is of course missing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 18:26:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:26:45 +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 SAA29883 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:26:38 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-112.uunet.be [194.7.9.112]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29966 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:27:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3572618A.F4F8B9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:08:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd8ce8$ff2ecb40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > > >1 Cl - pass - 1 He - pass > >pass - pass - pass - 1 SP > > I am going to rule L35D, the fourth Pass and the 1S bid cancelled > without penalty. I consider that L39 does not apply. Fiendishly > confusing though it may be! > No, the 1S has not been "accepted", 35D does not apply to that one. But wait : read again : 35D applied to the first inadmissible call (4th pass), this has been accepted, and so the inadmissible call (pass) AND the subsequent calls (1S) are cancelled. So my ruling was wrong ! Can happen ! Thanks Anne ! > I wonder why the Law makers chose to put L35 in Section Four (Call out > of Rotation) and L36-39 in Section Five ( Inadmissible Calls). > There is of course nothing new about this, the 1987 Code has not been > ammended in this respect. > yeah ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 18:26:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:26:43 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29881 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:26:36 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-112.uunet.be [194.7.9.112]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29960 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:27:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35725FDF.862346A2@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:01:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd8ce8$ff2ecb40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > Herman wrote > > >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. > > Even if "certain" I think it is good player relations to always RTFLB. > I agree, but most of the times you do so only out of player relations, or to make absolutely certain. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 18:52:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:52:09 +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 SAA29974 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:52:01 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026032; 1 Jun 98 8:47 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Sat, 30 May 1998 16:42:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 16:42:13 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: SNIP > I am going to rule that 4th in hand may excersise his Law 28A ###### > Presumably you mean Law 29A? ######### 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. > > ######### Does this mean that the 2nd in hand player can accept the 1D > BOOT under Law 29A? ####### > > 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. > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 18:54:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:54:47 +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 SAA29992 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:54:41 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026083; 1 Jun 98 8:47 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Sat, 30 May 1998 16:42:17 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 16:42:16 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > 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. > > ########## I have already posted a reply to DWS's response based on > the assumption that the above is true and a mighty complex situation > resulted! This posting explores my own view that the auction should > be unscrambled in reverse order. > > First, give West the opportunity to accept 1D under Law 29A. If he > does, breathe a sigh of relief and allow the auction to continue > without further penalty. > > If West does not accept 1D, cancel it and offer East the chance to > accept 1C under Law 29A. If East does this then treat 1D as an > unaccepted BOOT at RHO's turn and apply Law 31 etc. > > If East does not accept 1C, cancel it as an unaccepted BOOT, treat > South's 1D as action violating an obligation to Pass and return the > auction to South but also apply Law 37 which will silence both North > and South for the entire auction. > > Much simpler! > > ############## From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 21:51:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:51:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00423 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:51:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005411; 1 Jun 98 11:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 10:46:18 +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 David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: > > SNIP > >> 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. >> >> ########## I have already posted a reply to DWS's response based on >> the assumption that the above is true and a mighty complex situation >> resulted! This posting explores my own view that the auction should >> be unscrambled in reverse order. >> >> First, give West the opportunity to accept 1D under Law 29A. If he >> does, breathe a sigh of relief and allow the auction to continue >> without further penalty. >> >> If West does not accept 1D, cancel it and offer East the chance to >> accept 1C under Law 29A. If East does this then treat 1D as an >> unaccepted BOOT at RHO's turn and apply Law 31 etc. >> >> If East does not accept 1C, cancel it as an unaccepted BOOT, treat >> South's 1D as action violating an obligation to Pass and return the >> auction to South but also apply Law 37 which will silence both North >> and South for the entire auction. >> >> Much simpler! >> >> ############## I am sorry, David, but nowhere in the Laws, Regulations nor the interpretations that the EBU uses can I find anything that says we should go for the *simpler* effect. However, there *is* an outstanding interpretation that we deal with things in the order they occur. I believe that it is more sensible and logical to deal with them in the order they occur than in the order that makes the ruling simpler. I do recommend to the WBFLC that they consider an over-riding Law for 2007 to cover multiple infractions. -- 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 Jun 1 22:28:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:28:11 +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 WAA00572 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:28:04 +1000 Received: from cph31.ppp.dknet.dk (cph31.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.31]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA03291 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:28:56 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 14:28:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <357395c4.835972@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <01bd8cdf$18e505e0$LocalHost@default> In-Reply-To: <01bd8cdf$18e505e0$LocalHost@default> 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 Before this discussion goes much further, I would like to know whether we all agree that a player is allowed to call attention to irregularities such as his partner's (a) insufficient bid, (b) lead out of turn. I expect that we do agree, but I would like to be sure. On Sun, 31 May 1998 22:57:25 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+++ I would like to hear Jesper comment upon the >relevance of Law 74C4. # Grattan # ++++ I find L74C4's relevance a matter of interpretation. If L74C4 is taken quite literally, it bans calling attention to _any_ irregularity (except those, if any, that cannot be described as "significant occurrences"), and that is surely not the intention. It does specifically mention "the number of tricks still required for success", but I do not believe that this necessarily prohibits calling attention to an irregularity having to with the arrangement of a single trick (which only indirectly has to do with the number of tricks). I find nothing illogical in an interpretation that goes as follows: L74C4 forbids calling attention to "significant occurrences" in general; however, L9A nevertheless allows calling attention to specifically those "significant occurrences" that are irregularities, and in such a situation the specific law should have priority. If, on the other hand, L74C4 has priority over L9A (which is also a not unnatural interpretation of the wording, since L9A does include the words "Unless prohibited by Law"), then it seems to me that it bans calling attention to any irregularity at all. If not, where is the border line? What is so special about turning a card the wrong way that L73B and L74C4 should be more important than L9A for that specific irregularity but not for other irregularities? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 1 22:43:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:43:47 +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 WAA00595 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:43:38 +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 MAA22259 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 12:44:19 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980601084505.006fc800@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 08:45:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Re; Weekend Information (2) In-Reply-To: <199805300134.SAA08970@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:32 PM 5/29/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> 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 written ("players who... recognize"; "an opponent who actually knows or suspects"), this regulation would cover only deliberate double shots. >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. TD practice, at least in my part of the country, does go beyond the strictest possible interpretation of the rule, and interprets it as though it read "players who should recognize" or "an opponent who has reason to suspect"; this follows the current consensus philosophy of interpreting rules to not require "mind reading". One is expected to protect oneself in either of two situations: (a) Where the auction has clearly indicated a failure to alert, as discussed in my previous message, or (b) Where the auction is very unlikely, given the bidding practices prevalent in the area, to carry its unalertable meaning. If the auction goes 1NT-P-2D-P-2H-P-P-P and you (assuming you are not a rank novice) subsequently claim damage because you assumed that 2D was to play and 2H showed some kind of off-shape 1NT with long hearts, without having taken any action to "discover" that 2D was an unannounced transfer, you won't get much sympathy from the TDs or an AC. It sounds like the directors in Marv's area go well beyond these criteria. If so, they are, IMO, ill-advised. I think around here we've got it about right. 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 Jun 1 23:36:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 23:36:18 +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 XAA00778 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 23:36:12 +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 NAA23688 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 13:36:54 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980601093741.00706970@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 09:37:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Maintaining tempo In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980530064541.007e9100@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:45 AM 5/30/98 -0400, Bill wrote: >>> 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. > >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. This so-called "(good)" habit is in fact way out of line. While it's not clear whether it violates L73D, it is a clear violation of L74B4. Few things are more disconcerting than having an opponent with no problem just sit there, refusing to bid, while the seconds tick off the clock. In real life, if I knew that a player was doing this at a game I was directing, I wouldn't bother "pulling the lawbook" on him. I would instead take the more expedient course of simply hitting him with a slow play penalty every time his table ran over. I suspect a few 30% games would either change his habit or drive him from my club. Bridge is a timed event, as the ACBL likes to say, and there is no place in the game for players who attempt to gain advantage by playing games with the clock, whether they're trying to gain advantage in bidding, in play, or in ruling 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 Mon Jun 1 23:49:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 23:49:54 +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 XAA00819 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 23:49:47 +1000 Received: from [130.15.248.145] (toll1-slip145.tele.QueensU.CA [130.15.248.145]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA04170 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:50:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 08:52:54 -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 >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. Analysing this situation with his usual cogency, David Stevenson establishes that both 1C (by N) and 1D (by S) should be treated as bids out of rotation, and suggests that the first to occur, 1C, should be dealt with first. He goes on to say, in part: > 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. Here I disagree. Law 29A says "Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize." It seems to me that this establishes that only W can take action which forfeits the right to penalize S's 1D BOOT, so that E's acceptance of the 1C BOOT should have no effect on the 1D BOOT. I also don't see why we can't have E bidding 3S and then have 1D treated as an ordinary BOOT. The sequence seems a little odd, but I think what is happening is: 1. East accepts the 1C call (without, it is to be hoped, indicating what call he intends to make over 1C). This forfeits any right to penalize the 1C call, so the first offence has been dealt with, but it makes the 1D call a BOOT at RHO's turn to bid, which must be dealt with next. 2. Now West gets to speak up, and may accept the 1D BOOT. If W accepts 1D, then East doesn't get to bid over 1C, and the auction continues from the 1D bid. Probably, though, West will, in the interests of partnership harmony, decline to accept the 1D bid. 3. The bidding reverts to East, who bids 3S, and Law 31 says S must make a legal call, and N will be barred, for 1 round if South bids D, forever if S does anything else (with lead penalties as appropriate). This seems to me both logically sound and consistent with the Laws. ___________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca Kingston, Ontario, Canada From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 00:20:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:20:00 +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 AAA03166 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:19:53 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008542; 1 Jun 98 14:13 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:48:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick In-Reply-To: <3572367D.18839DBC@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3572367D.18839DBC@pinehurst.net>, Nancy T Dressing writes > snip This is super, and can be adapted as necessary even if play has continued eg taking example 2 you would say "Have you personally won a trick since the revoke" and then if Yes "Sorry that one is transferred too" or you use Marv's text when they say "No" >> >> 1. The revoker has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: >> >> "You lose that trick, and you also lose the next trick your side >> takes." >> >> 2. Revoker's partner has won the revoke trick. TD says to the >> revoker's partner: >> >> "You lose that trick, and if your partner ever wins a trick with a >> [name the revoke suit], you lose that trick too." >> >> 3. The NOS has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: >> >> "If you ever win a trick with a [name the revoke suit], you lose that >> trick. You also lose the first of any other tricks your side may >> take." snip > > How often is the director called to the table in time to make this type >of explanation. I would think if he had time to do this he should be >able to correct the revoke. I have found that most calls are made either >several tricks after the revoke or after the hand has been completed. >Perhaps it would work if somewhere in a player's bridge career, the >players is taught some of the rules. It would make things so much >easier. My novices all learn this stuff in their first year of play. >(Some of the standard director calls.) Nancy > as long as you are teaching them *when* to call the director not *how* to apply the Laws :) 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 Tue Jun 2 00:32:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:32:28 +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 AAA03202 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:32:23 +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 OAA25034 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:33:04 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980601103352.006933ac@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:33:52 -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 01:05 PM 5/31/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >On >the other hand :-))) I am inclining to a definition of 'convention' which >says "any call or play deemed by the SO to be capable of regulation >under Law 40D." Given Grattan's lofty position, I would ask him to refrain from making such statements, even in jest, where a member of the ACBL Board of Directors might read them. The ACBL BoD has made it quite clear that they think bridge would be better off if everyone adopted their preferred methods (anyone who doubts this should read the history of "Classic Bridge", Don Oakie's infamous article on the right to psych, and various other ACBL pronouncements). I hope and trust that Grattan and his committee are aware that L40D is apparently the only thing preventing the ACBL BoD from enacting this view into regulation. 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 Jun 2 01:05:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:05:00 +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 BAA03287 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:04:36 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013201; 1 Jun 98 15:01 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:00:28 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:00:26 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > David Martin wrote: > >DWS wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > >> 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. > >> > >> ########## I have already posted a reply to DWS's response based > on > >> the assumption that the above is true and a mighty complex > situation > >> resulted! This posting explores my own view that the auction > should > >> be unscrambled in reverse order. > >> > >> First, give West the opportunity to accept 1D under Law 29A. If he > >> does, breathe a sigh of relief and allow the auction to continue > >> without further penalty. > >> > >> If West does not accept 1D, cancel it and offer East the chance to > >> accept 1C under Law 29A. If East does this then treat 1D as an > >> unaccepted BOOT at RHO's turn and apply Law 31 etc. > >> > >> If East does not accept 1C, cancel it as an unaccepted BOOT, treat > >> South's 1D as action violating an obligation to Pass and return the > >> auction to South but also apply Law 37 which will silence both > North > >> and South for the entire auction. > >> > >> Much simpler! > >> > >> ############## > > I am sorry, David, but nowhere in the Laws, Regulations nor the > interpretations that the EBU uses can I find anything that says we > should go for the *simpler* effect. However, there *is* an > outstanding > interpretation that we deal with things in the order they occur. > > I believe that it is more sensible and logical to deal with them in > the order they occur than in the order that makes the ruling simpler. > > ########## I know and respect your view but my position is not based > simply on the fact that simpler rulings are produced. That alone > would *not* be a good reason. It just happens to be a convenient > benefit of this approach. There are deeper and more fundamental > reasons based in logic and the structure of the Laws that lead to me > to suppose that ruling in the reverse order is simply more correct. > After all, what would you have done if West had called over 1D because > he did not realise that his partner had been bypassed in the auction? > ######## > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 01:17:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:17:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03329 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:17:24 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013780; 1 Jun 98 15:04 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:03:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:03:08 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For some reason the following posting was not successfully sent the first time and so I am reposting it now in case anyone is still interested. > DWS wrote: > > SNIP > > 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. > > ####### You already know that I do not necessarily agree with > this view, however, I will not put the counter arguements now (but > will make a separate posting) as the purpose of this posting is to > follow *your* logic and approach and help you out of a hole that you > appear to have stumbled into. ######### > > 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 > ######## Surely this should be under Law 35B, if anything, as South is > now required to Pass. Although Law 35 really only says what happens > when an inadmissable bid is condoned, it does not IMO give offender's > LHO the right to condon it. ####### 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.##### Because there is no law giving the NOs > such 'rights'. ####### 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 ! > ######### What is wrong with Law 37 which will silence both N and S? > After all South was required to Pass when he bid 1D ########## 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 > you accept that Law 35B applies then South must Pass at subsequent > turns. ######## If neither E nor W > accept then S is silenced, N is not, ###### Again, if you accept > that Law 37 applies then N is also silenced. ######## and there may > be lead penalties > from S's 1C, and N's 1D is UI. > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 01:23:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:23:27 +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 BAA03358 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:23:22 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2016181; 1 Jun 98 15:14 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:13:10 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:13:08 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: SNIP > I find L74C4's relevance a matter of interpretation. > > If L74C4 is taken quite literally, it bans calling attention to > _any_ irregularity (except those, if any, that cannot be > described as "significant occurrences"), and that is surely not > the intention. It does specifically mention "the number of > tricks still required for success", but I do not believe that > this necessarily prohibits calling attention to an irregularity > having to with the arrangement of a single trick (which only > indirectly has to do with the number of tricks). > > ########## It seems to me that, with the exception of the case below, > the only possible reason for correcting partner's error *during the > play period* rather than at the end of play is ensure that he has a > correct count of the number of tricks won and lost to date which must > surely be drawing his attention to "the number of tricks still > required for success" and, hence, clearly illegal under Law 74C4. Any > other purpose for correction could clearly wait until the end of play > except for the situation where partner has unwittingly won the last > trick and is now waiting for someone else to lead to the next trick. > ######### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 01:23:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:13:40 +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 AAA02092 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:13:11 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ygVLY-0000Pz-00; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:13:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:12:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: In my dreams In-Reply-To: <35726398.B0A48B69@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <35726398.B0A48B69@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >This one came to me in a dream, of all places. > >And the cards were sufficiently clear to be able to recount to you : > >Declarer is in 3NT and after the spade lead starts shouting at dummy. >He plays the 5 to the trick, but in the following caffuffle this is >replaced by the club three. Trick 1. The spade 5 was played and the 3C was "dropped", the 5S was retained "accidentally" Trick 2. Another spade was played. Nothing illegal >Declarer plays the spade five (again) to trick three, Trick 3. This is illegal, it cannot be played because it already has been. We have a defective trick, and we've played on. L67B applies. > and wins trick four with the spade queen. > >Let's assume that the problem is discovered after trick eight. All >players still hold 5 cards, but the three of clubs is of course missing. > At trick 8 we find that the 3C is in Trick 1, and the 5S is in Trick 3. Well the 3C wasn't played so is restored to declarer's hand, the 5S is restored to trick 1, and we apply 67B to trick 3. Since he has no spade he can play anything (even the 3C) to trick 3 *and* "(penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick" We win SQ trick 4. transferred. later trick in revoke suit We win trick 5. transferred. revoke penalty I rule 3NT down 1. [Was I the TD in your dreams Herman?] :)))) 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 Tue Jun 2 02:13:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:13:13 +1000 Received: from pm04sm.pmm.mci.net (pm04sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.153]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03671 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:13:08 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr20-dialup34.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27036) with SMTP id <0ETV00ID5RRO57@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:14:14 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 09:08:00 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: RE: In my dreams To: BLML Message-id: <000d01bd8d77$75f5a760$e21737a6@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 Herman wrote: This one came to me in a dream, of all places. And the cards were sufficiently clear to be able to recount to you : Declarer is in 3NT and after the spade lead starts shouting at dummy. He plays the 5 to the trick, but in the following caffuffle this is replaced by the club three. Declarer plays the spade five (again) to trick three, and wins trick four with the spade queen. At that moment I woke up. Ruling ? No more pepperoni and anchovy pizza before bedtime for you. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 02:16:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:13:19 +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 AAA02051 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:13:02 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ygVLY-000732-00; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:13:56 +0000 Message-ID: <$gVG6WAa7qc1EwJF@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:38:34 +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 Martin writes >DWS wrote: > > SNIP > >> 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. >> >> ########## I have already posted a reply to DWS's response based on >> the assumption that the above is true and a mighty complex situation >> resulted! This posting explores my own view that the auction should >> be unscrambled in reverse order. Which in fact is what I did, but it seems we are outvoted here David >> First, give West the opportunity to accept 1D under Law 29A. If he >> does, breathe a sigh of relief and allow the auction to continue >> without further penalty. >> >> If West does not accept 1D, cancel it and offer East the chance to >> accept 1C under Law 29A. If East does this then treat 1D as an >> unaccepted BOOT at RHO's turn and apply Law 31 etc. >> >> If East does not accept 1C, cancel it as an unaccepted BOOT, treat >> South's 1D as action violating an obligation to Pass and return the >> auction to South but also apply Law 37 which will silence both North >> and South for the entire auction. >> I got to this point too, although I had some doubts, because I felt after P P the 1C bidder maybe still can bid (because he already did and when it gets to him he still can IMO repeat his original call), although he has UI, and this was the only point I wasn't sure on :) >> Much simpler! >> >> ############## -- 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 Tue Jun 2 03:15:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:15:16 +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 DAA03810 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 03:15:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011072; 1 Jun 98 17:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:07:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... In-Reply-To: <3571342A.7B742B93@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >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. I am interested in this policy. I don't think it a very good idea. I remember an incorrect ruling at my table which would have been clearly incorrect if anyone had taken the trouble to read the regulations out instead of quoting them from memory. > 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 ...) This one is a little different, since it is [a] a question discussed at length in an EBU Panel TDs' weekend and [b] a question discussed at length on this list at a previous occasion, so I do have some idea. According to L39A a pass by defender, or any call by the future declarer, carries no penalty. So the first pass has no penalty. According to L39B there is a lead penalty for the 1S. However, it also refers to offender's LHO calling. This did not happen in this case, since the LHO of the player who bid 1S did not call. According to L35 [main part] there is no penalty for the pass. According to L35D both the pass and the 1S are cancelled without penalty. If you consider the usefulness of the two Laws, if you do not apply L35D to this situation, then it has no use or meaning. L39B applies when there is a single call not condoned. Logic suggests that L35D applies. I believe that the bit in parentheses at the end of L35B should be at the end of both L35A and L35B. The EBU has agreed to that as an interpretation of this Law [EBU 39.6] and this list agreed to this interpretation when this was previously discussed. -- 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 Jun 2 04:06:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:06:49 +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 EAA03891 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:06:36 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.96] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0ygYyj-0005Qu-00; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 19:06:37 +0100 Message-ID: <002201bd8d87$e17b56a0$603363c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 19:03:09 +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 Don Kersey wrote: [snip of original problem] >Analysing this situation with his usual cogency, David Stevenson >establishes that both 1C (by N) and 1D (by S) should be treated as bids out >of rotation, and suggests that the first to occur, 1C, should be dealt with >first. He goes on to say, in part: > >>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. > >Here I disagree. Law 29A says "Following a call out of rotation, offender's >LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize." It seems >to me that this establishes that only W can take action which forfeits the >right to penalize S's 1D BOOT, so that E's acceptance of the 1C BOOT should >have no effect on the 1D BOOT. I also don't see why we can't have E bidding >3S and then have 1D treated as an ordinary BOOT. The sequence seems a >little odd, but I think what is happening is: > >1. East accepts the 1C call (without, it is to be hoped, indicating what >call he intends to make over 1C). I don't think this can happen. The *only* way in which East can "accept" 1C is by making a call over it. If he does not, then the 1C must be cancelled. That, at any rate, is the force of Law 29A and Law 29B as I read them. I do not believe that East can say: "Well, I'll accept 1C, but I won't do anything over it - let my partner decide what he wants to do over 1D". To examine DWS's argument: >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. I agree with this. The point was made by (I think) David Martin that if West had called over 1D before the Director was summoned, East would not be able to do anything over 1C (in effect, West's condoning 1D would implicitly condone 1C as well). That is so, but it is now West who has deprived East of his chance over 1C, and that is just East's bad luck. Nothing that North or South does, however, should deprive East of the opportunity to act over 1C if he wishes. >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]. If the TD had been summoned after North's 1C, he would have first said to East: "Do you wish to accept 1C (by making a call)?" No other play would have been given the right to make a call until East had answered this question. If it is anybody's "turn to call" at the point at which North has bid 1C, then it is clearly East's. But in the normal run of events, a player whose turn it is to call may not decide without making a call that it should be somebody else's turn to call instead. There is a strong argument for the view that it is nobody's "turn to call" (for legal purposes) until East has decided whether he wishes to make the next call or to have South make it. That, among other things, is why you cannot deal with 1D before you have dealt with 1C. Until East has exercised his option under L29, *you do not know the status of the 1D bid*, and you do not therefore know under which Law to deal with it. Suppose East had said, in sporting spirit, "OK, I'll accept 1C and I'll pass over it". Now it seems to me that both North and South are free agents, except that the knowledge that South has an opening bid with a diamond suit is UI to North (until such time as he can legitimately infer it from the subsequent auction). >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. See above. If East, instead of passing over 1C, bids 3S, I think that the 1D bid ceases to exist. Its implications are UI to North, of course, but I believe that both North and South are now free agents subject to that constraint. David Martin may argue that West has now been deprived of his right to act over 1D, but it is East who has deprived him of that right, and I see no difficulty with this. >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 throughout, 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. It appears clear from Laws 25 and 29 that, if East does not accept 1C, West now has the right to decide whether to accept 1D. Note that 1D is *not* an action by a player required by law to pass (for the purposes of Law 35B and Law 37). At the point at which South bid 1D, he was not required by law to pass; that requirement existed only when East decided not to accept 1C. The question of whether the forfeiture of the right to penalise "overrides" the requirement on South to pass does not actually arise; there was no such requirement at the time the 1D bid was made. Moreover, North is *not* required to pass throughout under L37. >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. Here, DWS has (unsurprisingly!) lost the plot a little; what he means to say (with which I agree) is that "there may be lead penalties from North's 1C, and South's 1D is UI". The trouble (or rather, one of the many troubles) with the argument for treating the infractions in reverse order is that if West declines to accept 1D, and then East declines to accept 1C, both North and South are indeed silenced throughout. In David Martin's scenario, the TD would have to explain this to both East and West before giving West the option to act over 1D. Of course, knowing that the opponents each had an opening bid, East and West would be more than happy to pass the deal out (unless East's keenness to bid 3S had by then reached fanatical proportions). This is wholly inequitable, and one would feel instinctively that it could not be right. Obiter dictum: my first assignment as a team captain happened in the junior European Union championships in Valkenburg about ten years ago. Then, one of my players accepted an opening bid out of turn for the purpose of making a weak jump overcall and going for a penalty of 1400. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 04:25:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:25:44 +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 EAA04000 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:25:34 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024851; 1 Jun 98 18:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:42:42 +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: <357395c4.835972@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Before this discussion goes much further, I would like to know >whether we all agree that a player is allowed to call attention >to irregularities such as his partner's (a) insufficient bid, (b) >lead out of turn. I expect that we do agree, but I would like to >be sure. You may draw attention to partner's irregularities. In effect you do so to prepare the ground for a ruling from the TD. You do not have the right to warn him before he commits himself [unless you are dummy]. >>+++ I would like to hear Jesper comment upon the >>relevance of Law 74C4. # Grattan # ++++ > >I find L74C4's relevance a matter of interpretation. > >If L74C4 is taken quite literally, it bans calling attention to >_any_ irregularity (except those, if any, that cannot be >described as "significant occurrences"), and that is surely not >the intention. It does specifically mention "the number of >tricks still required for success", but I do not believe that >this necessarily prohibits calling attention to an irregularity >having to with the arrangement of a single trick (which only >indirectly has to do with the number of tricks). I am not sure I agree with this. I think it is directly to do with the number of tricks. I cannot think of any other reason for drawing attention to a trick the wrong way apart from the number of tricks. When you draw your partner's attention to a trick put the wrong way you are saying to that person that his count of tricks is wrong - nothing else. >I find nothing illogical in an interpretation that goes as >follows: >L74C4 forbids calling attention to "significant occurrences" in >general; however, L9A nevertheless allows calling attention to >specifically those "significant occurrences" that are >irregularities, and in such a situation the specific law should >have priority. > >If, on the other hand, L74C4 has priority over L9A (which is also >a not unnatural interpretation of the wording, since L9A does >include the words "Unless prohibited by Law"), then it seems to >me that it bans calling attention to any irregularity at all. If >not, where is the border line? > >What is so special about turning a card the wrong way that L73B >and L74C4 should be more important than L9A for that specific >irregularity but not for other irregularities? L74C4 refers specifically to the number of tricks, which is what you are trying to get right when you tell partner he has a trick wrong. L9A refers to calling attention unless prohibited by Law. L74C4 contains that prohibition for number of tricks and by inference to a card the wrong way. So you are not allowed to draw attention to a trick the wrong way but are to most other irregularities. -- 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 Jun 2 04:29:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:29:35 +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 EAA04029 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:29:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024850; 1 Jun 98 18:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:29:18 +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 David Martin wrote: >> ########## I know and respect your view but my position is not based >> simply on the fact that simpler rulings are produced. That alone >> would *not* be a good reason. It just happens to be a convenient >> benefit of this approach. There are deeper and more fundamental >> reasons based in logic and the structure of the Laws that lead to me >> to suppose that ruling in the reverse order is simply more correct. >> After all, what would you have done if West had called over 1D because >> he did not realise that his partner had been bypassed in the auction? >> ######## The same as if his partner had called over 1C, I expect. -- 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 Jun 2 04:46:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:46:03 +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 EAA04126 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 04:45:53 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa13107; 1 Jun 98 11:46 PDT To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 01 Jun 1998 19:03:09 PDT." <002201bd8d87$e17b56a0$603363c3@david-burn> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:46:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806011146.aa13107@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > It appears clear from Laws 25 and 29 that, if East does not accept 1C, > West now has the right to decide whether to accept 1D. This isn't as clear to me. First of all, I can't see how Law 25 applies at all. I probably need someone to explain this. Regarding Law 29: if East doesn't accept the 1C bid, can Law 29 be used to give West have the right to accept 1D? If South's bid is considered out-of-rotation, at whose turn to call did South make the 1D bid? Presumably, the thinking is that South bid 1D at East's turn to call, but if East doesn't accept the 1C bid, then it's not really his turn. East's non-acceptance of 1C means the bidding reverts to South (Law 29B), and I don't see how South's bidding at South's turn can be considered out-of-rotation. I'll grant that this is just one possible interpretation of the laws, but I don't think the other interpretation (that South's 1D is OOT) is all that clear. Also, assuming South opens 3NT or something (North is still barred for opening 1C at his partner's turn, right?), South's 1D call should be UI for North if E-W buy the auction. (I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the right to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 05:14:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 05:14:38 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04314 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 05:14:31 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-13.ts-4.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.157]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA15863 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3572F963.513B68D3@idt.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:56:35 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm sorry, David, but I just don't understand what you mean when you say "...before he commits himself." Commits himself in what way? Does this mean that if he turns a trick in the wrong direction, I can correct him before he plays to the next trick, but not after? In what other ways might he be said to "commit himself?" Forgive me for being dense (If that's what I'm being.) :) Irv David Stevenson wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >Before this discussion goes much further, I would like to know > >whether we all agree that a player is allowed to call attention > >to irregularities such as his partner's (a) insufficient bid, (b) > >lead out of turn. I expect that we do agree, but I would like to > >be sure. > > You may draw attention to partner's irregularities. In effect you do > so to prepare the ground for a ruling from the TD. You do not have the > right to warn him before he commits himself [unless you are dummy]. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 06:22:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 06:22:44 +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 GAA04664 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 06:22:38 +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 QAA31469 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06721; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:23:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:23:40 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806012023.QAA06721@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" > none of them suggested there was any > case to add words to the definition to exclude the kind of extreme > position you are ecstatic to adopt; Ecstatic?! Me?! Remember, I'm the guy who liked the 1987 definition. OK, "I know one when I see one" is workable, but I confess I'm not ecstatic about it. I'm a little surprised nobody on the Laws Commission noticed the meaning of the words as written. No doubt everyone was concentrating on more important matters. > I am inclining to a definition of 'convention' which > says "any call or play deemed by the SO to be capable of regulation > under Law 40D." That would produce a nice continuous loop such > as the bridge world has already nearly achieved in practice.] ++++ Heh! Your suggestion is the practical definition under L40D anyway, so it wouldn't be so bad for that. You could even get rid of "king less than average." Personally, I'd prefer to see something a bit more precise for L27 or (perhaps better) change L27 so "conventional" doesn't matter. Anyway, I'm sure by now all of the above is on the agenda for 2007. Perhaps we can discuss these questions again in 2006. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 07:06:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:06:29 +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 HAA04930 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:06:24 +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 OAA08735; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806012106.OAA08735@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Nancy T Dressing" , Subject: Re: Trumping One's Own Trick Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:03:47 -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 Nancy Dressing wrote: > I wrote: > > > > Second try: > > > > 1. The revoker has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: > > > > "You lose that trick, and you also lose the next trick your side > > takes." > > > > 2. Revoker's partner has won the revoke trick. TD says to the > > revoker's partner: > > > > "You lose that trick, and if your partner ever wins a trick with a > > [name the revoke suit], you lose that trick too." > > > > 3. The NOS has won the revoke trick. TD says to the revoker: > > > > "If you ever win a trick with a [name the revoke suit], you lose that > > trick. You also lose the first of any other tricks your side may > > take."> > > How often is the director called to the table in time to make this type > of explanation. I would think if he had time to do this he should be > able to correct the revoke. I have found that most calls are made either > several tricks after the revoke or after the hand has been completed. > Perhaps it would work if somewhere in a player's bridge career, the > players is taught some of the rules. It would make things so much > easier. My novices all learn this stuff in their first year of play. > (Some of the standard director calls.) Right, Nancy Third try: (See above for significance of numbers) 1. "You lose the trick you revoked on. You also lose the next trick your side takes. 2. "You lose the trick partner revoked on, and you lose the first trick partner wins with a [name the revoke suit] 3. "If you (win)(have won) a trick with a [name the revoke suit], you lose that trick. You also lose the first of any other tricks your side (took)(takes) after the revoke. Obviously if it is too late for these words, there is no need for them. The TD just applies the penalty according to the book. I believe that saying "You lose the first trick partner wins with a diamond" is more likely to alert inexperienced players to the right tactics (preventing, or insuring, that possibility) than saying from the book "if an additional trick is subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could have played to the revoke trick..." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 07:13:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:13:42 +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 HAA04963 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:13:36 +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 RAA09127 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002201bd8d87$e17b56a0$603363c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:19:59 -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 I wrote: [snip] >>Law 29A says "Following a call out of rotation, >offender's >>LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize." It >seems >>to me that this establishes that only W can take action which >forfeits the >>right to penalize S's 1D BOOT, so that E's acceptance of the 1C BOOT >should >>have no effect on the 1D BOOT. I also don't see why we can't have E >bidding >>3S and then have 1D treated as an ordinary BOOT. The sequence seems a >>little odd, but I think what is happening is: >> >>1. East accepts the 1C call (without, it is to be hoped, indicating >what >>call he intends to make over 1C). and David Burn replied (in part): >I don't think this can happen. The *only* way in which East can >"accept" 1C is by making a call over it. If he does not, then the 1C >must be cancelled. That, at any rate, is the force of Law 29A and Law >29B as I read them. I do not believe that East can say: "Well, I'll >accept 1C, but I won't do anything over it - let my partner decide >what he wants to do over 1D". But the law doesn't say "offender's LHO may call", but rather "offender's LHO may elect to call", which to me means that it is LHO's decision to call, not the call itself, which accepts the BOOT (so in general after a call out of turn, if LHO says "I'm going to accept that call" and then takes some time to decide what to call, I would consider the COOT accepted and the right to penalize it forfeited, even though no subsequent call had yet been made). My script would have the director say to East (after explaining everything) "Do you wish to call over the 1C bid?", and if East said yes, then the director would continue "Before you make your call, we must deal with the 1D bid". I do realize this may be reading more into the lawmakers' choice of words than may have been intended, but I think it is a reasonable interpretation. _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 07:13:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:13:51 +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 HAA04969 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:13:45 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA09728; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:14:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.68) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009710; Mon Jun 1 16:13:47 1998 Received: by har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8D80.6B28ACC0@har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:12:12 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8D80.6B28ACC0@har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Markus Buchhorn'" , Bob Lake Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: set digest Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 17:12:02 -0400 Encoding: 31 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Whatever does this mean? I hope I'm not the only ignorant one, but just the first to admit it. :-) ---------- From: Markus Buchhorn[SMTP:markus@acsys.anu.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 9:10 PM To: Bob Lake Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: set digest G'day Robert, and the list. >Please set my bridge-laws mail to digest. Unfortunately at this stage BLML doesn't support digest-ing. Is it a serious problem for you ? I can have a look at setting up the necessary bits if several people would prefer this. Keep in mind that digests are fiddlier to use for reply-to-sender, if that's an issue for you. 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 Tue Jun 2 07:43:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:43:50 +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 HAA05101 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:43:42 +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 OAA16303 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806012144.OAA16303@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Re; Weekend Information (2) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 14:40:45 -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: > I wrote: > >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. > > TD practice, at least in my part of the country, does go beyond the > strictest possible interpretation of the rule, and interprets it as though > it read "players who should recognize" or "an opponent who has reason to > suspect"; this follows the current consensus philosophy of interpreting > rules to not require "mind reading". One is expected to protect oneself in > either of two situations: > > (a) Where the auction has clearly indicated a failure to alert, as > discussed in my previous message, or > > (b) Where the auction is very unlikely, given the bidding practices > prevalent in the area, to carry its unalertable meaning. If the auction > goes 1NT-P-2D-P-2H-P-P-P and you (assuming you are not a rank novice) > subsequently claim damage because you assumed that 2D was to play and 2H > showed some kind of off-shape 1NT with long hearts, without having taken > any action to "discover" that 2D was an unannounced transfer, you won't get > much sympathy from the TDs or an AC. > > It sounds like the directors in Marv's area go well beyond these criteria. > If so, they are, IMO, ill-advised. I think around here we've got it about > right. > Well, it happens at NABCs, with TDs (including Solly) starting out with the words, "Anyone playing in a national championship..." As if inexperienced players ought not to be playing in such an event, and if they do, no accommodation for their inexperience. (b) is not what I'm talking about. Of course obvious situations get no sympathy. Typical example: an unAlerted "card-showing" double that intimidates my inexperienced partner, who takes it for penalty. The TD: "Anyone playing in a national championship, blah, blah." I think such remarks should be addressed to the other side: "Anyone playing in a national championship should be familiar with ACBL Alert regulations. I'm adjusting the score." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 09:30:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:30:41 +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 JAA05764 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:30:34 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004020; 1 Jun 98 23:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 15:22:32 +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 , Don Kersey 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 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. > >Analysing this situation with his usual cogency, David Stevenson >establishes that both 1C (by N) and 1D (by S) should be treated as bids out >of rotation, and suggests that the first to occur, 1C, should be dealt with >first. He goes on to say, in part: > >> 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. > >Here I disagree. Law 29A says "Following a call out of rotation, offender's >LHO may elect to call, thereby forfeiting the right to penalize." It seems >to me that this establishes that only W can take action which forfeits the >right to penalize S's 1D BOOT, so that E's acceptance of the 1C BOOT should >have no effect on the 1D BOOT. I also don't see why we can't have E bidding >3S and then have 1D treated as an ordinary BOOT. The sequence seems a >little odd, but I think what is happening is: > >1. East accepts the 1C call (without, it is to be hoped, indicating what >call he intends to make over 1C). This forfeits any right to penalize the >1C call, so the first offence has been dealt with, but it makes the 1D call >a BOOT at RHO's turn to bid, which must be dealt with next. > >2. Now West gets to speak up, and may accept the 1D BOOT. If W accepts 1D, >then East doesn't get to bid over 1C, and the auction continues from the 1D >bid. Probably, though, West will, in the interests of partnership harmony, >decline to accept the 1D bid. > >3. The bidding reverts to East, who bids 3S, and Law 31 says S must make a >legal call, and N will be barred, for 1 round if South bids D, forever if S >does anything else (with lead penalties as appropriate). > >This seems to me both logically sound and consistent with the Laws. > Yep I like this, I'm not quite sure whether DWS was suggesting the same thing - it will be shown to the players along with the rest of the replies to the players this Thursday. It has also given me good reason not to unscramble in reverse order. Thank you all. John Probst >___________________________ >Don Kersey >kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca >Kingston, Ontario, Canada > > -- 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 Tue Jun 2 09:34:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:34:40 +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 JAA05797 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:34:35 +1000 Received: from acrobat (acrobat [150.203.20.55]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA06031; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:35:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980602093535.00d8d370@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 09:35:35 +1000 To: Craig Senior From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: RE: set digest Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Craig, et al. >Whatever does this mean? I hope I'm not the only ignorant one, but just the first to admit it. :-) > >G'day Robert, and the list. > >>Please set my bridge-laws mail to digest. > >Unfortunately at this stage BLML doesn't support digest-ing. Is it a >serious problem for you ? I can have a look at setting up the necessary >bits if several people would prefer this. Ok - since others may also not know - Setting a list to 'digest' means that instead of receiving everything sent to the list in real time (i.e. as soon as rgb.anu.edu.au gets it it sends it on to you) it stores all the articles for a fixed period (a day, a week, whatever) or up to a fixed size (10, 100 messages, 50kB, 100kB, whatever) and then sends you a 'digest' of all of the articles. You receive one message containing multiple messages. This reduces the number of messages you receive (but clearly not (much) the number of bytes you download). You end up seeing all the articles once a day, or once a week, rather than a continuous stream of individual messages. Some people prefer digests, especially those who don't post much but mainly listen. Those who post frequently would, I think, not prefer digests (it's fiddlier to respond to indvidual messages, unless your mailer happens to automagically break digests into individual component messages again - otherwise it will just reply-to the list address (see other thread :-) ). I could imagine digests being a nice way to provide BLML to people at clubs or non-emailable people - except of course you could just save all the articles into a digest yourself... majordomo supports (effectively) a single list with both types of traffic - so you can choose to receive individual articles or digests. However, at this stage I have only configured the normal (simpler) non-digest form. Bob is the first person to ask for digests - and it's a bit of work to prepare, but not too much if I don't muck it up :-) So - anybody else want digests of BLML ? 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 Tue Jun 2 10:11:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:11:55 +1000 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (cerium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06025 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:11:48 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.91] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0ygegL-0001Vo-00; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:12:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bd8dba$e8a801c0$5b2b63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:10:52 +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 Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >> It appears clear from Laws 25 and 29 that, if East does not accept 1C, >> West now has the right to decide whether to accept 1D. > >This isn't as clear to me. First of all, I can't see how Law 25 >applies at all. I probably need someone to explain this. > Sorry - mis-typed. Meant L28, not the dreaded L25! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 10:24:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:24:57 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA06172 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:24:51 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26d0.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.208]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA17882 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:25:51 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 01:27:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8dbd$3c8f46c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote > According to L39A a pass by defender, or any call by the future >declarer, carries no penalty. So the first pass has no penalty. > > According to L39B there is a lead penalty for the 1S. However, it >also refers to offender's LHO calling. This did not happen in this >case, since the LHO of the player who bid 1S did not call. > > According to L35 [main part] there is no penalty for the pass. > > According to L35D both the pass and the 1S are cancelled without >penalty. > > If you consider the usefulness of the two Laws, if you do not apply >L35D to this situation, then it has no use or meaning. L39B applies >when there is a single call not condoned. Logic suggests that L35D >applies. I'm with you so far. > > I believe that the bit in parentheses at the end of L35B should be at >the end of both L35A and L35B. The EBU has agreed to that as an >interpretation of this Law [EBU 39.6] and this list agreed to this >interpretation when this was previously discussed. My Law Book has not got anything in parenthesis at the end of Law 35B. What is this about? Also what do you mean by EBU 39.6. If you are referring to the EBL Commentary, my reference finished at 39.5. Why am I so deprived?? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 11:41:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:41:29 +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 LAA06426 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:41:22 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-45.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.242]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA18456 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 21:42:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35735869.CED4346D@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:42:01 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Declarer asks re tricks Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the local club game last week, a table consisting of three directors and 1 civiliam ahd the following problem: About half way thru the play of the hand, declarer ( a director) asked "How many tricks have I taken?" Dummy starts looking back at his cards (looking at the face while keeping them face down and does not respond. - also a director) The third director at the table says" We can't tell you that and dummy cannot look back at his cards!!" Declarer says "Yes you can, if I ask." The third director suggested that he should not even ask. However, no one answered and play continued. The official (fourth) director was not called as it was felt he would not know the answer to this problem. The smart civilian just looked a little stunned and remained silent. . What should have happened at the table??? Thanks, Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 11:58:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:58:46 +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 LAA06476 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:58:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020567; 2 Jun 98 1:57 GMT Message-ID: <6J3VW2CIW1c1EwaS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:29:44 +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: <9806011146.aa13107@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the right >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not called immediately. -- 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 Jun 2 12:00:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:00:19 +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 MAA06495 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:00:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020566; 2 Jun 98 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:49:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: set digest In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980602093535.00d8d370@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: [s] >Some people prefer digests, especially those who don't post much but mainly >listen. Those who post frequently would, I think, not prefer digests (it's >fiddlier to respond to indvidual messages, unless your mailer happens to >automagically break digests into individual component messages again - >otherwise it will just reply-to the list address (see other thread :-) ). I >could imagine digests being a nice way to provide BLML to people at clubs >or non-emailable people - except of course you could just save all the >articles into a digest yourself... [s] >So - anybody else want digests of BLML ? Just a warning: OKBD supports digests. Every so often someone sends a reply to OKBD, but because they are answering a digest, and because they do not understand snipping, you get a reply sent to the list that includes every article for a whole day with some reply tacked on somewhere. OK, no-one here would do that, but ... -- 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 Jun 2 12:02:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:02:23 +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 MAA06518 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:02:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020565; 2 Jun 98 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:44:30 +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: <3572F963.513B68D3@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: >I'm sorry, David, but I just don't understand what you mean when you say >"...before he commits himself." Commits himself in what way? Does this >mean that if he turns a trick in the wrong direction, I can correct him >before he plays to the next trick, but not after? In what other ways >might he be said to "commit himself?" Forgive me for being dense (If >that's what I'm being.) :) If partner takes a call out of the bidding box nothing gives you the right to say "Hold it, it is not your turn!" unless you are dummy. You may draw attention to partner's call out of turn so as to initiate a TD call but you may not warn him in advance. By "commits himself" I mean he actually does an irregularity. In the case of a player putting a card down wrong, dummy can correct him if he warns him before he lets go of the card, but not thereafter. There is a distinction between warning in an attempt to stop partner and drawing attention to his irregularity after it is too late to warn him, ie after he commits himself. Thus we have to look at the two periods [before and after he commits himself] differently. Of course I do not mean that a defender may correct partner before the next trick since he is not allowed to correct him before or after he commits himself! >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >Before this discussion goes much further, I would like to know >> >whether we all agree that a player is allowed to call attention >> >to irregularities such as his partner's (a) insufficient bid, (b) >> >lead out of turn. I expect that we do agree, but I would like to >> >be sure. >> >> You may draw attention to partner's irregularities. In effect you do >> so to prepare the ground for a ruling from the TD. You do not have the >> right to warn him before he commits himself [unless you are dummy]. >> -- 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 Jun 2 12:05:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:05:39 +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 MAA06550 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:05:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020564; 2 Jun 98 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 02:36:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... In-Reply-To: <01bd8dbd$3c8f46c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >David Stevenson wrote >> According to L39A a pass by defender, or any call by the future >>declarer, carries no penalty. So the first pass has no penalty. >> >> According to L39B there is a lead penalty for the 1S. However, it >>also refers to offender's LHO calling. This did not happen in this >>case, since the LHO of the player who bid 1S did not call. >> >> According to L35 [main part] there is no penalty for the pass. >> >> According to L35D both the pass and the 1S are cancelled without >>penalty. >> >> If you consider the usefulness of the two Laws, if you do not apply >>L35D to this situation, then it has no use or meaning. L39B applies >>when there is a single call not condoned. Logic suggests that L35D >>applies. >I'm with you so far. >> I believe that the bit in parentheses at the end of L35B should be at >>the end of both L35A and L35B. The EBU has agreed to that as an >>interpretation of this Law [EBU 39.6] and this list agreed to this >>interpretation when this was previously discussed. >My Law Book has not got anything in parenthesis at the end of Law 35B. >What is this about? Sorry, mixing my L39s and L35s! I meant: I believe that the bit in parentheses at the end of L39B should be at the end of both L39A and L39B. The EBU has agreed to that as an interpretation of this Law [EBU 39.6] and this list agreed to this interpretation when this was previously discussed. > Also what do you mean by EBU 39.6. If you are >referring to the EBL Commentary, my reference finished at 39.5. Why am I >so deprived?? The EBU TD guide is published as a supplement to the EBL guide, including its numbering system. So you look in your supplement, and behold, EBU 39.6! -- 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 Jun 2 14:51:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:51:45 +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 OAA07477 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:51:39 +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 AAA03903 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35738509.76539519@pinehurst.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 00:52:25 -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: <6J3VW2CIW1c1EwaS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AC228E63A68A808ED23275D9" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------AC228E63A68A808ED23275D9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the right > >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I > >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East > >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I > >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) > > In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not > called immediately. I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the following events had occurred: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 he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn bid, would the rest have happened??? Nancy > -- > 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 ~ --------------AC228E63A68A808ED23275D9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

David Stevenson wrote:

Adam Beneschan wrote:

>(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the right
>to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I
>have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book.  East
>committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I
>put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.)

  In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not
called immediately.

I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the following events had occurred: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 he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn bid, would the rest have happened???   Nancy

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   Cats   Railways   Logic   /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        RTFLB                               @ @
<bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk>  Emails welcome    bluejak on OKB  =( + )=
Bridgepage:  http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm           ~

  --------------AC228E63A68A808ED23275D9-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 15:05:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 15:05:32 +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 PAA07546 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 15:05:26 +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 WAA14176 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806020505.WAA14176@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #10 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 22:03:23 -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 Case #10 in the Dallas NABC casebook (*Dallas: They Fought the Law*) was case #9 in the NABC Daily Bulletin and consequently #9 on the Federation Suisse de Bridge website (with full writeup) (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html). Vulnerability: North Dealer: None S- T743 H- KT8 D- AQ963 C- 7 S- AQ65 S- K982 H- QJ963 H- 32 D- K5 D- J874 C- 95 C- AT3 S- J H- A74 D- T2 C- KQJ8642 West North East South (usual directions) P P 4C* P 4H P P Dbl P P 5C Dbl All pass * Alerted, explained as 8-1/2 tricks with hearts as trumps (NAMYATS) 5C doubled made five, plus 550 for N-S. East, prior to his final pass, called the TD. The opening lead was the queen of hearts. The TD adjusted the score to avg- for N-S and let the -550 stand for E-W, ducking the responsibility of determining an appropriate assigned score for N-S. Both sides appealed. It is fairly plain that N-S have to get an assigned score of 4H doubled, down some number, because of the UI coming from the Alert explanation. South's heart holding requires him to pass North's 4H bid, but it could be argued (weakly) that the double provides new information that permits the 5C bid. The main question is whether West should be allowed to shoot fish in a barrel, knowing that N-S almost certainly had a misunderstanding and that South would not be able to run from the double with impunity. The AC adjusted the score to 4H doubled down three for both sides, -500 and +500, with $50 deposits returned. Chairman Rich Colker later had second thoughts about the decision, feeling that E-W should have kept their -550 score after that greedy double. I am skeptical about the assigned score, at least for N-S. The "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" would come from a likely trump lead and later continuation, after which I don't see how North can take seven tricks. Not that it matters. Shame on the TD for that avg-. Of course the AC corrected that lapse, but one wonders how many artificially adjusted scores at NABCs do not get fixed by ACs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 16:27:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:27:42 +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 QAA08024 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:27:33 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ygkYg-0001Ni-00; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 06:28:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 19:17:15 +0100 To: John Probst Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #5 (Bulletin #6) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >>> .................................cut......................... > >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. > Labeo: 'Amicae curiae'? Isn't that 'only good in parts'? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 16:31:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:31:02 +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 QAA08071 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:30:52 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1003395; 2 Jun 98 6:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:46:53 +0100 To: Jan Kamras Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: L75C - interpretation In-Reply-To: <199805241857.LAA20333@mh2.cts.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199805241857.LAA20333@mh2.cts.com>, Jan Kamras writes >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? > Labeo: absolutely.... and it has the advantage that opponents will win the ruling if there is an agreement and they have gone astray because you have not told it. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 18:51:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:51:22 +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 SAA08656 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:51:10 +1000 Received: from modem100.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.100] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygmni-0000q9-00; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:52:10 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:46:03 +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 Grattan { My cat has nine tails.}--------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency> > \x/ \x/ > Anyway, I'm sure by now all of the above is on the agenda for 2007. > Perhaps we can discuss these questions again in 2006. ++++ [ Or maybe 2008 ? But, more seriously and trying to find the right kind of sensitive language to say it, if there are flaws in the text of the 1997 laws requiring us to look back to the intentions of the Committee ('C') - and I am not saying yes or no to that -, then what I think may have happened is that during the period of Edgar's illness we all found it difficult to explore matters with him at length and I, for one, may sometimes have settled for words more easily than I should. This possibility, taken with the arrival of a new and, I think, vigorous mind in the Chair, may lead us to massage the laws to a more-than-usual degree sooner rather than later. We will know after Lille whether my thoughts are on target. + G + ] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 18:51:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:51:17 +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 SAA08655 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:51:09 +1000 Received: from modem100.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.100] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygmnh-0000q9-00; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:52:09 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:56:48 +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 Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} --------- > From: David Stevenson \X/ \X/ > I do recommend to the WBFLC that they consider an over-riding Law for > 2007 to cover multiple infractions. > ++++ I hear you David. Actually I will include it in my Lille material,although I am not short of that! If the Chairman agrees we may get by with a note to the laws for the next few years. = Grattan = ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 18:51:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:51:33 +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 SAA08667 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:51:19 +1000 Received: from modem100.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.100] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ygmng-0000q9-00; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:52:08 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Confession (was:Are you allowed an inference from an opponent looking at your card? ) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:54:26 +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 { My cat has nine tails.} ----------> In article <6k2ovq$17l$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pwityk@dwx.com writes: > > OTOH, maybe they didn't put the word "other" into 40E2 because they > > meant to allow it. ... Since he is gone, we will never know for > > sure what his views were. > > As it happens, we have a pretty good clue what his views were: > > From: The Bridge World > Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:52:52 -0400 > You may share this with anyone, but when doing so please state it is > not an official opinion of any entity. Kaplan and Rubens disagree on > some meanings. If a sign says, "One-hour parking on Sundays" Kaplan > thinks it means no parking on other days while Rubens thinks it means > full parking allowed (the default in absence of any sign) on other days. > ++++ We may perhaps add that Edgar was Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee ('C') at the time and his view reflected the practice in C when creating laws. His is the official C interpretation of the meaning of such a statement. = Grattan = ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 18:53:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:53:05 +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 SAA08707 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:52:57 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-170.access.net.il [192.116.198.170]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id LAA27643; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:53:18 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3573BE49.6503B50D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 11:56:41 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nancy T Dressing CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling References: <6J3VW2CIW1c1EwaS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35738509.76539519@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One of my colleagues in Israel asked me yesterday about the same scenario - I printed out immediately the final answer i sent here to Grattan ; she said she thinks it is wrong because she saw a similar case in the ACBL bulletin. Just now I received a fax with the case described by Brian Moran in the May 96 Bulletin - the tiny and gorgeous difference is that the dealer's partner opened pass ........(she sent her apologize attached). For all the people involved - the procedural routine of how to deal with a "chain" of irregularities should be by their natural order (I"ll suggest to adjust Law 9 , adding a proper D paragraph). Cheers Dany Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the > > right > > >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; > > but I > > >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. > > East > > >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, > > and I > > >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) > > > > In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was > > not > > called immediately. > > I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the > following events had occurred: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 he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn > bid, would the rest have happened??? Nancy > > > -- > > 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 Jun 2 20:56:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:56:52 +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 UAA09346 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:56:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029716; 2 Jun 98 10:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:21:26 +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: <35738509.76539519@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: >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the right >> >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I >> >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East >> >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I >> >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) >> In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not >> called immediately. >I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the >following events had occurred: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 he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn bid, >would the rest have happened??? Nancy No, of course not. But first in hand did not see partner's OOT 1C [see above] so he can hardly be blamed for not calling the TD! Someone considering something didn't affect matters. The TD could hardly have been called earlier! It is quite normal for someone who knows it is his turn to call to make a call oblivious to what else is going on. I see no reason for any lack of sympathy for this. It is *quite* different from players not calling the TD when they know they should. -- 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 Jun 2 21:12:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 21:12:10 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09464 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 21:12:04 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA09950 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 07:13:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > >I'm sorry, David, but I just don't understand what you mean when you say > >"...before he commits himself." Commits himself in what way? Does this > >mean that if he turns a trick in the wrong direction, I can correct him > >before he plays to the next trick, but not after? In what other ways > >might he be said to "commit himself?" Forgive me for being dense (If > >that's what I'm being.) :) > > If partner takes a call out of the bidding box nothing gives you the > right to say "Hold it, it is not your turn!" unless you are dummy. You > may draw attention to partner's call out of turn so as to initiate a TD > call but you may not warn him in advance. > > By "commits himself" I mean he actually does an irregularity. In the > case of a player putting a card down wrong, dummy can correct him if he > warns him before he lets go of the card, but not thereafter. > I have not found anything in the lawbook that confirms or denies this claim. If partner reaches for his bidding box, what is the penalty for saying "It's not your move?" Similarly, in mid-play, what is the penalty for saying "It's not your lead" if you observe partner starting to take a card out of his hand when it is someone else's turn? I do not believe L16 fits. -- Richard Lighton |"Am I to understand that, to save his contemptible life, (lighton@idt.net) | he dared to practise on our credulous simplicity? Wood-Ridge NJ | Our revenge shall be swift and terrible." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (The Pirates of Penzance) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 21:28:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 21:28:09 +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 VAA09549 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 21:28:02 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-212.uunet.be [194.7.13.212]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA11636 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 13:29:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3572DA11.8F611551@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 18:42:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: In my dreams X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > I rule 3NT down 1. [Was I the TD in your dreams Herman?] :)))) > Maybe that was why I woke up ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 21:58:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 21:58:13 +1000 Received: from legend.sat.txdirect.net (root@legend.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09733 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 21:58:06 +1000 Received: from biigal2 (iits-01-117.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.71.117]) by legend.sat.txdirect.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA18744 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 06:59:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3573E8BE.3CF2@txdirect.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 06:57:50 -0500 From: "Albert \"biig-Al\" Lochli" Reply-To: biigal@txdirect.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer asks re tricks References: <35735869.CED4346D@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > At the local club game last week, a table consisting of three directors > and 1 civiliam ahd the following problem: > About half way thru the play of the hand, declarer ( a director) asked > "How many tricks have I taken?" Dummy starts looking back at his cards > (looking at the face while keeping them face down and does not respond. > - also a director) The third director at the table says" We can't tell > you that and dummy cannot look back at his cards!!" Declarer says "Yes > you can, if I ask." The third director suggested that he should not > even ask. However, no one answered and play continued. The official > (fourth) director was not called as it was felt he would not know the > answer to this problem. The smart civilian just looked a little stunned > and remained silent. . What should have happened at the table??? > Thanks, Nancy Since this was in a Club game this perhaps enters the realm of common social courtesy and discourse. Law 43A1(c) prohibits the dummy participating in the play. Law 42A2 Has him keep track of tricks. Law 42A1 Has him give Information as to fact "in the directors presence" Either, or both of the opps should have stated the conditions at the moment without such a to do. In Law 42 dummy's rights are constrained; but since 42A2 has dummy keep track of tricks - and Law 42A1 has him give information to fact in the directors presence - one simple solution would be to call the director and under Law 42A1 have him give the information when asked "in the director's presence". Dummy could then answer and the director would get a bit of exercise. However Law 74 should take precedence. Particularily 74A1. Question: Why is it necessary to ask?? Are one or more of the tricks taken in one or more of the positions different?? Have one or more of the players violated Law 65 in the arrangement of tricks?? If an apparent descrepancy exists call the director have him straighten this out now. And why not call the official 4th director?? He might know, or he might open the Law Book and read the Law to the 3 other directors so they could then know - - what arrogance from these 3 directors in making in effect their own ruling at the table. Isn't that prohibited somewhere?? >The smart civilian just looked a little stunned and was silent. Surely in the presence of such all-knowing and all-powerful ones he should have been in awe. And he may have played rubber whose current and former laws specifically have the dummy answer this specific question. But that is not duplicate. In duplicate we are mean and vicious and follow the Law. Well some of them. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli - POBox 15701 San Antonio TX 78212-8901 http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 22:45:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:45:58 +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 WAA10093 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:45:52 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-22.uunet.be [194.7.13.22]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16986 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:46:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3573E93D.30FA324@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 13:59:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" 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: > > > By "commits himself" I mean he actually does an irregularity. In the > case of a player putting a card down wrong, dummy can correct him if he > warns him before he lets go of the card, but not thereafter. > > There is a distinction between warning in an attempt to stop partner > and drawing attention to his irregularity after it is too late to warn > him, ie after he commits himself. Thus we have to look at the two > periods [before and after he commits himself] differently. Of course I > do not mean that a defender may correct partner before the next trick > since he is not allowed to correct him before or after he commits > himself! > Although I agree with David's theory, I feel that the period between 'putting the card down' and 'committing himself' is too short and too impractical for it to be ever allowed to have dummy speak in. It is not the same with declarer taking a card out of his hand and, before facing it, dummy being able to say : "no partner, you're at the table". So really I see no reason for dummy to correct declarer at any time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 22:46:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:03 +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 WAA10094 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:45:54 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-22.uunet.be [194.7.13.22]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16990 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:46:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3573EB03.B6A180A7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:07:31 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Declarer asks re tricks X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35735869.CED4346D@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > At the local club game last week, a table consisting of three directors > and 1 civiliam ahd the following problem: > About half way thru the play of the hand, declarer ( a director) asked > "How many tricks have I taken?" Dummy starts looking back at his cards > (looking at the face while keeping them face down and does not respond. > - also a director) The third director at the table says" We can't tell > you that and dummy cannot look back at his cards!!" Declarer says "Yes > you can, if I ask." The third director suggested that he should not > even ask. However, no one answered and play continued. The official > (fourth) director was not called as it was felt he would not know the > answer to this problem. The smart civilian just looked a little stunned > and remained silent. . What should have happened at the table??? > Thanks, Nancy Nancy asked me this in a private mail and I suggested she ask the group. But I will not retain my opinion, as it is the second one I had to change already this week (who says I'm stuck in my ways ?). The first idea is to say that dummy may not interfere in declarer's play, and a dummy correcting the facing of a trick by declarer (or even defender) is not allowed (except according to DWS during a period lasting IMHO one millisecond - see other thread). However L42A2 specifically authorises dummy to keep count of tricks. He is allowed to putting them facing correctly before him. So declarer is allowed to look at this. So I would also allow declarer to actively ask and dummy responding, so many tricks. Please remark that L42A2 talks about 'keep count', not merely of facing them correctly. - Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 22:46:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:14 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10115 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:08 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-22.uunet.be [194.7.13.22]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA16995 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:46:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3573EBAF.FC0ACC55@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:10:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... 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: > >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. > > I am interested in this policy. I don't think it a very good idea. I > remember an incorrect ruling at my table which would have been clearly > incorrect if anyone had taken the trouble to read the regulations out > instead of quoting them from memory. > Just on a practical note, David : Did you RTFLB when you last gave a ruling on - revoke - FOLOOT - ... some others you may know by heart ? Then there are lots of rulings where you only RTFLB because you have it at hand, and to make sure. This one is one where I simply had to RTFLB, because I had no clue. And then I got it wrong, apparently ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 22:46:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:24 +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 WAA10129 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:16 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-22.uunet.be [194.7.13.22]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17027 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:47:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3573EC97.865902F4@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:14:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... 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: > > > > >1 Cl - pass - 1 He - pass > >pass - pass - pass - 1 SP > > > >guess and then RTFLB > > > >(BTW, my guess was right ...) > (or rather not...) > This one is a little different, since it is [a] a question discussed > at length in an EBU Panel TDs' weekend and [b] a question discussed at > length on this list at a previous occasion, so I do have some idea. > > According to L39A a pass by defender, or any call by the future > declarer, carries no penalty. So the first pass has no penalty. > > According to L39B there is a lead penalty for the 1S. However, it > also refers to offender's LHO calling. This did not happen in this > case, since the LHO of the player who bid 1S did not call. > > According to L35 [main part] there is no penalty for the pass. > > According to L35D both the pass and the 1S are cancelled without > penalty. > > If you consider the usefulness of the two Laws, if you do not apply > L35D to this situation, then it has no use or meaning. L39B applies > when there is a single call not condoned. Logic suggests that L35D > applies. > I agree with the logic, but it opens a whole new can of worms. Whenever my RHO, having made the final bid, mistakenly adds a fourth pass, I shall henceforcward introduce a bid of 1 in any suit I would like my partner to lead. This seems a little strange, doesn't it ? (and yes, I know L72B2 applies ...) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 22:46:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:40 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10150 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:30 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-22.uunet.be [194.7.13.22]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17044 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:47:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3573ECE9.9F8F3E69@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:15:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: In my dreams X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <000d01bd8d77$75f5a760$e21737a6@uymfdlvk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: > Ruling ? > > No more pepperoni and anchovy pizza before bedtime for you. > > Chris Actually, it was strawberry coctails, cheese and red wine. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 22:46:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:41 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10152 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:46:31 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-22.uunet.be [194.7.13.22]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17052 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:47:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3573ED85.C2A7E486@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 14:18:13 +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 Labeo wrote: > > In message <199805241857.LAA20333@mh2.cts.com>, Jan Kamras > writes > >Herman wrote: > > > >>Or do you consider 'I don't know' a correct information ? > > Maybe my English is not clear enough. I was talking of correct in the sense of L40B, L75C, and the whole set of laws as we use it every day. > >If you don't know, then indeed it is. Isn't that obvious? > > It may be true, but it is not correct information. > Labeo: absolutely.... and it has the advantage that opponents > will win the ruling if there is an agreement and they > have gone astray because you have not told it. > -- Labeo Which is exactly my point. Since you will be ruled against, it is NOT correct information. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 2 22:48:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:48:16 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10180 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:48:10 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.69.2.18]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980602124842.TILM20489@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:48:42 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 08:42:40 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd8e23$ee3210e0$1202450c@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 Marvin French wrote: < various snips > >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 allowed the result to stand. The AC changed the contract to 4H, doubled. I must disagree with the AC. South knows from the auction that North has a probable void in hearts from the auction. Also that North has considerable values useful on both defense and offense. In fact, North has exactly the kind of hand I would expect from this auction. Law 16 (pre-1997 version) prevents a player from choosing from among logical alternatives one that is "reasonably" suggested over another by the extraneous information. I fail to see how a hesitation could "reasonably suggest" any action over another when, from your own hand, you can be virtually certain that partner has a void. South's long diamond suit and very weak heart suit strongly suggest bidding 5D. The extraneous information adds nothing to this analysis. To me, this hand represents the "if it hesitates, shoot it" school of thought at its worst. There is no thought to what the break in tempo might suggest that is not obvious from looking at the South hand. The only possible excuse for such a ruling is that the AC decided that South was such a bad player he/she was not capable of working this simple hand out for himself/herself. I read the write up, and fail to see such a justification in print. My rating: TD - 100; AC - 0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 00:22:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:22:10 +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 AAA13029 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:22:02 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ygrxv-0000mi-00; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:23:03 +0000 Message-ID: <35ZU8lAq$zc1EwZt@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 00:57:30 +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: <9806011146.aa13107@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9806011146.aa13107@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the right >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) > > -- Adam there was only 2 or 3 seconds between the two infractions and 4th in hand hadn't really worked out what was going on in the interval. It actually was unrealistic to expect me to have been called before the ordure had been spread very wide. It really happened. No player acted any other way than with best ethics and we were all powerless to stop it happening. Everyone (including me) was absolutely fascinated and so I posted this hoping for a couple of responses. I had never expected this thread to develop so far, and can only thank everyone again. -- 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 Jun 3 00:27:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:27:44 +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 AAA13077 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:27:37 +1000 Received: from default (ppp150.223.mmtl.videotron.net [207.96.223.150]) by boito.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA10331; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:28:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806021428.KAA10331@boito.videotron.net> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 10:25:49 -0400 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 Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustment if the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advantage from UI. BTW, this is my first time on the list. I am Christian Chantigny, ACBL TD from Montréal. Nice to meet you all! -----Message d'origine----- De : Herman De Wael À : Bridge Laws Date : 2 juin, 1998 10:15 Objet : Re: I had to RTFLB ... >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> >1 Cl - pass - 1 He - pass >> >pass - pass - pass - 1 SP >> > >> >guess and then RTFLB >> > >> >(BTW, my guess was right ...) >> > >(or rather not...) > >> This one is a little different, since it is [a] a question discussed >> at length in an EBU Panel TDs' weekend and [b] a question discussed at >> length on this list at a previous occasion, so I do have some idea. >> >> According to L39A a pass by defender, or any call by the future >> declarer, carries no penalty. So the first pass has no penalty. >> >> According to L39B there is a lead penalty for the 1S. However, it >> also refers to offender's LHO calling. This did not happen in this >> case, since the LHO of the player who bid 1S did not call. >> >> According to L35 [main part] there is no penalty for the pass. >> >> According to L35D both the pass and the 1S are cancelled without >> penalty. >> >> If you consider the usefulness of the two Laws, if you do not apply >> L35D to this situation, then it has no use or meaning. L39B applies >> when there is a single call not condoned. Logic suggests that L35D >> applies. >> > >I agree with the logic, but it opens a whole new can of worms. > >Whenever my RHO, having made the final bid, mistakenly adds a fourth >pass, I shall henceforcward introduce a bid of 1 in any suit I would >like my partner to lead. >This seems a little strange, doesn't it ? >(and yes, I know L72B2 applies ...) > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 02:17:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:17:22 +1000 Received: from postal.magibox.net (postal.magibox.net [206.26.142.145]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA13853 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:17:14 +1000 Received: from magibox.net (demeter-4.magibox.net [206.28.74.68]) by postal.magibox.net (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id LAA19360; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:18:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <35742655.CB74F5E2@magibox.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 11:20:37 -0500 From: Jim & Eve Lopushinsky Reply-To: jimlop@baste.magibox.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Buchhorn , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: set digest References: <3.0.32.19980602093535.00d8d370@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! Count me in, as one of the "listeners" who vote for a digest of BLML - would really be better from where I sit. :) Thanks. Eve Lopushinsky (Jim Lopushinsky) Memphis TN Markus Buchhorn wrote: > > Hi Craig, et al. > > >Whatever does this mean? I hope I'm not the only ignorant one, but just > the first to admit it. :-) > > > >G'day Robert, and the list. > > > >>Please set my bridge-laws mail to digest. > > > >Unfortunately at this stage BLML doesn't support digest-ing. Is it a > >serious problem for you ? I can have a look at setting up the necessary > >bits if several people would prefer this. > > Ok - since others may also not know - Setting a list to 'digest' means that > instead of receiving everything sent to the list in real time (i.e. as soon > as rgb.anu.edu.au gets it it sends it on to you) it stores all the articles > for a fixed period (a day, a week, whatever) or up to a fixed size (10, 100 > messages, 50kB, 100kB, whatever) and then sends you a 'digest' of all of > the articles. You receive one message containing multiple messages. This > reduces the number of messages you receive (but clearly not (much) the > number of bytes you download). You end up seeing all the articles once a > day, or once a week, rather than a continuous stream of individual messages. > > Some people prefer digests, especially those who don't post much but mainly > listen. Those who post frequently would, I think, not prefer digests (it's > fiddlier to respond to indvidual messages, unless your mailer happens to > automagically break digests into individual component messages again - > otherwise it will just reply-to the list address (see other thread :-) ). I > could imagine digests being a nice way to provide BLML to people at clubs > or non-emailable people - except of course you could just save all the > articles into a digest yourself... > > majordomo supports (effectively) a single list with both types of traffic - > so you can choose to receive individual articles or digests. However, at > this stage I have only configured the normal (simpler) non-digest form. Bob > is the first person to ask for digests - and it's a bit of work to prepare, > but not too much if I don't muck it up :-) > > So - anybody else want digests of BLML ? > > 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 Jun 3 02:24:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:24:06 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA13896 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:23:59 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-87.uunet.be [194.7.13.87]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA01724 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:25:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <357418D6.8B8DCED7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 17:23:02 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199806021428.KAA10331@boito.videotron.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by carbon.uunet.be id SAA01724 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk christian chantigny wrote: >=20 > Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are > cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this > situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustment = if > the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advantag= e > from UI. >=20 I don't think so. The call is cancelled ... without penalty (L35D). I do believe we have in the past agreed that no penalty means no penalty, not even L16 ! > BTW, this is my first time on the list. I am Christian Chantigny, ACBL= TD > from Montr=E9al. Nice to meet you all! Bienvenu ! --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 02:37:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:37:39 +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 CAA13982 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:37:32 +1000 Received: from egret.bu.edu (EGRET.BU.EDU [128.197.10.213]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id MAA25526 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:38:33 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by egret.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id MAA23805; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806021638.MAA23805@egret.bu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:38:28 -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 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. I assume "you guess" because you do not have an agreement which you forgot. I am also assuming that the percentages you give are based on prior experience with this partner, or on some other source of information (e.g. a mutual partner, the "club standard) which may not be directly available to your opponents (i.e. to distinguish it from that which is "general bridge knowledge"). But the percentages are NOT derived from information gotten from looking at your own hand. In this case the correct explanation should begin "we have no agreement as to the meaning of this bid...". Also, I think the opponents are entitled to these a priori percentages. However, if you can eliminate one possible explanation of the bid by looking at your own hand, the opponents are NOT entitled to that information. They are only entitled to the information you have WITHOUT looking at your hand. >>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. I disagree with this option. However, if one option is a priori much more likely than the others, the opponents might well guess that this is the one you are accepting. Usually when I give such an explanation, I may not explicitly state what I think the bid means, but usually try to imply what I think it means. Recall that the opponent, by looking at her hand, might be able to eliminate a possibility which you can't. I dont believe the opponents are entitled to know what I am thinking. (And I'm not certain how many of them could handle it, in any case) As such, I keep my guesses to myself. Similarly, I dont believe the opponents are entitled to know how my partner intended his bid (i.e. what he thinks his bid should mean). I would summarize my view as: Never INTERPRET your partners bid out loud. Always EXPLAIN it as well and as completely as you can. I also do not believe the opponents have a Laws-given right to know we are having a misunderstanding. If we are, I wont hide it if it becomes clear because our explanations dont agree, but I dont feel they are entitled to it. >>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 dont believe the opponents are entitled to know what my partner is thinking. Thus, I dont believe the opponents are entitled to know how my partner intended his bid (i.e. what he guesses his bid should mean). However, if my partner is basing his bid on a prior understanding, either explicit or implicit, then if I dont specify this he will treat this as misinformation to the opponents and act accordingly. BTW, when playing under conditions where self-explaining is allowed, (e.g. screens, okbridge) I will not "interpret" my own bid if I feel that we dont have an agreement. Rather I will give the same type of explanation I hope my partner would give (starting with "we have no explicit agreement..."). >> I understand both options are more than the Laws require, Agreed. I think I am expressing the "party line". I also think that this qualifies as "full disclosure," if followed completely. However, I can see that your approach makes it harder for a situation of incomplete disclosure to occur, but that's another argument. >> 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 >> On a related issue: Frequently a situation comes up where the partner of a bidder is probably aware that an agreement about the bid might well exist, or he *knows* it exists but cant remember it. In such situations, my usual solution is to remove the partner from the table and instruct the bidder to explain any agreement he has about his own bid. I caution him that he should only express agreements and understandings - not explain how he meant the bid. I feel that this approach minimizes UI and MI (UI to bidder only that his partner might not know what his bid meant). I am assuming that this is proper. Is there any reason why it would not be? Also, occasionally as a player, I might excuse myself from the table in such situations and ask partner to describe our agreement in my absence. No opponent has ever objected, except those who want to know "how I took the bid". I tell them (politely) to mind their own business. -- David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 03:04:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 03:04:01 +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 DAA14164 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 03:03:55 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12000; 2 Jun 98 10:04 PDT To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jun 1998 11:21:26 PDT." Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:04:12 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806021004.aa12000@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > >I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the > > >following events had occurred: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 he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn bid, > > >would the rest have happened??? Nancy > > > > No, of course not. But first in hand did not see partner's OOT 1C > > [see above] so he can hardly be blamed for not calling the TD! Someone > > considering something didn't affect matters. The TD could hardly have > > been called earlier! It is quite normal for someone who knows it is his > > turn to call to make a call oblivious to what else is going on. I see > > no reason for any lack of sympathy for this. It is *quite* different > > from players not calling the TD when they know they should. My lack of sympathy was for *4th* in hand, not 1st. Mr. 4th knew that the bid was out of turn (according to John's statement, "is considering whether to condone") and should have called the director immediately. (OTOH, there may be a misconception among less-knowledgeable players that calling the director forfeits your right to condone.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 03:08:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 03:08:27 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA14199 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 03:08:21 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12253; 2 Jun 98 10:08 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 "Tue, 02 Jun 1998 00:57:30 PDT." <35ZU8lAq$zc1EwZt@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:08:45 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806021008.aa12253@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John wrote: > there was only 2 or 3 seconds between the two infractions and 4th in > hand hadn't really worked out what was going on in the interval. It > actually was unrealistic to expect me to have been called before the > ordure had been spread very wide. OK. I must have gotten the wrong impression of what happened. If this is what happened, I'll retract that part of what I said. I still think it's possible that the 1D bid can't be penalized if the 1C OOT bid isn't accepted, depending on how you interpret the Laws. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 03:51:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 03:51:15 +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 DAA14467 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 03:51:09 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA11148 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 13:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 13:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806021752.NAA23001@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <357418D6.8B8DCED7@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Tue, 02 Jun 1998 17:23:02 +0200) Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > christian chantigny wrote: [after three passes, pass by declarer, then bid by defender] >> Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are >> cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this >> situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustment if >> the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advantage >> from UI. > I don't think so. The call is cancelled ... without penalty (L35D). > I do believe we have in the past agreed that no penalty means no > penalty, not even L16 ! In this case, we also have to deal with Law 16C. Under the old Laws, the defender's bid would be AI to his own side whether he was considered the offender or not. Here, I would rule that the defender is not an offender because his infraction was a result of an opponent's infraction. This is how I understand the purpose of Law 35D. -- 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 Jun 3 07:13:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:13:41 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15416 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:13:29 +1000 Received: from cph32.ppp.dknet.dk (cph32.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.32]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA15951 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 23:14:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 23:14:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35926af8.11227474@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:13:08 +0100, David Martin wrote: >> ########## It seems to me that, with the exception of the case below, >> the only possible reason for correcting partner's error *during the >> play period* rather than at the end of play is ensure that he has a >> correct count of the number of tricks won and lost to date which must >> surely be drawing his attention to "the number of tricks still >> required for success" and, hence, clearly illegal under Law 74C4. Any >> other purpose for correction could clearly wait until the end of play >> except for the situation where partner has unwittingly won the last >> trick and is now waiting for someone else to lead to the next trick. >> ######### This point of view in effect says that counting tricks is each player's individual responsibility and is no concern of the other players. But if that were the intention of the law, why does L65B exist? If = keeping track of tricks is a private matter, all the laws needed to say was "each player must keep a count of his tricks". Instead of doing that, L65B defines a specific way of counting tricks and makes that specific way of counting a part of the correct procedure for playing the game. Turning cards correctly is not a private matter - they should be turned correctly for the benefit of everybody at the table (and for the TD), and in honour of L72A1. There is nowhere in the laws where a general concept of "an irregularity whose correction can wait until after play" is defined or used. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 07:13:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:13:42 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15425 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:13:34 +1000 Received: from cph32.ppp.dknet.dk (cph32.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.32]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA15961 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 23:14:29 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 23:14:29 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <358d62c5.9127925@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <35746e0c.4927895@pipmail.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <35746e0c.4927895@pipmail.dknet.dk> 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 Sun, 31 May 1998 16:53:02 +0200, I wrote: >This is the usual interpretation, and it is also the way we rule >in Denmark. But is it correct? and is it reasonable? In this message, I'd like to drop the question of correctness completely and instead argue my point of view about how the rules _should_ be. I would like laws that clearly allowed (or even required) all four = players, at all times, to: * call attention to any player's card turned the wrong way, and * warn any player who is obviously about to commit an irregularity (but only if is definitely an irregularity - i.e., I'd allow stopping someone from leading out of turn, but I'd not allow a defender to warn his = partner about a possible revoke, since he can never know if it really is a = revoke). Note that this also includes the right to help your _opponents_ with = these things - a right that is not clearly granted in the current laws. I cannot see how anyone can take unfair advantage of such rules. They would of course change the game slightly: they almost completely remove = the risk of getting a bad score because you don't know how many tricks you've won, and they reduce the risk of getting a bad score by leading out of turn. But I don't see those risks as important parts of bridge. I've never met anybody who played bridge through a computer program complain that his opponents were deprived of the chance to miscount their tricks because = the computer counted them. Would anyone think that such a program should = leave it to the user to count tricks, so that he would get his lawful chance to do it wrongly? If we agree that a correct trick count at all times is good for the game, then we should at least allow all four players to help each other = maintain a correct trick count, considering that such a right really cannot be abused. And if we agree that reducing the number of irregularities of the LOOT = type is good for the game, then we should at least allow all four players to help each other avoid such irregularities - and I don't see how this = right could be abused, either. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 07:13:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:13:42 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA15423 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:13:32 +1000 Received: from cph32.ppp.dknet.dk (cph32.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.32]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA15957 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 23:14:27 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 23:14:27 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35916993.10869779@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 18:42:42 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > You may draw attention to partner's irregularities. In effect you do >so to prepare the ground for a ruling from the TD. Yes. >You do not have the >right to warn him before he commits himself [unless you are dummy]. An interesting side issue: I'm not quite sure I agree, and I definitely find it silly, but I'll resist the temptation to argue that now... >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>What is so special about turning a card the wrong way that L73B >>and L74C4 should be more important than L9A for that specific >>irregularity but not for other irregularities? > > L74C4 refers specifically to the number of tricks, which is what you >are trying to get right when you tell partner he has a trick wrong. L9A >refers to calling attention unless prohibited by Law. L74C4 contains >that prohibition for number of tricks Well, actually it does so only for "the number of tricks still required = for success" which is not the same thing at all. > and by inference to a card the >wrong way. So you are not allowed to draw attention to a trick the >wrong way but are to most other irregularities. Irregularities are not "significant occurrences" in the sense of L74C4? It seems to me that L74C4 is concerned with statements like "now we just need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" from a player who is afraid his partner may let the contract win by trying to set it two = tricks. I.e., indications of the tactical status of the play. This is a very different matter from pointing out an irregularity, even = if doing so happens to call attention to the number of tricks each side has taken. You can only do it if/when partner actually turns his card the wrong way, and the information given does not include any information = (such as tactical considerations) that is not available to all players. It simply helps playing the game according to the correct procedure. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 07:15:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:15:13 +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 HAA15489 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:15:02 +1000 Received: from default (ppp215.131.mmtl.videotron.net [207.96.131.215]) by boito.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA16099; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 17:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806022115.RAA16099@boito.videotron.net> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 17:13:16 -0400 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 Read the Law : "Players are authorized to base their calls and PLAYS on information fron LEGAL CALLS and plays. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. Here, the partner of the spade bidder is not allowed to hear that bid, and is therefore not entitled to base any further action on whatever UI gained from that call. The "without penalty" portion applies only to the lead penalties provided for in Law 26. Furthermore, even with the lead penalties of Law 26, partner of the spade bidder would still not be allowed to benefit from UI, even after having paid the penalty. Herman, are you a fan of Bob Morane? Christian -----Message d'origine----- De : Herman De Wael À : Bridge Laws Date : 2 juin, 1998 13:33 Objet : Re: I had to RTFLB ... christian chantigny wrote: > > Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are > cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this > situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustment if > the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advantage > from UI. > I don't think so. The call is cancelled ... without penalty (L35D). I do believe we have in the past agreed that no penalty means no penalty, not even L16 ! > BTW, this is my first time on the list. I am Christian Chantigny, ACBL TD > from Montréal. Nice to meet you all! Bienvenu ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 07:37:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:37:21 +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 HAA15741 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 07:37:15 +1000 Received: from cph16.ppp.dknet.dk (cph16.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.16]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA16853 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 23:38:14 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: set digest Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 23:38:13 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35946e7b.12126547@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.32.19980602093535.00d8d370@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980602093535.00d8d370@acsys.anu.edu.au> 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, 02 Jun 1998 09:35:35 +1000, Markus Buchhorn wrote: > I >could imagine digests being a nice way to provide BLML to people at = clubs >or non-emailable people - except of course you could just save all the >articles into a digest yourself... I think digests would be rather difficult to read, since they would be sorted by date instead of by thread. Even simple mail programs that cannot keep track of message threads can = at least usually sort on the subject field to give some degree of overview = of a thread. I expect that most BLML readers would be better served by a good e-mail program that can filter BLML messages into a separate folder and show = them organized by thread. But that is of course no reason not to provide digests if several people want them. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 08:04:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:04:18 +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 IAA15987 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:04:11 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA16955 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806022205.SAA00892@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199806022115.RAA16099@boito.videotron.net> (ohmss@videotron.ca) Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk christian chantigny writes: > Read the Law : "Players are authorized to base their calls and PLAYS on > information fron LEGAL CALLS and plays. To base a call or play on other > extraneous information may be an infraction of law. But only "may be". For example, if an infraction by an opponent causes an action to be withdrawn by partner, Law 16C says that this is AI to you. In the old Laws, after any penalty was paid, even partner's illegal action became AI to you. > Here, the partner of the spade bidder is not allowed to hear that bid, and > is therefore not entitled to base any further action on whatever UI gained > from that call. The "without penalty" portion applies only to the lead > penalties provided for in Law 26. > Furthermore, even with the lead penalties of Law 26, partner of the spade > bidder would still not be allowed to benefit from UI, even after having paid > the penalty. Correct under Law 16C if the spade bid is considered to be the offender's infraction, but this is the point under dispute. -- 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 Jun 3 08:13:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:13:05 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16078 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:12:58 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA06686; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 17:13:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.65) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006599; Tue Jun 2 17:13:12 1998 Received: by har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8E51.DF9F5BE0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:11:33 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8E51.DF9F5BE0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Nancy T Dressing'" Subject: RE: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:11:31 -0400 Encoding: 54 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk #####=Craig's comments From:(N) Nancy T Dressing[SMTP:nancy@pinehurst.net] (DWS)David Stevenson wrote: (A)> Adam Beneschan wrote: (DWS)> >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the right > >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I > >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East > >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I > >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) > (A)> In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not > called immediately. #####As does Nancy, I must partially disagree with this, Adam, and as usual agree with DWS because he is infuriating usually right, :-) (N)I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the following events had occurred: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 #####He didn't call the TD beause he was unaware of any irregularity. (N)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) #####He didn't call promptly,because he was thinking about his options. It would have been better if he called the director then, but it is common in club games (though improper) only to call the director if the situation is sufficiently unusual that the players think they need to. (This is especially likely in games with a playing director...was John playing?) (N)1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. #####He didn't call because he had no idea the bidding hadbegun. :-) (N)If he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn bid, would the rest have happened??? Nancy #####Probably not. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we don't promptly call TD. (Apologies to RB and those who insist on true rhymes :-)) Craig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 08:31:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:31:01 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16257 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:30:52 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA17468 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 18:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806022231.SAA01687@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <35946e7b.12126547@pipmail.dknet.dk> (jesper@dybdal.dk) Subject: Re: set digest Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal writes: > On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 09:35:35 +1000, Markus Buchhorn > wrote: >> I >> could imagine digests being a nice way to provide BLML to people at clubs >> or non-emailable people - except of course you could just save all the >> articles into a digest yourself... > I think digests would be rather difficult to read, since they would be > sorted by date instead of by thread. > Even simple mail programs that cannot keep track of message threads can at > least usually sort on the subject field to give some degree of overview of > a thread. Most mail problems can burst digests into their component messages, and then process them as individual messages. -- 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 Jun 3 08:47:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:47:16 +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 IAA16447 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:47:07 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa03622; 2 Jun 98 15:47 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 "Tue, 02 Jun 1998 18:11:31 PDT." <01BD8E51.DF9F5BE0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 15:47:07 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806021547.aa03622@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: > (DWS)> >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the > right > > >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I > > >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East > > >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I > > >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) > > > (A)> In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not > > called immediately. > > #####As does Nancy, I must partially disagree with this, Adam, and as usual > agree with DWS because he is infuriating usually right, :-) Forgive me if I misunderstand your notations, but I wrote the first paragraph you quoted above, and David wrote the second. If you got us backward, and if this means that you now have to refer to me as "infuriating usually right", so much the better. :-) :-) :-) > (N)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) > > #####He didn't call promptly,because he was thinking about his > options. . . . Really, calling the director isn't an option, it's mandatory. On the other hand, John has already given us some insight as to why the director wasn't called immediately. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 08:48:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:48:43 +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 IAA16472 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:48:37 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.172] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0ygzqp-0001Za-00; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 23:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001801bd8e78$75e36b20$ac2d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 23:47:44 +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 Adam wrote: > >John wrote: > >> there was only 2 or 3 seconds between the two infractions and 4th in >> hand hadn't really worked out what was going on in the interval. It >> actually was unrealistic to expect me to have been called before the >> ordure had been spread very wide. > >OK. I must have gotten the wrong impression of what happened. If >this is what happened, I'll retract that part of what I said. I still >think it's possible that the 1D bid can't be penalized if the 1C OOT >bid isn't accepted, depending on how you interpret the Laws. This aspect of it still concerns me. A possible interpretation is: If East did not accept 1C (which did not happen, but might have done), 1D ceased to exist as a bid. The "turn to call" reverted to South, who was now compelled to pass. One could treat his 1D opening as no more than a noise: "Hey, I've got an opening bid with some diamonds!" and just treat it as UI to North without giving West the chance to condone it. On the other hand: South's 1D was certainly a bid (L18A) and it was certainly made when it was not his turn to call (it was either East's turn or no one's, as has been established). So, it was a call out of rotation for the purposes of L29, and West should be given the opportunity to elect to call over it (L29A). If you accept the first interpretation, then DWS's eminently sensible argument fails, for South's 1D is no longer in the equation. If you accept the second, then DWS's argument is correct in every essential. Since this is the first time that DWS and I will ever have agreed about anything as far as this list is concerned, I would prefer the second interpretation. But in either case, it is clear how to rule. And I trust that by now, we are agreed that infractions of this kind should be treated in the order in which they occurred - this being the main point of John Probst's query. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 09:20:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 09:20:08 +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 JAA16615 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 09:20:00 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-181.access.net.il [192.116.204.181]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA16079; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:20:17 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3574897D.D31F4335@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 02:23:41 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: christian chantigny CC: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... References: <199806022115.RAA16099@boito.videotron.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by Q.inter.net.il id CAA16079 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bienvenue Christian=20 First the most important issue : Do you have cats ?? If yes , please report their names to David Stevenson . The Cats' BLMLC is the best here and you"ll get the names of all their members and cats' TD owner . Now to the Laws : The Law applying here is 39B - not 35B , because the parentheses of L39B refers to offenders' LHO . No one called after 1S player. The penalty of Law 26 may apply , as written. For sure Law 16 may apply too because it deals with any UI. welcome to the club Amitie Dany christian chantigny wrote: >=20 > Read the Law : "Players are authorized to base their calls and PLAYS o= n > information fron LEGAL CALLS and plays. To base a call or play on othe= r > extraneous information may be an infraction of law. >=20 > Here, the partner of the spade bidder is not allowed to hear that bid, = and > is therefore not entitled to base any further action on whatever UI gai= ned > from that call. The "without penalty" portion applies only to the lead > penalties provided for in Law 26. >=20 > Furthermore, even with the lead penalties of Law 26, partner of the spa= de > bidder would still not be allowed to benefit from UI, even after having= paid > the penalty. >=20 > Herman, are you a fan of Bob Morane? >=20 > Christian > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Herman De Wael > =C0 : Bridge Laws > Date : 2 juin, 1998 13:33 > Objet : Re: I had to RTFLB ... >=20 > christian chantigny wrote: > > > > Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are > > cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this > > situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustmen= t if > > the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advant= age > > from UI. > > >=20 > I don't think so. The call is cancelled ... without penalty (L35D). >=20 > I do believe we have in the past agreed that no penalty means no > penalty, not even L16 ! >=20 > > BTW, this is my first time on the list. I am Christian Chantigny, AC= BL TD > > from Montr=E9al. Nice to meet you all! >=20 > Bienvenu ! >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 09:58:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 09:58:35 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA16696 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 09:58:29 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client263d.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.61]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA04653 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:59:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:01:53 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8e82$d0b298a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 2:37 PM Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" >It is not the same with declarer taking a card out of his hand and, >before facing it, dummy being able to say : "no partner, you're at the >table". > >So really I see no reason for dummy to correct declarer at any time. Is this because you occasionally, as declarer, deliberately lead from the wrong hand in the hope that you will get away with it Herman? You would then prefer if Dummy was asleep:-)) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 10:49:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:49:30 +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 KAA16792 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:48:00 +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 RAA05740 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 17:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806030048.RAA05740@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 17:45:01 -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 ---------- > From: JApfelbaum > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 > Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 5:42 AM > > Marvin French wrote: > > < various snips > > > > >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 allowed the result to stand. The AC changed the contract to 4H, > doubled. > > I must disagree with the AC. South knows from the auction that North has a > probable void in hearts from the auction. Also that North has considerable > values useful on both defense and offense. In fact, North has exactly the > kind of hand I would expect from this auction. > Then why not bid 5D over 4H, as most of us would? The vulnerable 3H bid showed a monster hand, so South has learned nothing from the double, except that North is in doubt about doubling. This was IMPs, after all, and a 5D bid over 4H would be good insurance (I would expect it to make). The AC has to believe that the only reason this South decided to bid 5D over the double was the break in tempo; otherwise he would have bid it on the previous round. In other words, 5D is a good bid--on the previous round. Having decided to let the opponents play 4H, a double should not change South's mind. He thought it was logical to let the opponents play 4H, and now that partner has doubled it is no longer logical? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 10:49:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:49:56 +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 KAA16810 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:49:50 +1000 Received: from default (ppp082.121.mmtl.videotron.net [207.253.121.82]) by boito.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id UAA07576; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806030050.UAA07576@boito.videotron.net> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:47:37 -0400 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 Dany, Sorry but no cats. My girlfriend has 2 though... Read the preamble to Law 35 : "When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of Law 26 do not apply)..." In the case that Herman wrote about, the inadmissible call was the fourth pass. Offender's LHO having bid spades, the calls are cancelled according to the provisions of 35D. 39B would apply only for one inadmissible call made after the final pass by a defender. -----Message d'origine----- De : Dany Haimovici À : christian chantigny Cc : Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Date : 2 juin, 1998 20:19 Objet : Re: I had to RTFLB ... Bienvenue Christian First the most important issue : Do you have cats ?? If yes , please report their names to David Stevenson . The Cats' BLMLC is the best here and you"ll get the names of all their members and cats' TD owner . Now to the Laws : The Law applying here is 39B - not 35B , because the parentheses of L39B refers to offenders' LHO . No one called after 1S player. The penalty of Law 26 may apply , as written. For sure Law 16 may apply too because it deals with any UI. welcome to the club Amitie Dany christian chantigny wrote: > > Read the Law : "Players are authorized to base their calls and PLAYS on > information fron LEGAL CALLS and plays. To base a call or play on other > extraneous information may be an infraction of law. > > Here, the partner of the spade bidder is not allowed to hear that bid, and > is therefore not entitled to base any further action on whatever UI gained > from that call. The "without penalty" portion applies only to the lead > penalties provided for in Law 26. > > Furthermore, even with the lead penalties of Law 26, partner of the spade > bidder would still not be allowed to benefit from UI, even after having paid > the penalty. > > Herman, are you a fan of Bob Morane? > > Christian > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Herman De Wael > À : Bridge Laws > Date : 2 juin, 1998 13:33 > Objet : Re: I had to RTFLB ... > > christian chantigny wrote: > > > > Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are > > cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this > > situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustment if > > the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advantage > > from UI. > > > > I don't think so. The call is cancelled ... without penalty (L35D). > > I do believe we have in the past agreed that no penalty means no > penalty, not even L16 ! > > > BTW, this is my first time on the list. I am Christian Chantigny, ACBL TD > > from Montréal. Nice to meet you all! > > Bienvenu ! > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 10:53:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:53:44 +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 KAA16846 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:53:35 +1000 Received: from modem80.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.80] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yh1p7-00037B-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:54:37 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Recorder Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:18:50 +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 { My cat has nine tails.} ---------- > From: Tim West-meads > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > \x/ \x/ > 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. > ++++ [ *and* the information has been verified. Untreated allegation not good enough. # G # ] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 10:53:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:53:45 +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 KAA16848 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:53:39 +1000 Received: from modem80.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.80] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yh1pA-00037B-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:54:40 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 23:16:42 +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 { My cat has nine tails.} --------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Non-Conventional Insufficiency > Date: 01 June 1998 15:33 > > At 01:05 PM 5/31/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >On > >the other hand :-))) I am inclining to a definition of 'convention' which > >says "any call or play deemed by the SO to be capable of regulation > >under Law 40D." > > Given Grattan's lofty position, I would ask him to refrain from making such > statements, even in jest, where a member of the ACBL Board of Directors > might read them. > ++++ Jest? Who, me? And, Eric, that 'lofty position' is a pillory rather than a pedestal! Another thing, Edgar and I used to be in agreement, he said, that any kind of sense would give regulating bodies power to regulate all matters of system - but he declined to propose it for law because, he said, you could not trust such bodies to use the power sensibly! But he never quoted the ACBL as an example, always less experienced organizations.... # Grattan # ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 10:53:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:53:46 +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 KAA16845 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:53:34 +1000 Received: from modem80.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.80] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yh1p6-00037B-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:54:36 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:46:04 +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 Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" > Date: 02 June 1998 02:44 > > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> You may draw attention to partner's irregularities. In effect you do > >> so to prepare the ground for a ruling from the TD. You do not have the > >> right to warn him before he commits himself [unless you are dummy]. ++++ And, of course, we are now all aware that in the absence of the kind of authorisation that Laws 9A2(b)(2) and 42B2 give to dummy other players are not authorized to take such action to warn partner. The Kaplan style at work again and so to be interpreted! =Grattan= ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 11:24:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:24:48 +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 LAA16985 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:24:41 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yh2JD-0006wn-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:25:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:20:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Declarer asks re tricks In-Reply-To: <35735869.CED4346D@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <35735869.CED4346D@pinehurst.net>, Nancy T Dressing writes >At the local club game last week, a table consisting of three directors >and 1 civiliam ahd the following problem: >About half way thru the play of the hand, declarer ( a director) asked >"How many tricks have I taken?" snip Law 42A1 would require the Director to be called, but he should rule that dummy can establish the number of tricks and would be obliged as to *fact* to do so, since dummy *may* keep count of tricks 42A2. It's subtle but I think we can ask "how many tricks" as follows 65B1 and 65B2 state how to place our cards. If we don't know how many tricks we have taken we have failed to comply with this Law. 9B1a can be applied because we have an irregularity. Now we've got the TD to the table and we tell him we're in breach of L65. He can rule that the hand may be adjusted under 12A2 unless the tricks are sorted out (as declarer just refuses to play unless he knows how many tricks he's got) and then tell dummy to establish the trick count. Of course Herman would then dream that dummy gets it wrong :) 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 Wed Jun 3 11:24:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:24:55 +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 LAA16995 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:24:47 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yh2JG-0006x0-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:25:47 +0000 Message-ID: <4Dg3izAK1Jd1Ewy+@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:48:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... In-Reply-To: <199806022115.RAA16099@boito.videotron.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199806022115.RAA16099@boito.videotron.net>, christian chantigny writes snip > >christian chantigny wrote: >> >> Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are >> cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this >> situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustment if >> the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advantage >> from UI. >> > >I don't think so. The call is cancelled ... without penalty (L35D). > >I do believe we have in the past agreed that no penalty means no >penalty, not even L16 ! > >> BTW, this is my first time on the list. I am Christian Chantigny, ACBL TD >> from Montral. Nice to meet you all! > >Bienvenu ! > salut mec! a-tu des chats? It is obligatory on this list to declare one's cats to David Stevenson. -- 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 Jun 3 11:24:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:24:48 +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 LAA16984 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:24:41 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yh2JD-0006mD-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:25:44 +0100 Message-ID: <2zB0+3AN6Jd1EwRe@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 01:53:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" In-Reply-To: <01bd8e82$d0b298a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bd8e82$d0b298a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >-----Original Message----- >From: Herman De Wael >To: Bridge Laws >Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 2:37 PM >Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" > >>It is not the same with declarer taking a card out of his hand and, >>before facing it, dummy being able to say : "no partner, you're at the >>table". >> >>So really I see no reason for dummy to correct declarer at any time. > >Is this because you occasionally, as declarer, deliberately lead from >the wrong hand in the hope that you will get away with it Herman? You >would >then prefer if Dummy was asleep:-)) >Anne > > Dummy may endeavour to prevent an infraction by declarer (L42B2). Bashing the table as dummy or saying "from Dummy" attempts to prevent the infraction, when pard is leading from the wrong hand. However on the subject of wrongly turned cards, once a card is quitted the infraction *has* occured and you're too late to say "Our trick". If you can catch pard in the act of putting it down the wrong way you are in time - but you have to be very awake to catch it. 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 Wed Jun 3 11:57:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:57:43 +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 LAA17134 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:57:36 +1000 Received: from modem29.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.29] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yh2p4-0003n5-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:58:38 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:55:23 +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 Grattan { My cat has nine tails.} ---------- wrote: >> ########## It seems to me that, with the exception of the case below, >> the only possible reason for correcting partner's error *during the >> play period* rather than at the end of play is ensure that he has a >> correct count of the number of tricks won and lost to date which must >> surely be drawing his attention to "the number of tricks still >> required for success" and, hence, clearly illegal under Law 74C4. Any >> other purpose for correction could clearly wait until the end of play >> except for the situation where partner has unwittingly won the last >> trick and is now waiting for someone else to lead to the next trick. >> ######### ++++ [This is rather extreme. At an early stage in the play period the concern may be a more general one related to the objects listed in Law 65. ]++++ \x/ \x/ Jesper Dybdal: There is nowhere in the laws where a general concept of "an irregularity whose correction can wait until after play" is defined or used. -- ---------- ++++ But the laws do establish that actions which the law permits may convey unauthorized information and this happens to be one kind of UI of which the laws say it is improper to convey to partner information about the number of tricks still required for success. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 11:57:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:57:48 +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 LAA17139 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:57:42 +1000 Received: from modem29.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.29] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yh2p3-0003n5-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:58:37 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:35:34 +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 { My cat has nine tails.} ---------- An interesting side issue: I'm not quite sure I agree, and I definitely find it silly, but I'll resist the temptation to argue that now... ~+++ When Edgar led the Committee his drafting method was that a statement such as 'Dummy is authorized to make coffee on Sundays' meant not only that dummy could not make it on other days but also that, without similar authorization, other players could not make it at all. Law 9A2(b)(2) is a case in point; other players have no authorization to warn partner. It was Geoffrey Butler who first brought into the laws the concept of playing the game as the laws specified it should be played and not introducing extraneous procedure. The Committee has accepted the principle. +++~ It seems to me that L74C4 is concerned with statements like "now we just need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" from a player who is afraid his partner may let the contract win by trying to set it two tricks. I.e., indications of the tactical status of the play. ++++ [ I think you are short of the mark here Jesper. I am prepared to hear it argued that only in some positions will calling attention to the wrongly turned card alert partner to the fact that he only needs one trick not two to beat the contract. But there are definitely such positions. I would be surprised if you had never suddenly realised, for yourself without partner's prompting, that you only need one more trick to beat the game when you had been working on two. ~ Grattan ~ ] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 14:05:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:05:36 +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 OAA17394 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:05:31 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-4.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.170]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA15199 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3574CBB5.CB741319@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:06:14 -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: complex bid out of turn ruling References: <01BD8E51.DF9F5BE0@har-pa2-01.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C8DD8E71E08626A6E31647AA" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------C8DD8E71E08626A6E31647AA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Craig Senior wrote: > #####=Craig's comments > > From:(N) Nancy T Dressing[SMTP:nancy@pinehurst.net] > > (DWS)David Stevenson wrote: > > (A)> Adam Beneschan wrote: > > (DWS)> >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the > right > > >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I > > >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East > > >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I > > >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) > > > (A)> In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not > > called immediately. > > #####As does Nancy, I must partially disagree with this, Adam, and as usual > agree with DWS because he is infuriating usually right, :-) > > (N)I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the > following events had occurred: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 > > #####He didn't call the TD beause he was unaware of any irregularity. > > (N)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) > > #####He didn't call promptly,because he was thinking about his options. It > would have been better if he called the director then, but it is common in > club games (though improper) only to call the director if the situation is > sufficiently unusual that the players think they need to. (This is > especially likely in games with a playing director...was John playing?) > > (N)1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid. > > #####He didn't call because he had no idea the bidding hadbegun. :-) > > (N)If he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn > bid, > would the rest have happened??? Nancy > > #####Probably not. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we don't promptly > call TD. (Apologies to RB and those who insist on true rhymes :-)) > Craig This is why I would cancel everything prior to the proper opening bidders call. Some how players have to learn to call the director when any irregularity occurs at the table, even your own! This is drilled into my novices from day 1 and I have next to none handling things without calling. And it is how I learned!!!! Law book not handy but I believe 82(?) for failing to follow procedures. Nancy --------------C8DD8E71E08626A6E31647AA Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

Craig Senior wrote:

#####=Craig's comments

From:(N)        Nancy T Dressing[SMTP:nancy@pinehurst.net]

(DWS)David Stevenson wrote:

(A)> Adam Beneschan wrote:

(DWS)> >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the
right
> >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I
> >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book.  East
> >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I
> >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.)
>
(A)>   In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not
> called immediately.

#####As does Nancy, I must partially disagree with this, Adam, and as usual
agree with DWS because he is infuriating usually right, :-)

(N)I read this statement to say that when he arrived at the table the
following events had occurred: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

#####He didn't call the TD beause he was unaware of any irregularity.

(N)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)

#####He didn't call promptly,because he was thinking about his options. It
would have been better if he called the director then, but it is common in
club games (though improper) only to call the director if the situation is
sufficiently unusual that the players think they need to. (This is
especially likely in games with a playing director...was John playing?)

(N)1st in hand opens 1D (nat), not having seen partners OOT 1C bid.

#####He didn't call because he had no idea the bidding hadbegun. :-)

(N)If he had arrived at the table immediately after the first out of turn
bid,
would the rest have happened???   Nancy

#####Probably not. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we don't promptly
call TD. (Apologies to RB and those who insist on true rhymes :-))
Craig

  This is why I would cancel everything prior to the proper opening bidders call.  Some how players have to learn to call the director when any irregularity occurs at the table, even your own!  This is drilled into my novices from day 1 and I have next to none handling things without calling.  And it is how I learned!!!!  Law book not handy but I believe 82(?) for failing to follow procedures.  Nancy --------------C8DD8E71E08626A6E31647AA-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 14:29:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:29:52 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA17433 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:29:47 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-4.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.170]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA16364 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3574D168.E7AAB917@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:30:33 -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: Declarer asks re tricks References: <35735869.CED4346D@pinehurst.net> <3573E8BE.3CF2@txdirect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was indeed a friendly game at the local club. All involved in this problem were firends but none were sure of the answer. (including the official director.) The dummy was a director of more than 40 years experience and had never had this happen and he generally is the guru but he wasn't sure either. It was so unusual we wanted to know what BLML's replies would be. Nancy Albert "biig-Al" Lochli wrote: > Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > > At the local club game last week, a table consisting of three directors > > and 1 civiliam ahd the following problem: > > About half way thru the play of the hand, declarer ( a director) asked > > "How many tricks have I taken?" Dummy starts looking back at his cards > > (looking at the face while keeping them face down and does not respond. > > - also a director) The third director at the table says" We can't tell > > you that and dummy cannot look back at his cards!!" Declarer says "Yes > > you can, if I ask." The third director suggested that he should not > > even ask. However, no one answered and play continued. The official > > (fourth) director was not called as it was felt he would not know the > > answer to this problem. The smart civilian just looked a little stunned > > and remained silent. . What should have happened at the table??? > > Thanks, Nancy > > Since this was in a Club game this perhaps enters the realm of > common social courtesy and discourse. > > Law 43A1(c) prohibits the dummy participating in the play. > Law 42A2 Has him keep track of tricks. > Law 42A1 Has him give Information as to fact "in the directors presence" > > Either, or both of the opps should have stated the conditions > at the moment without such a to do. In Law 42 dummy's rights are > constrained; but since 42A2 has dummy keep track of tricks - and > Law 42A1 has him give information to fact in the directors > presence - one simple solution would be to call > the director and under Law 42A1 have him give the information > when asked "in the director's presence". Dummy could then answer > and the director would get a bit of exercise. > > However Law 74 should take precedence. Particularily 74A1. > > Question: Why is it necessary to ask?? Are one or more of the tricks > taken in one or more of the positions different?? Have one or more > of the players violated Law 65 in the arrangement of tricks?? If an > apparent descrepancy exists call the director have him straighten > this out now. > > And why not call the official 4th director?? He might know, > or he might open the Law Book and read the Law to the 3 other > directors so they could then know - - what arrogance from > these 3 directors in making in effect their own ruling at the table. > Isn't that prohibited somewhere?? > > >The smart civilian just looked a little stunned and was silent. > Surely in the presence of such all-knowing and all-powerful ones > he should have been in awe. And he may have played rubber whose > current and former laws specifically have the dummy answer this > specific question. But that is not duplicate. In duplicate we > are mean and vicious and follow the Law. Well some of them. > > -- > BiigAl, > Al Lochli - POBox 15701 San Antonio TX 78212-8901 > http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 19:35:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:35:48 +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 TAA17997 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:35:41 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yh9yM-0006Zm-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:36:45 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:00:32 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 20:00:31 +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 know and respect your view but my position is not > based > >> simply on the fact that simpler rulings are produced. That alone > >> would *not* be a good reason. It just happens to be a convenient > >> benefit of this approach. There are deeper and more fundamental > >> reasons based in logic and the structure of the Laws that lead to > me > >> to suppose that ruling in the reverse order is simply more correct. > >> After all, what would you have done if West had called over 1D > because > >> he did not realise that his partner had been bypassed in the > auction? > >> ######## > > The same as if his partner had called over 1C, I expect. > > ########## But the situation is not symmetric is it? Wouldn't a call > by West over 1D condone *both* the 1C and 1D BOOTs whereas a call by > East over the 1C would *only* condone the 1C BOOT and leave the 1D to > be dealt with in some way? ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 19:35:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:35:42 +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 TAA17991 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:35:35 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yh9yG-0006Zm-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:36:38 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 2 Jun 1998 19:41:55 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: I had to RTFLB ... Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 19:41:52 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: SNIP > I agree with the logic, but it opens a whole new can of worms. > > Whenever my RHO, having made the final bid, mistakenly adds a fourth > pass, I shall henceforcward introduce a bid of 1 in any suit I would > like my partner to lead. > This seems a little strange, doesn't it ? > (and yes, I know L72B2 applies ...) > > ######### And remember that the lowest possible bid in the required > suit asks for a small card to be led whilst a jump bid requests a high > card lead through Dummy's presumed honour! ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 22:53:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:53:42 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA18698 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:53:34 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.69.2.152]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980603125406.RIKD14006@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:54:06 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:48:07 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd8eed$db2b8e20$9802450c@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 >> < various snips > >> >> >> >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 allowed the result to stand. The AC changed the contract to 4H, >> doubled. >> >> I must disagree with the AC. South knows from the auction that North has a >> probable void in hearts from the auction. Also that North has considerable >> values useful on both defense and offense. In fact, North has exactly the >> kind of hand I would expect from this auction. >> >Then why not bid 5D over 4H, as most of us would? The vulnerable 3H >bid showed a monster hand, so South has learned nothing from the >double, except that North is in doubt about doubling. This was IMPs, >after all, and a 5D bid over 4H would be good insurance (I would >expect it to make). The AC has to believe that the only reason this >South decided to bid 5D over the double was the break in tempo; >otherwise he would have bid it on the previous round. In other words, >5D is a good bid--on the previous round. Having decided to let the >opponents play 4H, a double should not change South's mind. He >thought it was logical to let the opponents play 4H, and now that >partner has doubled it is no longer logical? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) In my opinion, passing in the direct chair over 4H is a reasonable call. All South knows so far is that North has a big hand. It is possible for North to have a second suit (long spades?) that would make a different contract possible. Pass is forcing because of North's cue bid. All that means is that South is not certain what the final contract should be. There is also the difference between bidding 5D directly versus passing and then bidding 5D. Many of my partners play that a direct bid in these auctions shows a weaker hand than passing and then bidding. Personally, I prefer the opposite approach. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 3 22:56:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:56:19 +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 WAA18718 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:56:13 +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 IAA11722 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id IAA14163; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 08:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806031257.IAA14163@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >It seems to me that L74C4 is concerned with statements like "now we just >need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" from a player who is >afraid his partner may let the contract win by trying to set it two tricks. >I.e., indications of the tactical status of the play. > >This is a very different matter from pointing out an irregularity, even if >doing so happens to call attention to the number of tricks each side has >taken. You can only do it if/when partner actually turns his card the >wrong way, and the information given does not include any information (such >as tactical considerations) that is not available to all players. It >simply helps playing the game according to the correct procedure. >-- But isn't this the point? For example: your partner is on lead, you need one trick to set the contract. However, your partner has one card turned wrong, and thinks either 1) "we need 2 tricks to set this, hmmm..." or 2) "great! he's down one, the putz :-) :-)...", selon le cas. You gently interrupt his train of thought (a train which might have been about to go off the rails, to the benefit of your opponents) and inform him that he can't keep track of the tricks. The added benefit , of course, is that this may indeed refresh his memory as to what was going on ("Thanks, Pard!"). Why would this not be considered a form of illegal communication? As well, would a player, as this guy's pard, even bother to correct if he was holding the setting trick, for example, the high trump? Would he bother if he "knew" that whatever pard did was irrelevant? IMHO, I don't think so. Therefore, unless the player *always* corrected pard's incorrect turn of the card, said selective correction would be based on "tactical considerations" and impart UI. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 00:29:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:29:21 +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 AAA21205 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:29:15 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA20055; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 09:29:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020030; Wed Jun 3 09:29:19 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8EDA.39F341A0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:27:36 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8EDA.39F341A0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: complex bid out of turn ruling Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:27:25 -0400 Encoding: 58 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, you BOTH are infuriatingLY usually right (and can type better too. :-) (see also comment at bottom) ---------- From: Adam Beneschan[SMTP:adam@flash.irvine.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 6:47 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: complex bid out of turn ruling Craig wrote: > (DWS)> >(I know some of you will want to argue that this gives E-W the > right > > >to penalize only one of the opponent's infractions and not both; but I > > >have no sympathy because E-W are not non-offenders, in my book. East > > >committed a big offense by not calling the director immediately, and I > > >put a lot of blame on him for causing this mess.) > > > (A)> In the scenario proposed there is no suggestion that the TD was not > > called immediately. > > #####As does Nancy, I must partially disagree with this, Adam, and as usual > agree with DWS because he is infuriating usually right, :-) Forgive me if I misunderstand your notations, but I wrote the first paragraph you quoted above, and David wrote the second. If you got us backward, and if this means that you now have to refer to me as "infuriating usually right", so much the better. :-) :-) :-) > (N)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) > > #####He didn't call promptly,because he was thinking about his > options. . . . Really, calling the director isn't an option, it's mandatory. #####I fully agree, and thought that was the point I was making a little bit tongue in cheek. Too many players "consider their options" without being correctly apprised of what they truly are. Perhaps we need a new abbreviation: CTFD (Call the Funloving Director) as a companion to RTFLB. :-) On the other hand, John has already given us some insight as to why the director wasn't called immediately. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 01:43:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:43:17 +1000 Received: from bach.videotron.net (bach.videotron.net [205.151.222.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA21495 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:43:10 +1000 Received: from default (ppp242.232.mmtl.videotron.net [207.96.232.242]) by bach.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA29542; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:44:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806031544.LAA29542@bach.videotron.net> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: "JApfelbaum" , Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:40:05 -0400 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 Jay, I agree with you that the AC was wrong in forcing south to stand the penalty double. The Law states that a player may not choose from amongst logical alternatives one rather than another that may have been suggested by the UI. First of all, would passing 4H X be considered logical on this auction? Clearly not when south holds this stack of diamonds and lenght in hearts! Secondly, how many souths would pass the double if done in tempo? Clearly a majority of souths would correct to 5D. Partner is almost certain to be void in hearts and one of the opp. is marked with a diamond void. Granted, North has conveyed the UI that the double is unsound by the slow double, information corroborated by south's heart holding. However, South still has something to contribute to this story ; his powerful diamond holding, still unknown to North! Of course, we are not getting all the details of the case. Maybe something was disclosed during the hearing that caused the AC to rule this way. But as it looks, it seems the AC took the view that it was perfectly logical for south to pass a penalty double, thinking partner could actually defeat it on the strenght of his HC, yet not allowing south to think that his diamond holding AND partner's stack of HC could actually produce a vulnerable game at IMPs. It would be interesting to know how the AC considered the pass of 4H by south. Did they think he was actually in a forcing Pass situation? Despite his partner's cue-bid, he was no longer obligated to bid. Surely, the cue-bid could only have been justified by a very distributional hand and a free bid of 5D over 4H could very well induce North to blast into slam, holding a 3-loser hand versus a partner bidding freely 5D. Just my opinion, of course... Christian -----Message d'origine----- De : JApfelbaum À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 3 juin, 1998 10:50 Objet : Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 >>> < various snips > >>> >>> >>> >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 allowed the result to stand. The AC changed the contract to 4H, >>> doubled. >>> >>> I must disagree with the AC. South knows from the auction that North has >a >>> probable void in hearts from the auction. Also that North has >considerable >>> values useful on both defense and offense. In fact, North has exactly the >>> kind of hand I would expect from this auction. >>> >>Then why not bid 5D over 4H, as most of us would? The vulnerable 3H >>bid showed a monster hand, so South has learned nothing from the >>double, except that North is in doubt about doubling. This was IMPs, >>after all, and a 5D bid over 4H would be good insurance (I would >>expect it to make). The AC has to believe that the only reason this >>South decided to bid 5D over the double was the break in tempo; >>otherwise he would have bid it on the previous round. In other words, >>5D is a good bid--on the previous round. Having decided to let the >>opponents play 4H, a double should not change South's mind. He >>thought it was logical to let the opponents play 4H, and now that >>partner has doubled it is no longer logical? >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > >In my opinion, passing in the direct chair over 4H is a reasonable call. All >South knows so far is that North has a big hand. It is possible for North to >have a second suit (long spades?) that would make a different contract >possible. Pass is forcing because of North's cue bid. All that means is that >South is not certain what the final contract should be. > >There is also the difference between bidding 5D directly versus passing and >then bidding 5D. Many of my partners play that a direct bid in these >auctions shows a weaker hand than passing and then bidding. Personally, I >prefer the opposite approach. > >Jay Apfelbaum >Pittsburgh, PA > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 02:15:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 02:15:10 +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 CAA21716 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 02:15:02 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-168.access.net.il [192.116.204.168]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA28934; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:14:23 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35757729.4E3EDD0B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:17:45 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: Jesper Dybdal , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > { My cat has nine tails.} > > ---------- > An interesting side issue: I'm not quite sure I agree, and I definitely > find it silly, but I'll resist the temptation to argue that now... > > ~+++ When Edgar led the Committee his drafting method was that > a statement such as 'Dummy is authorized to make coffee on Sundays' > meant not only that dummy could not make it on other days but also > that, without similar authorization, other players could not make it at > all. > Law 9A2(b)(2) is a case in point; other players have no authorization to > warn partner. It was Geoffrey Butler who first brought into the laws > the concept of playing the game as the laws specified it should be > played and not introducing extraneous procedure. The Committee > has accepted the principle. +++~ > Would you be so kind to explain the Paragraph above with more details please ? I believe it will help many of us to understand better the "spirit" of the Laws' formulation. Tx Dany From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 03:21:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:21:17 +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 DAA21928 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:21:09 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA23634; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:21:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023565; Wed Jun 3 12:21:02 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8EF2.35E56DA0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:19:17 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8EF2.35E56DA0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , JApfelbaum Subject: RE: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 13:19:15 -0400 Encoding: 161 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think we are all agreed that a pull to 5D was suggested over pass by the slow double. That this might have been the most likely bid in the absence of the hesitation is not the point. Pass would have to be shown not to be an LA. Would some reasonable number of players of like quality have seriously considered passing after an in tempo double? (Would some even have actually done so?) Then pass is an LA, and 5D is prohibited by the hesitation regardless of the fact that it may appear the superior action. A logical alternative does not have to be the best bid (or even a very good bid). It does not have to be what I would have bid or most would have bid. It must only be an action that a number of peers would have seriously weighed (U.S. view) or a non majority (is it 1/4) might have taken elsewhere. As this is an ACBL tourney, the stricter definition of LA would apply. If the pass over 4H undoubled was somehow NOT forcing, the decision is even clearer, and the causal link more obvious between the slow double and the 5D bid. But the 5D bid need not result from the hesitation...it must only be an LA suggested by it. To my view it is, therefore it is prohibited, therefore roll back to 4H doubled. The situation may have been poorly enough understood by south to forgive the lapse, hence I would consider a PP only in the face of a substantial history of abuse of similar situations by this player. (A world class south player with a tendency to cut corners conceivably might deserve a PP.) ----- Craig Senior ---------- From: christian chantigny[SMTP:ohmss@videotron.ca] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 11:40 AM To: JApfelbaum; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Hello Jay, I agree with you that the AC was wrong in forcing south to stand the penalty double. The Law states that a player may not choose from amongst logical alternatives one rather than another that may have been suggested by the UI. First of all, would passing 4H X be considered logical on this auction? Clearly not when south holds this stack of diamonds and lenght in hearts! Secondly, how many souths would pass the double if done in tempo? Clearly a majority of souths would correct to 5D. Partner is almost certain to be void in hearts and one of the opp. is marked with a diamond void. Granted, North has conveyed the UI that the double is unsound by the slow double, information corroborated by south's heart holding. However, South still has something to contribute to this story ; his powerful diamond holding, still unknown to North! Of course, we are not getting all the details of the case. Maybe something was disclosed during the hearing that caused the AC to rule this way. But as it looks, it seems the AC took the view that it was perfectly logical for south to pass a penalty double, thinking partner could actually defeat it on the strenght of his HC, yet not allowing south to think that his diamond holding AND partner's stack of HC could actually produce a vulnerable game at IMPs. It would be interesting to know how the AC considered the pass of 4H by south. Did they think he was actually in a forcing Pass situation? Despite his partner's cue-bid, he was no longer obligated to bid. Surely, the cue-bid could only have been justified by a very distributional hand and a free bid of 5D over 4H could very well induce North to blast into slam, holding a 3-loser hand versus a partner bidding freely 5D. Just my opinion, of course... Christian -----Message d'origine----- De : JApfelbaum A : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 3 juin, 1998 10:50 Objet : Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 >>> < various snips > >>> >>> >>> >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 allowed the result to stand. The AC changed the contract to 4H, >>> doubled. >>> >>> I must disagree with the AC. South knows from the auction that North has >a >>> probable void in hearts from the auction. Also that North has >considerable >>> values useful on both defense and offense. In fact, North has exactly the >>> kind of hand I would expect from this auction. >>> >>Then why not bid 5D over 4H, as most of us would? The vulnerable 3H >>bid showed a monster hand, so South has learned nothing from the >>double, except that North is in doubt about doubling. This was IMPs, >>after all, and a 5D bid over 4H would be good insurance (I would >>expect it to make). The AC has to believe that the only reason this >>South decided to bid 5D over the double was the break in tempo; >>otherwise he would have bid it on the previous round. In other words, >>5D is a good bid--on the previous round. Having decided to let the >>opponents play 4H, a double should not change South's mind. He >>thought it was logical to let the opponents play 4H, and now that >>partner has doubled it is no longer logical? >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > >In my opinion, passing in the direct chair over 4H is a reasonable call. All >South knows so far is that North has a big hand. It is possible for North to >have a second suit (long spades?) that would make a different contract >possible. Pass is forcing because of North's cue bid. All that means is that >South is not certain what the final contract should be. > >There is also the difference between bidding 5D directly versus passing and >then bidding 5D. Many of my partners play that a direct bid in these >auctions shows a weaker hand than passing and then bidding. Personally, I >prefer the opposite approach. > >Jay Apfelbaum >Pittsburgh, PA > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 03:24:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:24:21 +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 DAA21951 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:24:13 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1026179; 3 Jun 98 17:24 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:14:04 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:14:02 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:13:08 +0100, David Martin > wrote: > > >> #####OLD##### It seems to me that, with the exception of the case > below, > >> the only possible reason for correcting partner's error *during the > >> play period* rather than at the end of play is ensure that he has a > >> correct count of the number of tricks won and lost to date which > must > >> surely be drawing his attention to "the number of tricks still > >> required for success" and, hence, clearly illegal under Law 74C4. > Any > >> other purpose for correction could clearly wait until the end of > play > >> except for the situation where partner has unwittingly won the last > >> trick and is now waiting for someone else to lead to the next > trick. > >> ####OLD##### > > This point of view in effect says that counting tricks is each > player's > individual responsibility and is no concern of the other players. > > But if that were the intention of the law, why does L65B exist? ###### > See below. ####### If keeping > track of tricks is a private matter, all the laws needed to say was > "each > player must keep a count of his tricks". > > Instead of doing that, L65B defines a specific way of counting tricks > and > makes that specific way of counting a part of the correct procedure > for > playing the game. Turning cards correctly is not a private matter - > they > should be turned correctly for the benefit of everybody at the table > (and > for the TD), and in honour of L72A1. > > ######## And to stop the turning of tricks being used to convey > illegal information! ######### > > There is nowhere in the laws where a general concept of "an > irregularity > whose correction can wait until after play" is defined or used. > > ####### Isn't there? Try Law 75D2 for a Defender and you could also > look at Law 66D. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 04:39:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:39:33 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22248 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:39:27 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.69.2.68]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980603183955.WVYY14006@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:39:55 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:33:57 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd8f1e$2bad2400$4402450c@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 On June 3, Craig Senior wrote: > I think we are all agreed that a pull to 5D was suggested over pass by >the slow double. That this might have been the most likely bid in the >absence of the hesitation is not the point. Pass would have to be shown not >to be an LA. Would some reasonable number of players of like quality have >seriously considered passing after an in tempo double? (Would some even >have actually done so?) Then pass is an LA, and 5D is prohibited by the >hesitation regardless of the fact that it may appear the superior action. > A logical alternative does not have to be the best bid (or even a very >good bid). It does not have to be what I would have bid or most would have >bid. It must only be an action that a number of peers would have seriously >weighed (U.S. view) or a non majority (is it 1/4) might have taken >elsewhere. As this is an ACBL tourney, the stricter definition of LA would >apply. > If the pass over 4H undoubled was somehow NOT forcing, the decision is >even clearer, and the causal link more obvious between the slow double and >the 5D bid. But the 5D bid need not result from the hesitation...it must >only be an LA suggested by it. To my view it is, therefore it is >prohibited, therefore roll back to 4H doubled. The situation may have been >poorly enough understood by south to forgive the lapse, hence I would >consider a PP only in the face of a substantial history of abuse of similar >situations by this player. (A world class south player with a tendency to >cut corners conceivably might deserve a PP.) There is something wrong with this analysis. We know by looking at the South hand that North has a heart void. Therefore, I fail to see what additional information is made available by North's break in tempo. A break in tempo does not, by itself, set in motion the query under Law 16. The break must convey unauthorized information before we can start a Law 16 analysis. So, I ask everyone on BLML, what EXTRA information does this break in tempo convey? (That is, information not readily apparent from a review of the auction and the South hand.) Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 05:38:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:33 +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 FAA22426 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:23 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhJNd-0005PU-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:39:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:27:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Recorder In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Grattan >> 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. >++++ [ *and* the information has been verified. Untreated allegation not >good enough. # G # ] I am not quite sure why this is the case. No action would be taken based on unverified allegations but it seems to me that one of the advantages of the system is that one does not make a fuss over one or two small allegations. JApfelbaum wrote: >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. One of the reasons I asked a question on this list is that while we have some idea of what a Recorder is for, the potential gains were not completely obvious to us, and I wish Jay had expounded them. ---------- All the replies we have received seem to be warnings. Any suggestions as to advantages? -- 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 Jun 4 05:38:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:32 +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 FAA22427 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:23 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhJNd-0005PW-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:39:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:36:36 +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 David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> David Martin wrote: >> >> >> ########## I know and respect your view but my position is not >> based >> >> simply on the fact that simpler rulings are produced. That alone >> >> would *not* be a good reason. It just happens to be a convenient >> >> benefit of this approach. There are deeper and more fundamental >> >> reasons based in logic and the structure of the Laws that lead to >> me >> >> to suppose that ruling in the reverse order is simply more correct. >> >> After all, what would you have done if West had called over 1D >> because >> >> he did not realise that his partner had been bypassed in the >> auction? >> >> ######## >> >> The same as if his partner had called over 1C, I expect. >> >> ########## But the situation is not symmetric is it? Wouldn't a call >> by West over 1D condone *both* the 1C and 1D BOOTs whereas a call by >> East over the 1C would *only* condone the 1C BOOT and leave the 1D to >> be dealt with in some way? ########## Look, David, I don't care. L29A gives offender's LHO the right to condone a COOT so if I am the TD called to the table for a COOT then I give offender's LHO the right to condone it. More relevantly, if he has already called by the time I get to the table then he has applied L29A correctly, so I do not argue. L10B: when the players have done the right thing I don't stop it. You say >> ########## But the situation is not symmetric is it? I did not say it was symmetric. I merely invoke L29A. -- 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 Jun 4 05:38:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:33 +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 FAA22428 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:25 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhJNZ-0005PV-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:39:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:37:24 +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 Richard Lighton wrote: > >On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Irwin J Kostal wrote: >> >I'm sorry, David, but I just don't understand what you mean when you say >> >"...before he commits himself." Commits himself in what way? Does this >> >mean that if he turns a trick in the wrong direction, I can correct him >> >before he plays to the next trick, but not after? In what other ways >> >might he be said to "commit himself?" Forgive me for being dense (If >> >that's what I'm being.) :) >> >> If partner takes a call out of the bidding box nothing gives you the >> right to say "Hold it, it is not your turn!" unless you are dummy. You >> may draw attention to partner's call out of turn so as to initiate a TD >> call but you may not warn him in advance. >> >> By "commits himself" I mean he actually does an irregularity. In the >> case of a player putting a card down wrong, dummy can correct him if he >> warns him before he lets go of the card, but not thereafter. >> >I have not found anything in the lawbook that confirms or denies this >claim. If partner reaches for his bidding box, what is the penalty for >saying "It's not your move?" > >Similarly, in mid-play, what is the penalty for saying "It's not your >lead" if you observe partner starting to take a card out of his hand >when it is someone else's turn? > >I do not believe L16 fits. No, of course not. It is a breach of L73A1 and is dealt with under L90A. To save people with no Law book handy, it is not one of the permitted forms of communication between partners. It is thus a Violation of Procedure and a Procedural Penalty can be issued. -- 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 Jun 4 05:38:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:54 +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 FAA22461 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:42 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhJNt-0005PW-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:39:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:54:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... In-Reply-To: <3573EBAF.FC0ACC55@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: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >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. >> >> I am interested in this policy. I don't think it a very good idea. I >> remember an incorrect ruling at my table which would have been clearly >> incorrect if anyone had taken the trouble to read the regulations out >> instead of quoting them from memory. >> > >Just on a practical note, David : > >Did you RTFLB when you last gave a ruling on >- revoke No. >- FOLOOT What is FO? If you mean an OLOOT that is different anyway: we recommend our Directors *not* to read them from the book. >- ... >some others you may know by heart ? No: but I don't go "some weeks" without reading from the book. Unless you do very little directing, I am surprised at this. >Then there are lots of rulings where you only RTFLB because you have it >at hand, and to make sure. No, I don't. I also read from the Law book to give my listeners confidence. >This one is one where I simply had to RTFLB, because I had no clue. > >And then I got it wrong, apparently ? I don't know: I am not sure what you ruled! Let me make something clear: there probably are a few Directors who know the Laws by heart, and can always quote them accurately. If so, then there is still a case for reading them [or appearing to read them]. But my experience from other TDs, from TD training at all levels, from reading RGB and BLML, is that TDs *often* make mistakes when quoting Laws and Regulations from memory. So I do not approve of not reading them. And yes, *I* am not perfect in this regard - but that does not alter my advice. -- 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 Jun 4 05:38:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:56 +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 FAA22469 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:38:46 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhJNw-0005PU-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:39:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:35:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: I had to RTFLB ... In-Reply-To: <199806021428.KAA10331@boito.videotron.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk christian chantigny wrote: >Even though the Law states that the Pass and all subsequent calls are >cancelled without (lead) penalties, Law 16 (UI) still applies to this >situation. The non-offending side may be entitled to score adjustment if >the Director decides that the offending side had gained unfair advantage >from UI. > >BTW, this is my first time on the list. I am Christian Chantigny, ACBL TD >from Montral. Nice to meet you all! Nice to meet 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 Thu Jun 4 05:39:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:39:45 +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 FAA22498 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:39:31 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhJNw-0005PW-00; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:39:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:17:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199806021638.MAA23805@egret.bu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Metcalf wrote: >On a related issue: >Frequently a situation comes up where the partner of a bidder is >probably aware that an agreement about the bid might well exist, or >he *knows* it exists but cant remember it. >In such situations, my usual solution is to remove the partner from >the table and instruct the bidder to explain any agreement he has >about his own bid. I caution him that he should only express >agreements and understandings - not explain how he meant the bid. >I feel that this approach minimizes UI and MI (UI to bidder only that his >partner might not know what his bid meant). >I am assuming that this is proper. Is there any reason why it >would not be? This is a recommended procedure in England/Wales. -- 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 Jun 4 05:42:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:42:17 +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 FAA22528 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:42:10 +1000 Received: from daffy.bu.edu (metcalf@DAFFY.BU.EDU [128.197.12.121]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id PAA24560 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:43:12 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by daffy.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id PAA04105; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806031943.PAA04105@daffy.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 15:43:08 -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 JApfelbaum wrote: >>On June 3, Craig Senior wrote: >>> I think we are all agreed that a pull to 5D was suggested over pass by >>>the slow double. >>>[Remainder of Craig Seniors letter deleted] >> >>There is something wrong with this analysis. We know by looking at the South >>hand that North has a heart void. Therefore, I fail to see what additional >>information is made available by North's break in tempo. >> >>A break in tempo does not, by itself, set in motion the query under Law 16. >>The break must convey unauthorized information before we can start a Law 16 >>analysis. >> >>So, I ask everyone on BLML, what EXTRA information does this break in tempo >>convey? (That is, information not readily apparent from a review of the >>auction and the South hand.) >> >>Jay Apfelbaum >>Pittsburgh, PA >> So, I ask you, Jay, what EXTRA information did the double itself convey, that made south bid 5D now, when he was not willing to do so before the double? I can see two answers to this question: (1) The double *did* give additional information about the north hand which made the 5D bid more attractive. In this case we would need to know what this information was, and convince ourselves that it is this information which either makes the pass not a LA, or makes the hesitation not suggest that 5D would be better than passing. (2) The double did *not* give any extra information. However, the passer could not systemically bid 5D at this time without describing a different hand type. He passed, knowing that 5D would be a better result than defending 4H, and either hoped or knew (e.g. if the auction was forcing) that he would get another chance. In either case, north-south, in order to make their case, would need to demonstrate that they were acting within their system. System notes would help here - they might well have an uphill fight. -- David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 07:09:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:09:34 +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 HAA22729 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:09:25 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA23242; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:09:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023208; Wed Jun 3 16:09:32 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8F12.24619480@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:07:51 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8F12.24619480@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'JApfelbaum'" Subject: RE: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:07:50 -0400 Encoding: 71 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The information conveyed is that North took some time before doubling. This implies that he was considering some other action, such as bidding on or passing. The less confident North appears to be in his penalty double, the greater the suggestion to South that pulling it may be a successful action. A pull is an LA, so is leaving the double in. The pull is suggested as being more likely to be a favourable action than if North has doubled in tempo; therefore it is not permitted. Would I pull absent the hitch? Probably. Should I be allowed to after partner's pregnant pause? Nope. The unauthorized information being conveyed is the lack of confidence partner has in the penalty double...I don't have to know why he is leery of it...just THAT he is to be more likely to consider a pull. Craig ---------- From: JApfelbaum[SMTP:JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:33 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 On June 3, Craig Senior wrote: > I think we are all agreed that a pull to 5D was suggested over pass by >the slow double. That this might have been the most likely bid in the >absence of the hesitation is not the point. Pass would have to be shown not >to be an LA. Would some reasonable number of players of like quality have >seriously considered passing after an in tempo double? (Would some even >have actually done so?) Then pass is an LA, and 5D is prohibited by the >hesitation regardless of the fact that it may appear the superior action. > A logical alternative does not have to be the best bid (or even a very >good bid). It does not have to be what I would have bid or most would have >bid. It must only be an action that a number of peers would have seriously >weighed (U.S. view) or a non majority (is it 1/4) might have taken >elsewhere. As this is an ACBL tourney, the stricter definition of LA would >apply. > If the pass over 4H undoubled was somehow NOT forcing, the decision is >even clearer, and the causal link more obvious between the slow double and >the 5D bid. But the 5D bid need not result from the hesitation...it must >only be an LA suggested by it. To my view it is, therefore it is >prohibited, therefore roll back to 4H doubled. The situation may have been >poorly enough understood by south to forgive the lapse, hence I would >consider a PP only in the face of a substantial history of abuse of similar >situations by this player. (A world class south player with a tendency to >cut corners conceivably might deserve a PP.) There is something wrong with this analysis. We know by looking at the South hand that North has a heart void. Therefore, I fail to see what additional information is made available by North's break in tempo. A break in tempo does not, by itself, set in motion the query under Law 16. The break must convey unauthorized information before we can start a Law 16 analysis. So, I ask everyone on BLML, what EXTRA information does this break in tempo convey? (That is, information not readily apparent from a review of the auction and the South hand.) Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 07:22:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:22:02 +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 HAA22756 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:21:56 +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 RAA00043 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11699; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:23:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 17:23:04 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806032123.RAA11699@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Recorder X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > All the replies we have received seem to be warnings. Any suggestions > as to advantages? 1. Complaints can be made at any time, not just at the moment an incident occurs. (Time and circumstance may prevent a player from making an immediate complaint or even a complaint before the tournament ends.) 2. A pattern of behavior, not obvious in any single incident, may be discerned. 3. The recorder can take informal action, e.g. simply making sure the player complained against knows the rules. 4. There is a written, more or less permanent, record of complaint and of at least some of the relevant facts. (Recorder forms have space for a full hand record and the names of all players present.) It would be possible to gather the same information if complaints were made in other forms, but the recorder system makes it automatic. 5. The recorder acts as a screener, preventing (or at least discouraging) trivial complaints from going to the C&E committee and encouraging serious ones to go forward. 6. The system makes players who believe themselves to have been wronged feel better by allowing them to take some action at less trouble than a formal proceeding. 7. The recorder can, in principle, gather information about what complaints are common. This allows publicity campaigns or other general action, not directed at a specific player, to try to improve things. In practice, this seems not to have happened in the ACBL, but perhaps it has and I just don't realize it. Likely there are more. I think 2 was the main motivation for creating the system, but the others are important too. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 07:22:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:22:17 +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 HAA22764 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:22:07 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA06198 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:19:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806032119.QAA06198@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:19:44 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 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. It all depends on what those general principles are. If they are partnership understandings, then they must be revealed. If they are principles of "general bridge knowledge or experience" then they need not be. > 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. I agree to leave it to 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. I agree. It usually happens with pick-up partnerships, and even then usually only in unusual auctions. But it does happen--as I said, it happened to me in an individual game just a couple of weeks ago. > 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. I think this is evidence of impossibly high standards. You(player) and I become an pick-up partnership, enter an undiscussed area of bidding, you make a bid that I guess to mean one thing when really it means something else, and I say "no agreement". After we manage by sheer luck [since I have misunderstood your bid!] to blunder into a good result, you(TD) will then automatically rule misinformation! We had no agreement, I said we had no agreement, my partner agrees that we have no agreement, the fact that I understood one thing by the bid and partner understood something different indicates we have no agreement--and yet my claim to have had no agreement is ruled as misinformation. > > 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. Sure, because you have determined that we have really agree that the bid will mean whatever partner intends, even if _we_ never agreed that. > 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. That would indeed be good advice, if you know the TD has already decided to automatically penalize you if you say 'no agreement' and get a good result. > > 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 It _might_ be prima facie reason to think there is an agreement. But if there other evidence [such as the fact that partner and I met 5 minutes ago at the desk] suggests that we really have no agreement after all, this outweighs the prima facie evidence. But it another way. If I am in a pick-up partnership and have no agreement on an auction, and I answer "we have no agreement on this auction", I will consider it nothing less than a profound miscarriage of justice if I am ruled against for "misinformation". > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 07:30:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:30:28 +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 HAA22819 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:30:19 +1000 Received: from cph35.ppp.dknet.dk (cph35.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.35]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA19161 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 23:31:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:31:19 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <357dbe4a.5190683@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199806031257.IAA14163@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199806031257.IAA14163@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> 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, 3 Jun 1998 08:57:14 -0400 (EDT), ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) wrote: >But isn't this the point? For example: your partner is on lead, you need >one trick to set the contract. However, your partner has one card turned >wrong, and thinks either 1) "we need 2 tricks to set this, hmmm..." or >2) "great! he's down one, the putz :-) :-)...", selon le cas. You gently >interrupt his train of thought (a train which might have been about to >go off the rails, to the benefit of your opponents) and inform him that >he can't keep track of the tricks. The added benefit , of course, is = that >this may indeed refresh his memory as to what was going on ("Thanks, = Pard!"). Correct, but when he has a trick turned wrongly and is confused about the number of tricks needed, the confusion is almost always a direct consequence of the wrongly turned trick. The point is that if it is legal to inform him that he can't keep track of the tricks, then you will always help him keep track of his tricks, and the concept of a board gone wrong because of a bad trick count in practice disappears completely. I would consider that good for the game. If you consider it bad for the game, then you should indeed prefer the usual interpretation that refreshing his memory is illegal. >Why would this not be considered a form of illegal communication? Because it is a question of pointing out an irregularity which has definitely occurred. Your question could just as well be asked about calling attention to _any_ irregularity by partner - and we do at least all seem to agree that calling attention to partner's irregularities is not generally forbidden. >As well, would a player, as this guy's pard, even bother to correct if >he was holding the setting trick, for example, the high trump?=20 Yes! Partner turns his trick the wrong way - now what? 99 out of 100 players would immediately correct (if they were/are allowed to) simply because they believe in playing the game in an orderly fashion without irregularities and/or because it will almost always be to their advantage that partner has a correct trick count. The remaining 1% of players might start thinking "could it be to my advantage not to correct partner's wrongly turned trick?". 99% of that 1% would quickly realize that they could not be sure, but that it probably would not, and they would also correct partner. The remaining 1 player out of 10000 might not correct partner, thus getting the possible advantage that the current interpretation forces upon him anyway. I do not see that as a problem. >Would he bother if he "knew" that whatever pard did was irrelevant? If it is really irrelevant what partner does, then it is also irrelevant whether he corrects partner's wrongly turned trick. But anyway, I'd say "yes", because he usually cannot be sure. >IMHO, I don't think so. IMHO, I think so - because "knew" is not the same as knew. >Therefore, unless the player *always* corrected pard's incorrect turn >of the card, said selective correction would be based on "tactical >considerations" and impart UI. Absolutely correct. But in practice, "all" players would "always" correct it (or an opponent would, once we all got used to the fact that incorrectly turned cards were to be corrected). And even if they did not, it would give them an advantage only in extremely few of the extremely few situations when partner turned his card wrongly. (Of course, in theory partner could turn his card wrongly deliberately in order to see whether you corrected it or not - but if players really want to cheat, finger signals or foot-tapping is probably simpler and and at least as good.) Thank you, Tony, for a contribution that correctly points out the theoretical problems with my suggested interpretation, giving me a chance to explain why I do not believe them to be practical problems. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 07:30:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:30:30 +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 HAA22820 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:30:20 +1000 Received: from cph35.ppp.dknet.dk (cph35.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.35]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA19167 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 23:31:22 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:31:21 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <357ec05b.5720044@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:14:02 +0100, David Martin wrote: >Jesper wrote: >> There is nowhere in the laws where a general concept of "an >> irregularity >> whose correction can wait until after play" is defined or used. >>=20 >> ####### Isn't there? Try Law 75D2 for a Defender and you could also >> look at Law 66D. ######### Yes, that's why I included the word "general". What I meant was that nowhere do the laws leave it to the player/TD to judge that a certain type of irregularity can be left until after play. The laws specifically tell us which (few) irregularities can be left until after play. This leads me to assume that we are not to do so with other irregularities just because we might judge them to also be of a kind that can be handled afterwards. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 07:30:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:30:31 +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 HAA22821 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:30:20 +1000 Received: from cph35.ppp.dknet.dk (cph35.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.35]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA19156 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 23:31:17 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:31:16 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <357bbda9.5029972@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:35:34 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >It seems to me that L74C4 is concerned with statements like "now we just >need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" from a player who = is >afraid his partner may let the contract win by trying to set it two = tricks. >I.e., indications of the tactical status of the play. > >++++ [ I think you are short of the mark here Jesper. I am prepared=20 >to hear it argued that only in some positions will calling attention to=20 >the wrongly turned card alert partner to the fact that he only needs one >trick not two to beat the contract. But there are definitely such >positions.=20 Saying "Nice weather today" may also happen to bring partner out of a trance in which he believed that he needed two tricks instead of one. There is only an (admittedly quite large) difference in degree between that and saying "that was our/their trick, partner". Neither statement calls attention specifically to the number of tricks needed to attain a certain goal. IMO there is an enormous difference between the unethical "now we just need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" and "that was our/their trick, partner". The former is a superfluous statement that a player chooses to make in order to help partner solve a bridge problem; the latter is a statement that can only be made when there is an established irregularity, and it conveys no direct information other than the fact that it actually was partner's trick. It is important to have a law that prohibits the former, and I believe that to be the intention behind L74C4. When partner has turned a card wrongly, he will quite often have a miscount of the tricks. So informing him about that will sometimes help him - as I've said elsewhere, it will remove the "I miscounted because I turned a card the wrong way" way of getting a bad score. If we're talking about what is good for the game, I believe that removing that way of getting a bad score will only improve the game. Does anybody disagree with that? (A question that could also be phrased as "Is it essential to the game that you can play badly by miscounting tricks?" or "Do you demand of developers of bridge-playing computer programs that they allow players the chance to count tricks incorrectly?".) If we're talking about the wording of the current laws, then I am of the firm opinion that both interpretations can be justified. A lead out of turn is surely a "significant occurrence", and the first half of L74C4 therefore forbids all four players to call attention to it - IMO much more clearly than the other half forbids rectifying the trick count. Yet nobody has claimed that L74C4 prohibits calling attention to a call out of turn. L74C4 is a strangely worded law that can be interpreted in many many ways. L74C4 does not distinguish between partner and opponent. Do you consider it a violation of law to tell your opponent that he has turned a card the wrong way? I certainly do not claim that the current usual interpretation is in conflict with the laws - but I do claim that there is a another, IMO more reasonable, interpretation that is also not in conflict with the laws. And when there are multiple possible interpretations of a law, we should choose the one that is most reasonable. And an interpretation that allows mechanical irregularities to affect the result of a board when they could have been corrected immediately is IMO not reasonable. >I would be surprised if you had never suddenly realised, for yourself >without partner's prompting, that you only need one more trick to >beat the game when you had been working on two. ~ Grattan ~ ] ++++ Indeed I have - many times. I might have been awakened by many occurrences; somebody saying "that was our/their trick" is only one such occurrence. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 07:31:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:31:14 +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 HAA22862 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:31:07 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07074 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:28:43 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806032128.QAA07074@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:28:43 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 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 _WHY_? This is what I still do not understand. I know why _they_ want to know, but they probably want to see my hand so they can plan their finesses. If I have done everything possible to reveal my partnership agreements, explicit and implicit, what law or principle of ethics entitles the opponents to know what partner is thinking, or whether my guess is right? > 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 _We haven't got an agreement_, so they can't be informed of one. > 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. True enough--but why should I want that? If partner and I have blundered into a region of bidding we have absolutely no agreements on, we are already at a serious disadvantage. What entitles opponents to the knowledge of partner's hand which I do not possess? I am not trying to hide behind the letter of the law--indeed, I think the opponents should be told more than most people on this list seem to think they should be told. But I don't see _anything_ that suggests I should tell them this. I will, if they ask, be happy to tell them that I think it is 45% strong take-out, 45% Michaels, and 10% natural. [Or whatever.] That is the closest to an 'agreement' we have. > 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 Why? Won't they sometimes have different methods over strong and weak raises? Won't it matter sometimes to their lead, or decision to double a subsequent 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 But, again, I know there isn't an agreement, and I myself don't understand partner's bid. Now I do not dispute that if it turns out we really did have an agreement after all, we should be penalized [for MI, or with a PP if we are deliberately lying]. But if we have no agreement, we have no agreement. > person who made the call is sure of the intended meaning and thus only he > can give the opponents the information. > > Tim Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 08:06:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:06:39 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22997 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:06:32 +1000 Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA21093 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:07:33 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 00:07:32 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3580c3ad.6570237@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper: >An interesting side issue: I'm not quite sure I agree, and I definitely >find it silly, but I'll resist the temptation to argue that now... Grattan: >~+++ When Edgar led the Committee his drafting method was that >a statement such as 'Dummy is authorized to make coffee on Sundays' >meant not only that dummy could not make it on other days but also >that, without similar authorization, other players could not make it at >all. >Law 9A2(b)(2) is a case in point; other players have no authorization to >warn partner. It was Geoffrey Butler who first brought into the laws >the concept of playing the game as the laws specified it should be >played and not introducing extraneous procedure. The Committee >has accepted the principle. +++~ The temptation won: You just might consider L42 as a law that whose purpose is to enumerate exceptions to L43, and in particular L43A1c (L43 actually says that L42 is exceptions to L43). Since there is no L43A1c counterpart forbidding defenders to participate in the play, they do not need a L42 to allow them to prevent irregularities; they just have that right. But that admittedly violates the Kaplan principle outlined by Grattan above; however, that principle is not written into the laws, and national authorities can therefore ignore it if they wish. Though national authorities in general will undoubtedly be well advised to listen to WBFLC, the law book does not give WBFLC any power at all in regard to interpretation. The real arguments against David's and Grattan's interpretation are not legalistic, but practical: (a) if it is illegal to warn partner against committing an irregularity, then it is also illegal to warn an opponent. When did you last tell a player that he would be penalized if he repeatedly warned his opponents against leading from the wrong hand? (b) It is silly to have three players sit at a table and watch the fourth preparing to commit an irregularity, such as leading out of turn, and not stopping him; particularly in a friendly game, where even the opponents would prefer to not have the board's result determined by such an irregularity. Bridge would be a better game if we were allowed to prevent more silly irregularities. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 08:11:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:11:49 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23042 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:11:41 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.68.7.207]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980603221214.UZX1031@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:12:14 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:03:53 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd8f3b$7efd16c0$cf07440c@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 David Metcalf wrote: < message snipped > >So, I ask you, Jay, what EXTRA information did the double itself convey, >that made south bid 5D now, when he was not willing to do so before the >double? > >I can see two answers to this question: >(1) The double *did* give additional information about the north hand >which made the 5D bid more attractive. In this case we would need to >know what this information was, and convince ourselves that it is this >information which either makes the pass not a LA, or makes the hesitation >not suggest that 5D would be better than passing. >(2) The double did *not* give any extra information. However, >the passer could not systemically bid 5D at this time without >describing a different hand type. He passed, knowing that 5D >would be a better result than defending 4H, and either hoped or knew >(e.g. if the auction was forcing) that he would get another chance. > >In either case, north-south, in order to make their case, would need to >demonstrate that they were acting within their system. System notes >would help here - they might well have an uphill fight. > > -- David Metcalf It seems to me that the first question is whether there is unauthorized information. Again, I fail to see any unauthorized information available to South. There are other appeals cases that state specifically that where the player has authorized access to the information (e.g., bidding box shows auction when partner gives review that correct player's mistake) there is no bar to their using it. So, again, I ask what unauthorized information does South have? The fact that North breaks tempo does not, of itself, automatically convey information. We have to look at the tempo break in context and see if there is anything suggested. So far, none of the comments have been directed to this question. (So far as I can tell, anyway) Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 09:17:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:17:29 +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 JAA23167 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:17:22 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhMnY-0005lx-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:18:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 21:21:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 In-Reply-To: <01bd8f1e$2bad2400$4402450c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: >On June 3, Craig Senior wrote: > > >> I think we are all agreed that a pull to 5D was suggested over pass by >>the slow double. That this might have been the most likely bid in the >>absence of the hesitation is not the point. Pass would have to be shown not >>to be an LA. Would some reasonable number of players of like quality have >>seriously considered passing after an in tempo double? (Would some even >>have actually done so?) Then pass is an LA, and 5D is prohibited by the >>hesitation regardless of the fact that it may appear the superior action. >> A logical alternative does not have to be the best bid (or even a very >>good bid). It does not have to be what I would have bid or most would have >>bid. It must only be an action that a number of peers would have seriously >>weighed (U.S. view) or a non majority (is it 1/4) might have taken >>elsewhere. As this is an ACBL tourney, the stricter definition of LA would >>apply. >> If the pass over 4H undoubled was somehow NOT forcing, the decision is >>even clearer, and the causal link more obvious between the slow double and >>the 5D bid. But the 5D bid need not result from the hesitation...it must >>only be an LA suggested by it. To my view it is, therefore it is >>prohibited, therefore roll back to 4H doubled. The situation may have been >>poorly enough understood by south to forgive the lapse, hence I would >>consider a PP only in the face of a substantial history of abuse of similar >>situations by this player. (A world class south player with a tendency to >>cut corners conceivably might deserve a PP.) > >There is something wrong with this analysis. We know by looking at the South >hand that North has a heart void. Therefore, I fail to see what additional >information is made available by North's break in tempo. > >A break in tempo does not, by itself, set in motion the query under Law 16. >The break must convey unauthorized information before we can start a Law 16 >analysis. > >So, I ask everyone on BLML, what EXTRA information does this break in tempo >convey? (That is, information not readily apparent from a review of the >auction and the South hand.) Partner has doubts about the correct action. I cannot understand the approach as to whether there is UI: of course there is UI. What is relevant is [a] whether there are LAs and [b] whether the chosen LA is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Nowhere in the Laws of the game nor the interpretations of the ACBL [or other organisations] does it refer to 'extra' information. We as TDs or ACs are required to rule as per those Laws and interpretations. In the actual case [as I remember it] there is a slow double and it is taken out to 5D. Right. Let us take it one step at a time. [1] Was there UI? Yes, definitely. A slow double shows that the action taken was not completely obvious. There was some doubt. [2] Was there an LA? The main question seems to be, was Pass an LA? Craig says yes: Jay does not answer this. But it is required as part of the decision making process. However, I think it is implicit in Jay's answer that he accepts this. [3] Was the action taken demonstrably suggested over pass by the UI? Craig says yes: in fact he thinks there is no doubt whatever. Now, I think Jay means no, but has approached it wrong. 'Extra' information is not an issue: the issue is whether the action taken is suggested. If you believe that partner's apparent doubt does not suggest bidding rather than passing [and that is probably what you do mean] then you are right there is no reason to adjust. It is important that we do not have this approach as to whether there was UI. In the early days of BLML, and even before it when we were discussing Laws-matters by email and on RGB, a clause was often used: "Was UI passed?". It took time to persuade people that [a] whether UI is made available is the correct approach and that [b] if someone calls out of tempo there *IS* UI. There is a concept of 'useful' UI, and sometimes that is a reasonable approach: but any time a player expresses doubt or extreme certainty ["I ***DOUBLE** FOUR SPADES!!!"] then UI is available and partner's actions become constrained. -- 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 Jun 4 09:30:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:30:59 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23206 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:30:53 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA05979 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 19:31:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Richard Lighton wrote: > > > >On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> > >> If partner takes a call out of the bidding box nothing gives you the > >> right to say "Hold it, it is not your turn!" unless you are dummy. You > >> may draw attention to partner's call out of turn so as to initiate a TD > >> call but you may not warn him in advance. > >> > >> By "commits himself" I mean he actually does an irregularity. In the > >> case of a player putting a card down wrong, dummy can correct him if he > >> warns him before he lets go of the card, but not thereafter. > >> > >I have not found anything in the lawbook that confirms or denies this > >claim. If partner reaches for his bidding box, what is the penalty for > >saying "It's not your move?" > > > >Similarly, in mid-play, what is the penalty for saying "It's not your > >lead" if you observe partner starting to take a card out of his hand > >when it is someone else's turn? > > > >I do not believe L16 fits. > > No, of course not. It is a breach of L73A1 and is dealt with under > L90A. > > To save people with no Law book handy, it is not one of the permitted > forms of communication between partners. It is thus a Violation of > Procedure and a Procedural Penalty can be issued. > The problem I have with this interpretation is that the rest of L73A1 seems to me to be referring to communication about the hand. I do not believe that the intent of L73 is to stop a player from preventing an infraction. Dummy's rights are in general more restricted than those of other's players. Why in this case does dummy have more rights? -- Richard Lighton | "Am I to understand that, to save his contemptible life, (lighton@idt.net) | he dared to practise on our credulous simplicity? Wood-Ridge NJ | Our revenge shall be swift and terrible." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (The Pirates of Penzance) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 10:08:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:08:04 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA29248 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:07:58 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2759.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.89]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA21124 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:09:00 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: " you turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:57:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd8f4b$680ddca0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Anne Jones Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 12:11 PM Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> >> Is this because you occasionally, as declarer, deliberately lead from >> the wrong hand in the hope that you will get away with it Herman? You >> would >> then prefer if Dummy was asleep:-)) >> Anne > >Such a remark is totally uncalled for, Anne, and it probably stems from >a mistaken notion, derived from one thread on which many of you have >ceased to listen to me, that I am a player on the borderline of >ethicality (ethicalness ? - well you see what I mean). I would not accuse you of being unethical Herman. I do not know you. I apologise if my comment was hurtful. Where in the Lawbook do you find that it is unethical to play from the wrong hand in order to gain advantage. Law72B1 tells us that to deliberately infringe a Law is a serious breach of propriety. OK What Law is being infringed? Law 42B2 says it is an irregularity. But what Law? Law 44G says the player who won the trick leads to the next trick.So are we getting there? No It doesn't say the lead to the next trick must be made from the hand that won the last trick. Law 43A1c says Dummy may not participate in the play so surely he is no longer a player, and we know that Dummy cannot lead to a trick. So I ask the world again. Which Law says that Declarer must ask Dummy to lead a card from the hand faced on the table, if this is where the previous trick was won. If Declarer is the only player left in this partnership which Law says he must lead from the hand which won the previous trick?? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 10:26:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:26:13 +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 KAA29432 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:26:08 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002561; 4 Jun 98 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:14:05 +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 >David Metcalf wrote: > >>On a related issue: >>Frequently a situation comes up where the partner of a bidder is >>probably aware that an agreement about the bid might well exist, or >>he *knows* it exists but cant remember it. >>In such situations, my usual solution is to remove the partner from >>the table and instruct the bidder to explain any agreement he has >>about his own bid. I caution him that he should only express >>agreements and understandings - not explain how he meant the bid. >>I feel that this approach minimizes UI and MI (UI to bidder only that his >>partner might not know what his bid meant). >>I am assuming that this is proper. Is there any reason why it >>would not be? > > This is a recommended procedure in England/Wales. > I concur -- 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 Jun 4 12:27:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 12:27:02 +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 MAA29611 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 12:26:54 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhPkt-0007Qn-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:27:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:16:10 +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: <357dbe4a.5190683@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Correct, but when he has a trick turned wrongly and is confused >about the number of tricks needed, the confusion is almost always >a direct consequence of the wrongly turned trick. The point is >that if it is legal to inform him that he can't keep track of the >tricks, then you will always help him keep track of his tricks, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and the concept of a board gone wrong because of a bad trick >count in practice disappears completely. Why? I have enough trouble with my own game without spending time looking at what partner is doing. In fact, I think that a side problem with your suggestion is that you are suggesting a need to look at what partner is doing, which is probably not a good idea. If people are allowed to warn each other that tricks are wrong then your statement that a bad trick count disappears is completely wrong. It will be reduced somewhat, but it will still be a common occurrence. --------- Jesper Dybdal wrote: >If we're talking about what is good for the game, I believe that >removing that way of getting a bad score will only improve the >game. Does anybody disagree with that? Yes, in a mild way. I don't see that getting rid of mechanical errors is good for the game. Someone on RGB has argued that World Championship bridge should be played by computer, and argues that it is _obvious_ that elimination of mechanical errors is necessary for a proper World Championship test: I am pleased I was not the only one to disagree with him. If a player cannot follow suit why does he need a computer to make him do so? > (A question that could >also be phrased as "Is it essential to the game that you can play >badly by miscounting tricks?" or "Do you demand of developers of >bridge-playing computer programs that they allow players the >chance to count tricks incorrectly?".) I do dislike this method of arguing. These are *different* questions, and do nothing for your main argument. No, it is not essential to the game: no, I do not demand bridge-playing computers to allow mechanical errors: yes, I still disagree with your original question. -- 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 Jun 4 12:27:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA29622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 12:27:03 +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 MAA29612 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 12:26:54 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhPkt-0007Qm-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:27:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:54:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Recorder In-Reply-To: <199806032123.RAA11699@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 >> All the replies we have received seem to be warnings. Any suggestions >> as to advantages? > >1. Complaints can be made at any time, not just at the moment an [s] Thanks. >6. The system makes players who believe themselves to have been wronged >feel better by allowing them to take some action at less trouble than a >formal proceeding. This is actually the reason that we are considering starting the system. -- 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 Jun 4 15:37:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:37:23 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA29905 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:37:16 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.68.9.254]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980604053749.BYT28960@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 05:37:49 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:31:36 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd8f7a$0b1eec80$fe09440c@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 In my desire to make my position clear, and with thanks to David for posing useful questions, please read on. >>So, I ask everyone on BLML, what EXTRA information does this break in tempo >>convey? (That is, information not readily apparent from a review of the >>auction and the South hand.) > > Partner has doubts about the correct action. Even if we accept that partner's break in tempo shows doubt about the correct action, that does not necessarily mean there is extraneous information available. For example, in the present case the double itself expresses doubt about what to do. Law 16 states: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information. . ." As the double itself expresses doubt about what to do, I fail to see how the break in tempo adds to this message. I realize this is not a commonly held view, but Law 16 applies only when extraneous information is made available to partner. The break in tempo must be considered in the context of the hand to decide if it conveys extraneous information. Here, the double expresses doubt about what to do and gives partner full leeway to make the most intelligent choice for the partnership. That, at least to me, is nothing more than normal expert bridge. Terence Reese, in "Master Play at Contract Bridge" espoused this principle most eloquently: when you don't know what to do, make the bid that gives the partnership the greatest chance of landing in the right contract. Usually, that means having the most chances of being in the right contract. In this hand, double gives the partnership the best chance of landing in the right contract. From North's perspective, if South has a trump trick the best chance is to defend. If South has no trump trick, and a poor fit for diamonds, then it is probably best to defend unless South has some long suit that he/she may wish to show at this time. As North cannot be certain what the best spot is for the partnership, other than being certain that 4H (undoubled) must be wrong, the best bid is to double. The message thus sent is no different than the message others seem to feel is sent by the break in tempo. For this reason, I fail to see what extraneous information is available. Therefore, no need to go through a Law 16 analysis. > I cannot understand the approach as to whether there is UI: of course >there is UI. What is relevant is [a] whether there are LAs and [b] >whether the chosen LA is demonstrably suggested by the UI. I already concluded there is no extraneous information from the break in tempo. Now, I am suggesting that a 5D bid by South is clear on this auction. Pass is not a logical alternative. South has "only" four trumps to defend hearts. He/she also has four diamonds to an honor - the only honor in his/her hand. Had the diamond king been in hearts, a pass could easily be correct. Here, it is VERY doubtful the diamond King will ever take a trick on defense. It will take a trick on offense, and the spots should provide several entries for plays in other side suits. Another way is by looking at "LOTT", as published by Larry Cohen. It is safe to play E/W for a nine card fit. N/S will have at least a ten card diamond fit. There is purity in the honors, which adds a trick. So the LOTT count is 20 or more. If the opponents are going down in 4H, there is a high probability that N/S can make 5D. Therefore, the odds strongly favor bidding 5D. This information is available to any player. And this is a national championship event, so we can fairly play South to be able to sort this information. I recall an editorial written by the late Edgar Kaplan in the November 1995 issue of The Bridge World. He espoused that the test was whether a player would seriously consider an alternative in the absence of the unauthorized information. (in a vacuum) I believe that, in the absence of the extraneous information (again assuming there is UI, I think there is not in this case) very few, if any, South's would pass. > Nowhere in the Laws of the game nor the interpretations of the ACBL >[or other organisations] does it refer to 'extra' information. We as >TDs or ACs are required to rule as per those Laws and interpretations. No, the Laws refer to "extraneous information." We call it UI, but the text of the laws use this expression. > In the actual case [as I remember it] there is a slow double and it is >taken out to 5D. Right. Let us take it one step at a time. > >[1] Was there UI? Yes, definitely. A slow double shows that the >action taken was not completely obvious. There was some doubt. Granted the break in tempo shows some doubt. However, the double itself conveys the same message. So I still fail to see how the break in tempo conveys UI. Trump void? Already obvious from the South hand. Poor defensive values? Impossible considering the cue bid on the previous round. Long second suit? Also impossible considering failure to show second suit on previous round. >[2] Was there an LA? The main question seems to be, was Pass an LA? >Craig says yes: Jay does not answer this. But it is required as part of >the decision making process. However, I think it is implicit in Jay's >answer that he accepts this. I do not accept that pass is a logical alternative. Not with the hand actually held by South. As stated in a previous post, depending on partnership methods I believe that South should have bid 5D on the previous round. However, the analysis of the auction puts the partnership in 5D regardless. >[3] Was the action taken demonstrably suggested over pass by the UI? >Craig says yes: in fact he thinks there is no doubt whatever. Now, I >think Jay means no, but has approached it wrong. 'Extra' information is >not an issue: the issue is whether the action taken is suggested. If >you believe that partner's apparent doubt does not suggest bidding >rather than passing [and that is probably what you do mean] then you are >right there is no reason to adjust. A point worth mentioning here. This case was heard before the 1997 changes went into effect. At that time, the test was whether the UI "reasonably suggested" one action over another. My analysis has been based on the pre-1997 version. Under the current law, I believe the answer is totally clear - table result stands. Under the pre-1997 laws, the test for UI is much easier to meet. However, the difference is meaningless in this case as the break in tempo does not convey any extraneous information. As previously stated, in my opinion there is no LA to bidding 5D. > It is important that we do not have this approach as to whether there >was UI. In the early days of BLML, and even before it when we were >discussing Laws-matters by email and on RGB, a clause was often used: >"Was UI passed?". It took time to persuade people that [a] whether UI is >made available is the correct approach and that [b] if someone calls out >of tempo there *IS* UI. There is a concept of 'useful' UI, and >sometimes that is a reasonable approach: but any time a player expresses >doubt or extreme certainty ["I ***DOUBLE** FOUR SPADES!!!"] then UI >is available and partner's actions become constrained. David, I agree with what you say. In defense, all I can say is that it is most unusual for a break in tempo to NOT convey UI. This is one of those rare cases. Every rule has its exceptions. To me, this is one of those exceptions. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 15:59:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:59:49 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29975 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:59:43 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA19128; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:00:43 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:00:43 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: "A. L. Edwards" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" In-Reply-To: <199806031257.IAA14163@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > But isn't this the point? For example: your partner is on lead, you need > one trick to set the contract. However, your partner has one card turned > wrong, and thinks either 1) "we need 2 tricks to set this, hmmm..." or > 2) "great! he's down one, the putz :-) :-)...", selon le cas. You gently > interrupt his train of thought (a train which might have been about to > go off the rails, to the benefit of your opponents) and inform him that > he can't keep track of the tricks. The added benefit , of course, is that > this may indeed refresh his memory as to what was going on ("Thanks, Pard!"). > Why would this not be considered a form of illegal communication? > As well, would a player, as this guy's pard, even bother to correct if > he was holding the setting trick, for example, the high trump? > Would he bother if he "knew" that whatever pard did was irrelevant? > IMHO, I don't think so. > Therefore, unless the player *always* corrected pard's incorrect turn > of the card, said selective correction would be based on "tactical > considerations" and impart UI. > Tony (aka ac342) That looks like a good idea to me -- to always correct such mistakes whenever we can. There is an ethical obligation to not intentionally violate the rules even when willing to pay the specified penalty -- why should this not extend to being an ethical obligation to keep the game on track at all times? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 17:02:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA00189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:02:03 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA00182 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:01:56 +1000 Received: from modem102.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.102] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yhU35-0006VF-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:02:56 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:48:28 +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 Grattan Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs But any fool knows A 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms, and four legs. ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: 03 June 1998 22:31 On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 02:35:34 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >It seems to me that L74C4 is concerned with statements like "now we just >need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" \x/ > >++++ [ I think you are short of the mark here Jesper. \x/ Saying "Nice weather today" may also happen to bring partner out of a trance \x/ IMO there is an enormous difference between the unethical "now we just need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" and "that was our/their trick, partner". \x/ ++++[ What is unethical, in either case, is what lies in the mind of the player - not the actual words used.] ++++ \x/ If we're talking about what is good for the game, I believe that removing that way of getting a bad score will only improve the game. Does anybody disagree with that? If we're talking about the wording of the current laws, then I am of the firm opinion that both interpretations can be justified. \X/ ++++ [ I believe it is good for the game for players to 'bend over backwards' to avoid impropriety and I believe this has a higher priority than avoiding a bad score caused by an unfortunate inattention to what is happening. Far higher. ] ++++ Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 19:45:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:45:27 +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 TAA00432 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:45:20 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhWbE-0001xb-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:46:22 +0000 Message-ID: <78vFboBuggd1EwB8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:36:30 +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 Richard Lighton wrote: >The problem I have with this interpretation is that the rest of L73A1 >seems to me to be referring to communication about the hand. I do not >believe that the intent of L73 is to stop a player from preventing an >infraction. > Dummy's rights are in general more restricted than those >of other's players. I am not sure that I agree with this. > Why in this case does dummy have more rights? To give him something to do? -- 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 Jun 4 19:45:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:45:28 +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 TAA00431 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:45:20 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhWbE-0001xc-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:46:21 +0000 Message-ID: <8MRE3vBVmgd1EwDo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 03:42:29 +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: <01bd8f4b$680ddca0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Law72B1 tells us that to deliberately infringe a Law is a serious breach >of propriety. OK What Law is being infringed? >Law 42B2 says it is an irregularity. But what Law? Law 44G says the >player who won the trick leads to the next trick.So are we getting >there? No It doesn't say the lead to the next trick must be made from >the hand that won the last trick. Law 43A1c says Dummy may not >participate in the play so surely he is no longer a player, and we know ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that Dummy cannot lead to a trick. Dummy is a player. Of course he is! he is subject to the Laws of the game. OK, so declarer makes his decisions for him: so? >So I ask the world again. Which Law says that Declarer must ask Dummy to >lead a card from the hand faced on the table, if this is where the >previous trick was won. If Declarer is the only player left in this >partnership which Law says he must lead from the hand which won the >previous trick?? L44G. No problem. No other interpretation is tenable. -- 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 Jun 4 21:26:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:26:37 +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 VAA00573 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:26:29 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19502 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:27:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35767768.6E18D8DC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:31:04 +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: <199806032119.QAA06198@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > That would indeed be good advice, if you know the TD has already > decided to automatically penalize you if you say 'no agreement' and get a > good result. > As director, I do rule this way. So to my players, this is indeed good advice. Now if my advice is not world-wide, it is probably because my ruling is not world-wide. I doubt this very much. So we must be meaning something differently when talk about things like "pick-up partnerships". (see below) > > It _might_ be prima facie reason to think there is an agreement. > But if there other evidence [such as the fact that partner and I met 5 > minutes ago at the desk] suggests that we really have no agreement after > all, this outweighs the prima facie evidence. I will accept this as evidence and in that case I would probably not rule in this manner. > But it another way. If I am in a pick-up partnership and have no > agreement on an auction, and I answer "we have no agreement on this > auction", I will consider it nothing less than a profound miscarriage of > justice if I am ruled against for "misinformation". > If you are in a pick-up partnership with genuinly no agreement on a situation then partner will not use something ambiguous. If he does, he intends you to understand. That is in my book some sort of agreement. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 21:26:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:26:39 +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 VAA00575 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:26:31 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19506 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:27:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35767897.6CED8DA9@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:36:07 +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: <199806032128.QAA07074@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > True enough--but why should I want that? If partner and I have > blundered into a region of bidding we have absolutely no agreements on, we > are already at a serious disadvantage. What entitles opponents to the > knowledge of partner's hand which I do not possess? > I am not trying to hide behind the letter of the law--indeed, I > think the opponents should be told more than most people on this list seem > to think they should be told. But I don't see _anything_ that suggests I > should tell them this. > I will, if they ask, be happy to tell them that I think it is 45% > strong take-out, 45% Michaels, and 10% natural. [Or whatever.] That is > the closest to an 'agreement' we have. > And I will happily rule against you whatever partner actually holds. If he has a two-suiter, then I will rule that your agreement is 'Michaels'. This is not what you have told opponents, so : misinformation. Please then prove to me that you were not playing Michaels ! I am not saying that you are lying, I am only saying that the TD will rule against you. So what is wrong with my advice to you that you should not respond in this manner ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 21:26:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:26:36 +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 VAA00572 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:26:28 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19496 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:27:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35767625.D7C65D82@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:25:41 +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: <199806032119.QAA06198@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > > 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. > > I think this is evidence of impossibly high standards. You(player) and > I become an pick-up partnership, enter an undiscussed area of bidding, you > make a bid that I guess to mean one thing when really it means something > else, and I say "no agreement". After we manage by sheer luck [since I > have misunderstood your bid!] to blunder into a good result, you(TD) will then > automatically rule misinformation! We had no agreement, I said we had no > agreement, my partner agrees that we have no agreement, the fact that I > understood one thing by the bid and partner understood something different > indicates we have no agreement--and yet my claim to have had no agreement > is ruled as misinformation. > Yes ! Which is not the same as getting our good result away. Maybe the misinformation did not cause damage. But I feel that since partner obviously meant "something" with his call, then opponents are entitled to know what that "something" is, and the answer 'no agreement' is not a correct description of this "something". My point is that even if there genuinly IS no agreement, the burden of proof lies with the bidders that the explanation is correct. Since this proof is impossible, the TD will HAVE to rule that the actual system is consistent with the hand of the bidder and so the response 'no agreement', while possibly true, is misinformation ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 23:17:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:17:28 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00851 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:17:21 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199806041317.XAA00851@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:18:05 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA149276281; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:18:02 +0200 Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <35767897.6CED8DA9@village.uunet.be> from Herman De Wael at "Jun 4, 98 12:36:07 pm" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:18:01 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2707 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Herman De Wael: > Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > > > > True enough--but why should I want that? If partner and I have > > blundered into a region of bidding we have absolutely no agreements on, we > > are already at a serious disadvantage. What entitles opponents to the > > knowledge of partner's hand which I do not possess? > > I am not trying to hide behind the letter of the law--indeed, I > > think the opponents should be told more than most people on this list seem > > to think they should be told. But I don't see _anything_ that suggests I > > should tell them this. > > I will, if they ask, be happy to tell them that I think it is 45% > > strong take-out, 45% Michaels, and 10% natural. [Or whatever.] That is > > the closest to an 'agreement' we have. > > > > And I will happily rule against you whatever partner actually holds. I suggest you stop calling that rules under which you rule the Laws of Contract Bridge; you are making your own personal set of rules much to often. > If he has a two-suiter, then I will rule that your agreement is > 'Michaels'. This is not what you have told opponents, so : > misinformation. > > Please then prove to me that you were not playing Michaels ! He doesn't have to. Your argument essentially comes down to: "You are not allowed to use any bid which is not explained in detail on your convention card", or, in other words, if my opponents do something unusual, I'll always receive a deWael bottom. > I am not saying that you are lying, I am only saying that the TD will > rule against you. So what is wrong with my advice to you that you > should not respond in this manner ? Whats wrong: you are making the absurd assumption that it is possible to have a complete set of agreements. In my old partnership we had a typed set of agreements, altogether about 150 pages. This was already more than my partner could memorize, but yet did not contain agreements about some very basic situations like the following: 1NT (12-14) 3C (opponents overcall) 3S (is it forcing or not?) pass pass pass 1C 1NT (what does this show?) 1S (opponent opens 1S) 2S (two-suiter h/minor, strength and shape well defined according to vul.) pass 2NT (forcing) pass 3S/4C (strong two suiter) now, whats the difference between 3S and 4C??? I guess that to have a complete set of agreements for all situation you might encounter, playing a moderately scientific system you'll need more than 1000 typewritten pages of agreements to cover everything. Even most professional players can't memorize that much (I'm sure you have seen some bidding disagreement disasters by top level international pairs, too). Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 4 23:41:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:41:23 +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 XAA00966 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:41:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhaHS-0004Vr-00; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:42:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:38:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How to punish a psych(e) (Was Re: Self Explanations) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Michaels wrote: >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. Try this on me as a TD, and see what happens to you. Despite what has been said a number of times, you do not require documentary evidence. You require adequate evidence. I have little doubt that very little evidence is required to accept that a clearly natural sequence is natural. >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 ? I think a few PPs for people who are trying to win at Bridge by claiming redress for damage that does not exist might jolly things along a bit. But, at the end of the day, we need to convince players that an ethical approach to the game is a good idea, and more and more action should be taken against people who think otherwise [and yes, this does include Flt B and Flt C]. If you know there is no MI then it is not ethical to claim there is; you are attempting to breach L72A1 otherwise. -- 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 Jun 5 00:37:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:37:18 +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 AAA03405 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:37:11 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1013912; 4 Jun 98 14:37 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:36:40 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Recorder Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:36:38 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: ###### I strongly object to complaints and accusations being made secretively without the accused being able to publically confront their accuser(s) and deny any wrong doing. This seems to me to run counter to all notions of natural justice. I also note that those in favour of the recorder system state that the so called evidence is not assumed to be fact. However, if the accused is only made aware of existence of such accusations some time after the relevant event then it may well be too late for them to be able to offer counter-evidence or to refute the accusation. Also, the assumption of truth seems to grow the longer the accusation sits on file so that by the time it is brought into the daylight, it has assumed an evidential quality to which it is not entitled. ###### > 1. Complaints can be made at any time, not just at the moment an > incident occurs. (Time and circumstance may prevent a player from > making an immediate complaint or even a complaint before the > tournament > ends.) > > 2. A pattern of behavior, not obvious in any single incident, may be > discerned. > > 3. The recorder can take informal action, e.g. simply making sure > the player complained against knows the rules. > > 4. There is a written, more or less permanent, record of complaint and > of at least some of the relevant facts. (Recorder forms have space > for > a full hand record and the names of all players present.) It would be > possible to gather the same information if complaints were made in > other forms, but the recorder system makes it automatic. > > 5. The recorder acts as a screener, preventing (or at least > discouraging) trivial complaints from going to the C&E committee and > encouraging serious ones to go forward. > > 6. The system makes players who believe themselves to have been > wronged > feel better by allowing them to take some action at less trouble than > a > formal proceeding. > > 7. The recorder can, in principle, gather information about what > complaints are common. This allows publicity campaigns or other > general action, not directed at a specific player, to try to improve > things. In practice, this seems not to have happened in the ACBL, but > perhaps it has and I just don't realize it. > > Likely there are more. I think 2 was the main motivation for creating > the system, but the others are important too. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 01:20:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:20:50 +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 BAA03525 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:20:42 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA18996; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:21:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.77) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018951; Thu Jun 4 10:20:38 1998 Received: by har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8FAA.8AF3FCE0@har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:18:47 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8FAA.8AF3FCE0@har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'JApfelbaum'" Subject: RE: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:18:40 -0400 Encoding: 247 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: JApfelbaum[SMTP:JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 1:31 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 In my desire to make my position clear, and with thanks to David for posing useful questions, please read on. >>So, I ask everyone on BLML, what EXTRA information does this break in tempo >>convey? (That is, information not readily apparent from a review of the >>auction and the South hand.) > > Partner has doubts about the correct action. Even if we accept that partner's break in tempo shows doubt about the correct action, that does not necessarily mean there is extraneous information available. For example, in the present case the double itself expresses doubt about what to do. Law 16 states: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information. . ." As the double itself expresses doubt about what to do, I fail to see how the break in tempo adds to this message. ### What it adds is the knowledge that doubler was not able to make his call without some delay. He was either uncertain of it, or had to weigh his actions. Even if, and this is an uncertain matter, an in tempo double conveys the message "I don't know what to do partner" the slow double says AT A MINIMUM "I had to think it over before deciding I don't know what to do." I don't claim to be in Jay's class as a player, but the primary message of a penalty double in this auction seems to me to be AT LEAST an invitation to partner to leave it in unless a good reason exists for pulling it. It would seem to require less of a good reason to pull given the added uncertainly conveyed by the hesitation. Complex analysis of system might possibly allow adjustment at the committee level if it could be demonstrated unequivocably that this pairs' methods would have demanded a pull on the auction sans the hitch. But the TD surely should rule in favour of the NOS and roll back to 4H doubled.### I realize this is not a commonly held view, but Law 16 applies only when extraneous information is made available to partner. The break in tempo must be considered in the context of the hand to decide if it conveys extraneous information. ### It always conveys extraneous information: that doubler for some reason had to delay before making his call. That ITSELF IS extraneous. The EI as it were is there without question...the only question at issue is whether it suggests an LA over another.### Here, the double expresses doubt about what to do and gives partner full leeway to make the most intelligent choice for the partnership. That, at least to me, is nothing more than normal expert bridge. Terence Reese, in "Master Play at Contract Bridge" espoused this principle most eloquently: when you don't know what to do, make the bid that gives the partnership the greatest chance of landing in the right contract. Usually, that means having the most chances of being in the right contract. In this hand, double gives the partnership the best chance of landing in the right contract. From North's perspective, if South has a trump trick the best chance is to defend. If South has no trump trick, and a poor fit for diamonds, then it is probably best to defend unless South has some long suit that he/she may wish to show at this time. As North cannot be certain what the best spot is for the partnership, other than being certain that 4H (undoubled) must be wrong, the best bid is to double. ### There is no quarrel with North's BID. I'm quite cetain he can easily justify his bid. It's the tempo of the bid that places the constraint on partner.### The message thus sent is no different than the message others seem to feel is sent by the break in tempo. For this reason, I fail to see what extraneous information is available. Therefore, no need to go through a Law 16 analysis. ### Here I respectfully disagree. Your failure to see the UI does not mean it is not there. NOS has requested redress. For that reason you must go through the analysis. You don't have to come to the conclusion that there was damage resulting from UI...but you must perform the analysis to determine this.### > I cannot understand the approach as to whether there is UI: of course >there is UI. What is relevant is [a] whether there are LAs and [b] >whether the chosen LA is demonstrably suggested by the UI. I already concluded there is no extraneous information from the break in tempo. Now, I am suggesting that a 5D bid by South is clear on this auction. ### I agree. ### Pass is not a logical alternative. ### Here, again, we disagree. It is inferior, perhaps, but a substantial number of players of like quality are likely to seriously consider it, and perhaps a few actually do it. If there's one thing notable about expert bridge it is the disagreement that abounds. Read any Master Solvers column in TBW, and you will find at least one expert calling an action obvious that another calls absurd. ### South has "only" four trumps to defend hearts. He/she also has four diamonds to an honor - the only honor in his/her hand. Had the diamond king been in hearts, a pass could easily be correct. Here, it is VERY doubtful the diamond King will ever take a trick on defense. It will take a trick on offense, and the spots should provide several entries for plays in other side suits. Another way is by looking at "LOTT", as published by Larry Cohen. It is safe to play E/W for a nine card fit. N/S will have at least a ten card diamond fit. There is purity in the honors, which adds a trick. So the LOTT count is 20 or more. If the opponents are going down in 4H, there is a high probability that N/S can make 5D. Therefore, the odds strongly favor bidding 5D. This information is available to any player. And this is a national championship event, so we can fairly play South to be able to sort this information. ### I don't question your analysis. But by the mere fact of presenting it, you hint that pass is at worst anti-percentage, and not an egregious error. And you make this analysis to pull to 5D as an alternative to pass. The pull is suggested without the hitch...it only becomes close to mandated with the hitch. ### I recall an editorial written by the late Edgar Kaplan in the November 1995 issue of The Bridge World. He espoused that the test was whether a player would seriously consider an alternative in the absence of the unauthorized information. (in a vacuum) I believe that, in the absence of the extraneous information (again assuming there is UI, I think there is not in this case) very few, if any, South's would pass. ### I agree, a minority would actually pass. I submit that a significant number would seriously consider passing and reject it in favour of the pull. After the hitch, less would even consider a pass. Those who were on the fence would jump off on the side of 5D if it were not banned...so it is. ### > Nowhere in the Laws of the game nor the interpretations of the ACBL >[or other organisations] does it refer to 'extra' information. We as >TDs or ACs are required to rule as per those Laws and interpretations. No, the Laws refer to "extraneous information." We call it UI, but the text of the laws use this expression. > In the actual case [as I remember it] there is a slow double and it is >taken out to 5D. Right. Let us take it one step at a time. > >[1] Was there UI? Yes, definitely. A slow double shows that the >action taken was not completely obvious. There was some doubt. Granted the break in tempo shows some doubt. However, the double itself conveys the same message. So I still fail to see how the break in tempo conveys UI. ### It shows more uncertainty. ### Trump void? Already obvious from the South hand. Poor defensive values? Impossible considering the cue bid on the previous round. Long second suit? Also impossible considering failure to show second suit on previous round. >[2] Was there an LA? The main question seems to be, was Pass an LA? >Craig says yes: Jay does not answer this. But it is required as part of >the decision making process. However, I think it is implicit in Jay's >answer that he accepts this. I do not accept that pass is a logical alternative. Not with the hand actually held by South. As stated in a previous post, depending on partnership methods I believe that South should have bid 5D on the previous round. However, the analysis of the auction puts the partnership in 5D regardless. ### Does not his failure to bid it on the previous round suggest that for this pair South's pass at that time was forcing, transferring the captaincy of the hand to North to either double or take out? Why then is it so clearcut a matter for him now to override the decision partner has made?### >[3] Was the action taken demonstrably suggested over pass by the UI? >Craig says yes: in fact he thinks there is no doubt whatever. Now, I >think Jay means no, but has approached it wrong. 'Extra' information is >not an issue: the issue is whether the action taken is suggested. If >you believe that partner's apparent doubt does not suggest bidding >rather than passing [and that is probably what you do mean] then you are >right there is no reason to adjust. A point worth mentioning here. This case was heard before the 1997 changes went into effect. At that time, the test was whether the UI "reasonably suggested" one action over another. My analysis has been based on the pre-1997 version. Under the current law, I believe the answer is totally clear - table result stands. Under the pre-1997 laws, the test for UI is much easier to meet. However, the difference is meaningless in this case as the break in tempo does not convey any extraneous information. As previously stated, in my opinion there is no LA to bidding 5D. ### And mine is that there "demonstrably" is one: pass. This also seems to have been the view of the AC. ### > It is important that we do not have this approach as to whether there >was UI. In the early days of BLML, and even before it when we were >discussing Laws-matters by email and on RGB, a clause was often used: >"Was UI passed?". It took time to persuade people that [a] whether UI is >made available is the correct approach and that [b] if someone calls out >of tempo there *IS* UI. There is a concept of 'useful' UI, and >sometimes that is a reasonable approach: but any time a player expresses >doubt or extreme certainty ["I ***DOUBLE** FOUR SPADES!!!"] then UI >is available and partner's actions become constrained. David, I agree with what you say. In defense, all I can say is that it is most unusual for a break in tempo to NOT convey UI. This is one of those rare cases. Every rule has its exceptions. To me, this is one of those exceptions. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA ### While you have made an eloquent case for it, I am totally unconvinced of its merits. I have no doubt of your sincerity, or that YOU would have bid 5D without seriously considering a pass absent the hesitation. I just do not believe that every expert would. Craig### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 01:49:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:49:29 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03618 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:49:23 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05541 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:50:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:50:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Recorder (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, David Martin wrote: > > ###### I strongly object to complaints and accusations being > made secretively without the accused being able to publically confront > their accuser(s) and deny any wrong doing. This seems to me to run > counter to all notions of natural justice. I also note that those in > favour of the recorder system state that the so called evidence is not > assumed to be fact. However, if the accused is only made aware of > existence of such accusations some time after the relevant event then it > may well be too late for them to be able to offer counter-evidence or to > refute the accusation. Also, the assumption of truth seems to grow the > longer the accusation sits on file so that by the time it is brought > into the daylight, it has assumed an evidential quality to which it is > not entitled. ###### > I don't think David's claim is correct. The ACBL procedure is for the Recorder to communicate with the accused and determine if there really is a reason to maintain a record. I think the most important reason for having a recorder is Steve's number 3 below. You have someone in an official position to take action that avoids or bypasses C&E hearings for the cases where they aren't really necessary. If there is an accusation that amounts to possible cheating, then the Recorder can either try to nip it in the bud by talking to the suspected party, or add it to a file of reasons for conducting a proper investigation. I do not think that the "accumulated evidence" should stand on its own without impartial monitoring of the accused. A side benefit of being a recorder in the ACBL is that I can kibbitz whoever I want in Unit events. The recorder is exempt from "exclusion without cause." :-) ===================== > Steve wrote: > > > 1. Complaints can be made at any time, not just at the moment an > > incident occurs. (Time and circumstance may prevent a player from > > making an immediate complaint or even a complaint before the > > tournament > > ends.) > > > > 2. A pattern of behavior, not obvious in any single incident, may be > > discerned. > > > > 3. The recorder can take informal action, e.g. simply making sure > > the player complained against knows the rules. > > > > 4. There is a written, more or less permanent, record of complaint and > > of at least some of the relevant facts. (Recorder forms have space > > for > > a full hand record and the names of all players present.) It would be > > possible to gather the same information if complaints were made in > > other forms, but the recorder system makes it automatic. > > > > 5. The recorder acts as a screener, preventing (or at least > > discouraging) trivial complaints from going to the C&E committee and > > encouraging serious ones to go forward. > > > > 6. The system makes players who believe themselves to have been > > wronged > > feel better by allowing them to take some action at less trouble than > > a > > formal proceeding. > > > > 7. The recorder can, in principle, gather information about what > > complaints are common. This allows publicity campaigns or other > > general action, not directed at a specific player, to try to improve > > things. In practice, this seems not to have happened in the ACBL, but > > perhaps it has and I just don't realize it. > > > > Likely there are more. I think 2 was the main motivation for creating > > the system, but the others are important too. > -- Richard Lighton Wood-Ridge NJ lighton@idt.net From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 01:51:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:51:25 +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 BAA03634 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:51:18 +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 LAA28987 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <357bbda9.5029972@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:57:56 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since it was my question that started this thread, I should perhaps offer a comment in support of Jesper's position, since I think he is making a good deal of sense (although personally I prefer the majority view that nobody should be able to point out that someone else has turned a card wrong, I think it is a much closer decision than most contributors have suggested). Several people have said in essence, "Law 74C2. Case closed." I don't think this is clear at all. Take a different case: the defenders have won four tricks, and one defender is now on lead and is known to have a cashing winner. It would be a clear (and reprehensible) violation of 74C2 for the other defender to say at this point "The contract is 3S", but if the defender on lead invokes Law41C by asking what the contract is, the identical statement "The contract is 3S" is now perfectly in order. I think this example strongly suggests that Jesper is right, and that "comments" in Law74C2 is intended to cover *extraneous* remarks outside the scope of normal practice. Thus it would be possible to decide that dummy's right to try to prevent declarer's irregularity extends to the right to point out that declarer has just turned a card wrong, and that that is normal practice not in violation of 74C2. In other words, I think Law74C2 is a red herring, and the decision has to be based on the Laws on Dummy's Rights and Limitations, and the Law on Arrangement of Tricks (and my reading of these laws accords with the general view, that once declarer has quitted the card, it is too late for dummy to correct it.) By the way, can a player ask "Do I have a card turned wrong?" and legally get an answer? _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 05:24:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:24:31 +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 FAA04562 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:24:23 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA27188 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:21:58 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:21:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > True enough--but why should I want that? If partner and I have > > blundered into a region of bidding we have absolutely no agreements on, we > > are already at a serious disadvantage. What entitles opponents to the > > knowledge of partner's hand which I do not possess? > > I am not trying to hide behind the letter of the law--indeed, I > > think the opponents should be told more than most people on this list seem > > to think they should be told. But I don't see _anything_ that suggests I > > should tell them this. > > I will, if they ask, be happy to tell them that I think it is 45% > > strong take-out, 45% Michaels, and 10% natural. [Or whatever.] That is > > the closest to an 'agreement' we have. > > > > And I will happily rule against you whatever partner actually holds. > > If he has a two-suiter, then I will rule that your agreement is > 'Michaels'. This is not what you have told opponents, so : > misinformation. > > Please then prove to me that you were not playing Michaels ! I can't, of course. We obviously do not have any written evidence showing that this call is not Michaels in this sequence, since we have no agreements at all about this sequence. I could try to point out to you how little time we have spent playing together, and if I myself happen to have guessed wrong I will add this as evidence that we really cpouldn't have had such an agreement. But I suspect no such evidence will convince you. > I am not saying that you are lying, I am only saying that the TD will > rule against you. So what is wrong with my advice to you that you > should not respond in this manner ? I agree that _if_ the TD will automatically rule against me under these circumstances, _then_ your advice is good practical advice. I suspect that I would go ahead and say 'no agreement' and be ruled against rather than lie and pretend to have an agreement we don't have, but I wouldn't criticize a player who guessed and hoped for the best. But this is true only if it is clear that that's how TD will rule. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 05:38:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:38:41 +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 FAA04687 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:38:34 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA29169 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:36:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806041936.OAA29169@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:36:10 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I think this is evidence of impossibly high standards. You(player) and > > I become an pick-up partnership, enter an undiscussed area of bidding, you > > make a bid that I guess to mean one thing when really it means something > > else, and I say "no agreement". After we manage by sheer luck [since I > > have misunderstood your bid!] to blunder into a good result, you(TD) will then > > automatically rule misinformation! We had no agreement, I said we had no > > agreement, my partner agrees that we have no agreement, the fact that I > > understood one thing by the bid and partner understood something different > > indicates we have no agreement--and yet my claim to have had no agreement > > is ruled as misinformation. > > > > Yes ! No! :) > Which is not the same as getting our good result away. > Maybe the misinformation did not cause damage. > But I feel that since partner obviously meant "something" with his call, > then opponents are entitled to know what that "something" is, and the > answer 'no agreement' is not a correct description of this "something". I always mean something with my bids, but the content of that something is not ipso facto a partnership agreement. Opponents are only entitled to know about such agreements [explicit or implicit]. > My point is that even if there genuinly IS no agreement, the burden of > proof lies with the bidders that the explanation is correct. Since this > proof is impossible, the TD will HAVE to rule that the actual system is Why 'impossible'? > consistent with the hand of the bidder and so the response 'no > agreement', while possibly true, is misinformation ! > > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 05:59:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:59:26 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04758 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 05:59:20 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA01998 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:56:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806041956.OAA01998@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 14:56:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > That would indeed be good advice, if you know the TD has already > > decided to automatically penalize you if you say 'no agreement' and get a > > good result. > > > > As director, I do rule this way. > > So to my players, this is indeed good advice. > > Now if my advice is not world-wide, it is probably because my ruling is > not world-wide. > I doubt this very much. It seems from some of the comments on this List that this interpretation is far from being the world standard. > So we must be meaning something differently when talk about things like > "pick-up partnerships". (see below) Perhaps. But my point extends even beyond those. > > It _might_ be prima facie reason to think there is an agreement. > > But if there other evidence [such as the fact that partner and I met 5 > > minutes ago at the desk] suggests that we really have no agreement after > > all, this outweighs the prima facie evidence. > > I will accept this as evidence and in that case I would probably not > rule in this manner. So at what level does this change? After we've played together once? Ten times? At what point does it become impossible for us to show that we have no agreement? > > But it another way. If I am in a pick-up partnership and have no > > agreement on an auction, and I answer "we have no agreement on this > > auction", I will consider it nothing less than a profound miscarriage of > > justice if I am ruled against for "misinformation". > > > > If you are in a pick-up partnership with genuinly no agreement on a > situation then partner will not use something ambiguous. > If he does, he intends you to understand. That is in my book some sort > of agreement. This seems to have been Tim's idea as well, but I still don't see it. Take, again, the cue-bid. _I_ play that a cue-bid in a minor suit at my first turn to bid is natural. But I am the only member of my club who plays it that way. [Well, my usual partner remembers to play it that way with me _sometimes_. :)] Different pairs give it different meanings, but I'm the only naturalist about this sequence in the bunch. So if you're from my club and you're my partner and we didn't discuss cue-bids, you'll still probably assume that I'll interpret one as _something_ artificial. Therefore you might make such a cue-bid, _hoping_ that I'll guess the right artificial meaning, since you can be pretty sure I'll guess it to be artificial. {And, as I have said, exactly this happened in an individual game recently.} On top of that, sometimes you can't _help_ but make an ambiguous bid. Consider the following situation [inspired by actual events, as they say on tv]: You're not playing with your regular partner. You're in slam-mode, and partner uses Blackwood. RHO now interferes, and you realize that _you didn't discuss_ interference over Blackwood. Now _any_ call you make will be ambiguous. The only thing to do is gamble and _hope_ partner is on the same wavelength, or that you'll get a good result by luck. Certainly if I double _hoping_ that partner will guess I'm playing D0P1 that does not in itself constitute an agreement to play D0P1, especially if partner thinks it's penalty or DEPO or some other convention. > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 06:45:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:45:00 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04986 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:44:51 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA06110; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:45:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.77) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006086; Thu Jun 4 15:44:47 1998 Received: by har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8FD7.D5982320@har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:43:00 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD8FD7.D5982320@har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jesper Dybdal'" Subject: RE: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:42:58 -0400 Encoding: 69 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In most social games and less competitive club games it is standard courtesy to let any player at the table know when he has turned a card wrong. It would also appear to be in accord with active ethics. Unless the laws clearly forbid the practice it should be permitted, nay encouraged, at all levels. Who wants to win because of an irregularity? (All who raised their hands please take up another game.) Craig ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal[SMTP:jesper@dybdal.dk] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 6:07 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Jesper: >An interesting side issue: I'm not quite sure I agree, and I definitely >find it silly, but I'll resist the temptation to argue that now... Grattan: >~+++ When Edgar led the Committee his drafting method was that >a statement such as 'Dummy is authorized to make coffee on Sundays' >meant not only that dummy could not make it on other days but also >that, without similar authorization, other players could not make it at >all. >Law 9A2(b)(2) is a case in point; other players have no authorization to >warn partner. It was Geoffrey Butler who first brought into the laws >the concept of playing the game as the laws specified it should be >played and not introducing extraneous procedure. The Committee >has accepted the principle. +++~ The temptation won: You just might consider L42 as a law that whose purpose is to enumerate exceptions to L43, and in particular L43A1c (L43 actually says that L42 is exceptions to L43). Since there is no L43A1c counterpart forbidding defenders to participate in the play, they do not need a L42 to allow them to prevent irregularities; they just have that right. But that admittedly violates the Kaplan principle outlined by Grattan above; however, that principle is not written into the laws, and national authorities can therefore ignore it if they wish. Though national authorities in general will undoubtedly be well advised to listen to WBFLC, the law book does not give WBFLC any power at all in regard to interpretation. The real arguments against David's and Grattan's interpretation are not legalistic, but practical: (a) if it is illegal to warn partner against committing an irregularity, then it is also illegal to warn an opponent. When did you last tell a player that he would be penalized if he repeatedly warned his opponents against leading from the wrong hand? (b) It is silly to have three players sit at a table and watch the fourth preparing to commit an irregularity, such as leading out of turn, and not stopping him; particularly in a friendly game, where even the opponents would prefer to not have the board's result determined by such an irregularity. Bridge would be a better game if we were allowed to prevent more silly irregularities. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 06:51:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:51:12 +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 GAA05013 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:51:04 +1000 Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10947 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:52:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:52:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <357a084b.2214013@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 11:57:56 -0400, Don Kersey wrote: >By the way, can a player ask "Do I have a card turned wrong?" and = legally >get an answer? I would think so: since all players have a duty to keep their played cards in a way so that everybody can see how many tricks everybody else believes each side has taken, the information is always available anyway. Such a question really only asks for help in order to get the answer faster than by looking at each of the other three players' cards. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 06:51:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:51:14 +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 GAA05014 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:51:05 +1000 Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10951 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:52:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:52:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <357802bb.789985@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 01:16:10 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>The point is >>that if it is legal to inform him that he can't keep track of the >>tricks, then you will always help him keep track of his tricks, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>and the concept of a board gone wrong because of a bad trick >>count in practice disappears completely. > > Why? I have enough trouble with my own game without spending time >looking at what partner is doing. My impression is that wrongly turned cards are usually discovered either immediately or quickly afterwards by partner - but I could be wrong, or playing in company with an unusual behaviour in.this respect. >In fact, I think that a side problem >with your suggestion is that you are suggesting a need to look at what >partner is doing, which is probably not a good idea. > If people are allowed to warn each other that tricks are wrong then >your statement that a bad trick count disappears is completely wrong. >It will be reduced somewhat, but it will still be a common occurrence. I believe it will be reduced to almost non-existence, but as I said above, I could be wrong. If I am wrong, it will still be reduced, and I still do not see any practical way of abusing such a right. >>If we're talking about what is good for the game, I believe that >>removing that way of getting a bad score will only improve the >>game. Does anybody disagree with that? > > Yes, in a mild way. I don't see that getting rid of mechanical >errors is good for the game. In that case, I can certainly understand your arguing for the restrictive interpretation. >Someone on RGB has argued that World >Championship bridge should be played by computer, and argues that it is >_obvious_ that elimination of mechanical errors is necessary for a >proper World Championship test: I am pleased I was not the only one to >disagree with him. I would be on your side here. It is ridiculous to assume that it is _necessary_ (or even important) to eliminate mechanical errors - but if we can do it with no negative side effects, I think it is _desirable_. And primarily so at lower levels - players in a World Championship very rarely have problems with mechanical errors anyway. >If a player cannot follow suit why does he need a >computer to make him do so? Perhaps it would increase his and his partner's and opponents' pleasure in the game? >> (A question that could >>also be phrased as "Is it essential to the game that you can play >>badly by miscounting tricks?" or "Do you demand of developers of >>bridge-playing computer programs that they allow players the >>chance to count tricks incorrectly?".) > > I do dislike this method of arguing. These are *different* questions, >and do nothing for your main argument. You are right - I wrote that too fast. I am a software developer by profession, and I find it an interesting thought that if it is a general view that mechanical errors should be part of the game, then it must be considered a definite error for a computer program to stop players from "turning" tricks wrongly or revoking. I wonder if there are any bridge programs at all that allow players to make the equivalent of such mechanical errors? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 06:51:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:51:16 +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 GAA05015 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:51:07 +1000 Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10954 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:52:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:52:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35790689.1763926@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:48:28 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: Jesper: >If we're talking about what is good for the game, I believe that >removing that way of getting a bad score will only improve the >game. Does anybody disagree with that? =20 >If we're talking about the wording of the current laws, then I am >of the firm opinion that both interpretations can be justified. Grattan: >++++ [ I believe it is good for the game for players to >'bend over backwards' to avoid impropriety and I believe >this has a higher priority than avoiding a bad score caused by >an unfortunate inattention to what is happening. Far >higher. ] ++++ Grattan ++++ I certainly agree, and if I have given any other impression I must have expressed myself poorly. What we're debating here is whether calling attention to wrongly turned cards has, or should have, anything to do with "impropriety". Under the current wide-spread interpretation of the current laws it clearly is improper (also when I'm the TD). I'm simply arguing my belief that the wide-spread interpretation and/or the laws ought to be changed to make that action completely proper. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 10:07:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:07:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA05576 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:07:43 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018390; 4 Jun 98 23:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:40:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <35767625.D7C65D82@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <35767625.D7C65D82@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Grant C. Sterling wrote: >Yes ! > >Which is not the same as getting our good result away. >Maybe the misinformation did not cause damage. >But I feel that since partner obviously meant "something" with his call, >then opponents are entitled to know what that "something" is, and the >answer 'no agreement' is not a correct description of this "something". > >My point is that even if there genuinly IS no agreement, the burden of >proof lies with the bidders that the explanation is correct. Since this >proof is impossible, the TD will HAVE to rule that the actual system is >consistent with the hand of the bidder and so the response 'no >agreement', while possibly true, is misinformation ! > Oh No Herman Not Again, Well Not So Soon Please :( -- 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 Jun 5 10:21:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:21:24 +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 KAA05597 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:21:18 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhkGz-0002xu-00; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:22:23 +0100 Message-ID: <0PQ2nPBQmzd1Ewyp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 01:19:28 +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: <01BD8FD7.D5982320@har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >In most social games and less competitive club games it is standard >courtesy to let any player at the table know when he has turned a card >wrong. Not everywhere: it is my view that part of the problem of bridge in certain parts of the world is the failure to assume the Law book applies at club level. > It would also appear to be in accord with active ethics. Absolutely not. > Unless the >laws clearly forbid the practice it should be permitted, nay encouraged, at >all levels. Who wants to win because of an irregularity? (All who raised >their hands please take up another game.) Oh, I hate that question. It is so unfair. When you think of all the tricks that I have thrown away over the years by revoking, not drawing trumps, not knowing how many tricks I need to beat the contract, and all the other methods: when you think that I allow poorer plays to rob me blind by cheating, using UI, and everything else that poor players do: when you think that I will be the first to fight for the opponents' rights if my partner uses UI: when you think of all these things, what is so unfair if I happen to gain from an irregularity? The effects of irregularities balance out, well not in my case, but I lose a couple of tricks every so often, and gain a trick to compensate also every so often. If one of these irregularities gives me a win, why should I not take it? Twice as often I shall be losing by them. What do you think the Mets do if their opponents make an illegal play? Dash up to the Umpire, and say we don't want to win that way? In your dreams! When players infract at this game you take what you get so long as your ethics are pure. If you get handed a win, so be it. If you are actively ethical, you will be giving them away as well, and more often. -- 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 Jun 5 11:20:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:20:44 +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 LAA05772 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:20:36 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-239-22.s22.as1.rkv.erols.com [207.172.239.22]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA07788 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:21:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806050121.VAA07788@smtp2.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:21:22 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grattan > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 2:48 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" > > IMO there is an enormous difference between the unethical "now we > just need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" and > "that was our/their trick, partner". > \x/ > ++++[ What is unethical, in either case, is what lies in the > mind of the player - not the actual words used.] ++++ > \x/ > If we're talking about what is good for the game, I believe that > removing that way of getting a bad score will only improve the > game. Does anybody disagree with that? > If we're talking about the wording of the current laws, then I am > of the firm opinion that both interpretations can be justified. > \X/ > ++++ [ I believe it is good for the game for players to > 'bend over backwards' to avoid impropriety and I believe > this has a higher priority than avoiding a bad score caused by > an unfortunate inattention to what is happening. Far > higher. ] ++++ Grattan ++++ > > > It's partner's lead. He's staring into space, the clock is moving, and the round is nearing it's end. You notice that partner has his card turned wrong, and obviously has no clue that he won the last trick and it's his lead. Can you tell him? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 13:45:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 13:45:46 +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 NAA06068 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 13:45:40 +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 UAA23794 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806050346.UAA23794@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:43:30 -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 Just a side comment on all these other comments, which have been very interesting: Bridge World Standard says that "Pass-and-pull" is a stronger action than bidding immediately, when a pass would be forcing. Some good players are of the opposite opinion, holding that an immediate bid is stronger than "pass-and-pull." The technical argument in favor of strong pass-and-pull is that when in doubt about slam a player can decide to pass a bid around to partner, intending to bid slam if partner bids, but to pull if partner doubles. Accordingly, the pull does not discourage more bidding. Bidding five immediately is a merely competitive action, indicating little if any interest in slam. The reverse method, while more intuitive (bid with strength, pass-and-pull when weak), does not offer this flexibility. An immediate bid will be recognized as strong, the bidder perhaps hoping to make, but it would not necessarily express slam interest. All this is a little far-fetched, but there is a better reason for strong pass-and-pull: If partner hesitates before doubling, pulling with a strong hand is unlikely to be penalized by a TD or AC. In the subject case, if N-S were playing strong pass-and-pull in the given situation, then South should bid 5D immediately over 4H, and there would have been no problem. Playing weak pass-and-pull, while perhaps justifying pulling the double to 5D, leads to problems with TDs/ACs. N-S would have to show proof that the cue bid was forcing to game, that they play weak pass-and-pull, and that passing the double is not an LA with four-card support for partner's primary suit. Otherwise their arguments will be dismissed as "self-serving." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 14:56:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:56:56 +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 OAA06175 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:56:50 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-21.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.187]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA24112 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35777ACB.2D3FEF70@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 00:57:47 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Fifth Friday 598 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Again, Herman has done a great job with our tournament on the fifth Friday of the month. We had 146 pairs from Bristol, England; Southern Pines, USA; Antwerpen, Belgium; Tasmania, Australia; Sydney, Australia; and Moscow, Russia. A fun time was had by all, and we hope more of you will decide to join us again on the 5th Friday in July. Thanks again, Herman for a job so beautifully done. Haven't heard if David had to settle any major disputes, but we thank him for being there. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 16:29:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA06341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:29:50 +1000 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA06336 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:29:46 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port3.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.53]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA11125 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:29:48 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:29:48 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199806050629.QAA11125@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Re Dallas Appeal Case #8 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:43 PM 04/06/1998 -0700, you wrote: >Just a side comment on all these other comments, which have been very >interesting: > >Bridge World Standard says that "Pass-and-pull" is a stronger action >than bidding immediately, when a pass would be forcing. Some good >players are of the opposite opinion, holding that an immediate bid is >stronger than "pass-and-pull." > >The technical argument in favor of strong pass-and-pull is that when >in doubt about slam a player can decide to pass a bid around to >partner, intending to bid slam if partner bids, but to pull if >partner doubles. Accordingly, the pull does not discourage more >bidding. Bidding five immediately is a merely competitive action, >indicating little if any interest in slam. > >The reverse method, while more intuitive (bid with strength, >pass-and-pull when weak), does not offer this flexibility. An >immediate bid will be recognized as strong, the bidder perhaps hoping >to make, but it would not necessarily express slam interest. > >All this is a little far-fetched, but there is a better reason for >strong pass-and-pull: If partner hesitates before doubling, pulling >with a strong hand is unlikely to be penalized by a TD or AC. > >In the subject case, if N-S were playing strong pass-and-pull in the >given situation, then South should bid 5D immediately over 4H, and >there would have been no problem. Playing weak pass-and-pull, while >perhaps justifying pulling the double to 5D, leads to problems with >TDs/ACs. N-S would have to show proof that the cue bid was forcing to >game, that they play weak pass-and-pull, and that passing the double >is not an LA with four-card support for partner's primary suit. >Otherwise their arguments will be dismissed as "self-serving." > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > Thank you Marvin for a very illuminating analysis. In Australia all calls above 3NT as "self-alerting", and I know of no system card which would allow a TD or AC readily to discern a pair's system style in this sort of auction. More particularly, opponents may not be getting their full disclosure entitlements in such auctions. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 22:08:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:20 +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 WAA07114 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:12 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-107.uunet.be [194.7.9.107]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07695 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:09:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3577D321.6C769F5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 13:14:41 +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: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > > True enough--but why should I want that? If partner and I have > > > blundered into a region of bidding we have absolutely no agreements on, we > > > are already at a serious disadvantage. What entitles opponents to the > > > knowledge of partner's hand which I do not possess? > > > I am not trying to hide behind the letter of the law--indeed, I > > > think the opponents should be told more than most people on this list seem > > > to think they should be told. But I don't see _anything_ that suggests I > > > should tell them this. > > > I will, if they ask, be happy to tell them that I think it is 45% > > > strong take-out, 45% Michaels, and 10% natural. [Or whatever.] That is > > > the closest to an 'agreement' we have. > > > > > > > And I will happily rule against you whatever partner actually holds. > > > > If he has a two-suiter, then I will rule that your agreement is > > 'Michaels'. This is not what you have told opponents, so : > > misinformation. > > > > Please then prove to me that you were not playing Michaels ! > > I can't, of course. We obviously do not have any written evidence > showing that this call is not Michaels in this sequence, since we have no > agreements at all about this sequence. I could try to point out to you > how little time we have spent playing together, and if I myself happen to > have guessed wrong I will add this as evidence that we really cpouldn't > have had such an agreement. But I suspect no such evidence will convince > you. > If your partner happens to hold a two-suiter, and he used a completely conventional method of showing this, then no, I will not accept any evidence that he was not under the impression he had an agreement with you. Why should this case be any different to the one where you simply answer : "no agreement, so I suppose natural". By saying "no agreement, so either natural, strong or weak, or maybe Michaels or possibly Modified Sterling" you are covering all bases and expect not to be ruled against ? Not with me, you don't. Which goes to the point of my arguments on this thread : "no agreement" can be a valid response, as in John's highly unusual system where indeed nothing is agreed. But in most cases "no agreement" is simply a cover-up, an intentional trying to cover as many bases as possible, simply because one forgot to convene even the most simple things. Ususally these cases come up with pairs without convention cards, who HAVE played before, and who take a strange regards of ethics. That's who I'm ruling against ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 22:08:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:22 +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 WAA07121 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:15 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-107.uunet.be [194.7.9.107]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07702 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:09:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3577D435.36D9CB5F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 13:19:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: no agreement X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199806041936.OAA29169@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > > > I think this is evidence of impossibly high standards. You(player) and > > > I become an pick-up partnership, enter an undiscussed area of bidding, you > > > make a bid that I guess to mean one thing when really it means something > > > else, and I say "no agreement". After we manage by sheer luck [since I > > > have misunderstood your bid!] to blunder into a good result, you(TD) will then > > > automatically rule misinformation! We had no agreement, I said we had no > > > agreement, my partner agrees that we have no agreement, the fact that I > > > understood one thing by the bid and partner understood something different > > > indicates we have no agreement--and yet my claim to have had no agreement > > > is ruled as misinformation. > > > > > > > Yes ! > > No! :) > Yes it is, by me. Your obligation to opponents is not to tell the truth ("I forgot" may be true but is not good enough), but to explain the system. "We have no agreement" may even be true in specific terms, but it fails the test for complete explanation. > > Which is not the same as getting our good result away. > > Maybe the misinformation did not cause damage. > > But I feel that since partner obviously meant "something" with his call, > > then opponents are entitled to know what that "something" is, and the > > answer 'no agreement' is not a correct description of this "something". > > I always mean something with my bids, but the content of that > something is not ipso facto a partnership agreement. Opponents are only > entitled to know about such agreements [explicit or implicit]. > If you mean something with your bid, then you are hoping partner agrees with it. If partner guesses wrong, then you will have a bad result. If partner guesses right, then should not the opponents be told the same thing ? > > My point is that even if there genuinly IS no agreement, the burden of > > proof lies with the bidders that the explanation is correct. Since this > > proof is impossible, the TD will HAVE to rule that the actual system is > > Why 'impossible'? > How can you prove you have NO agreement. Do you keep a tape recording of all your conversations ever, with everyone ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 22:08:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:25 +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 WAA07130 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:19 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-107.uunet.be [194.7.9.107]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07711 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:09:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3577D6AF.F4BABAB1@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 13:29:51 +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: <199806041956.OAA01998@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > [good example coming up] > On top of that, sometimes you can't _help_ but make an ambiguous > bid. Consider the following situation [inspired by actual events, as they > say on tv]: You're not playing with your regular partner. You're in > slam-mode, and partner uses Blackwood. RHO now interferes, and you > realize that _you didn't discuss_ interference over Blackwood. Now _any_ > call you make will be ambiguous. The only thing to do is gamble and > _hope_ partner is on the same wavelength, or that you'll get a good result > by luck. Certainly if I double _hoping_ that partner will guess I'm > playing D0P1 that does not in itself constitute an agreement to play D0P1, > especially if partner thinks it's penalty or DEPO or some other > convention. > OK, very common example. Now in your club, most of the pairs will be playing one system or another. In Flanders, DOPI is the most common one. So in this situation, and even without an agreement, I will guess we will be playing DOPI. Now suppose I am playing against someone else from my club. I respond, "no agreement" and he will also guess this means DOPI. But if I am playing against you, you will have every reason to ask what the "norm" is, for us. So against you, I will tell you it should be DOPI. Against a beginner, I shall do the same, and even explain DOPI. So even the simple response "no agreement", really does mean one particular system. Now I do see your point and maybe in your club, DOPI is not as standard (barring agreements - quite a lot of people play something else) as it is in mine. But can you really play bridge like that ? And is it in the spirit of the game that we can let a pair apparently agree (both guessing the same thing) and NOT tell opponents the system they both guessed correctly ? If you have to guess, then do so. If you guess wrong, then the bad score will be a result from your lack of effort in agreeing things. But if you guess right, then please do not try and win extra points by not telling opponents what you guessed ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 22:08:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:18 +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 WAA07112 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:08:10 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-107.uunet.be [194.7.9.107]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07689 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:09:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3577D18D.534B7339@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 13:07:57 +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: <199806041317.XAA00851@octavia.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (apparently this is Thomas) wrote: > > > I will, if they ask, be happy to tell them that I think it is 45% > > > strong take-out, 45% Michaels, and 10% natural. [Or whatever.] That is > > > the closest to an 'agreement' we have. > > > > > > > And I will happily rule against you whatever partner actually holds. > > I suggest you stop calling that rules under which you > rule the Laws of Contract Bridge; you are making your > own personal set of rules much to often. > Far too harsh words, Thomas. You too are dealing with two quite different cases at once. You don't read the original question, and then criticise my response by giving a totally different counter-example. If someone bids a two-suiter in a manner conforming to Michaels, and his partner answers, "it may be strong, but also Michaels", then I am going to rule that it was Michaels and, depending on what the final response of the partner was, that there was misinformation. Your examples deal with things found on page 739 of your system notes. Michaels is on the CC. Barring a convention card, these people will never be able to prove that they were not playing Michaels, so why should I not rule against them ? > > If he has a two-suiter, then I will rule that your agreement is > > 'Michaels'. This is not what you have told opponents, so : > > misinformation. > > > > Please then prove to me that you were not playing Michaels ! > > He doesn't have to. Your argument essentially comes down > to: "You are not allowed to use any bid which is not explained > in detail on your convention card", or, in other words, if > my opponents do something unusual, I'll always receive > a deWael bottom. > No, I'm just asking partner to explain "Michaels", without the fringes. If he says Michaels or natural, but I'm not offering a choice, then I will rule against him. And yes, you will always receive a bottom if you act in this manner. That is why I urge you to take your chances and pick one. This is absolutely not equal to the examples you provide further, and to which I have absolutely no reason to disagree with what you say. > > Whats wrong: you are making the absurd assumption that it is > possible to have a complete set of agreements. > It is certainly possible to know whether you are playing Michaels or not! [other comments snipped - and agreed upon] > Thomas -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 22:25:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:25:34 +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 WAA07227 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:25:29 +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 HAA09857 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 07:57:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980605082031.386f4384@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 08:20:31 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Re Dallas Appeal Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199806050346.UAA23794@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:43 PM 6/4/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >All this is a little far-fetched, but there is a better reason for >strong pass-and-pull: If partner hesitates before doubling, pulling >with a strong hand is unlikely to be penalized by a TD or AC. I play weak pass-and-pull in my regular partnerships. Our system notes specifically state: "Pass and pull to show a strong hand is untenable when the double is not in perfect tempo." I would think it is easier to defend pulling a slow penalty double with a weak hand than pulling a slow penalty double with a strong hand. Afterall, with a strong hand you have reason to believe you can contribute to the defense, with a weak hand you may not. Especially in today's bidding style where almost no double means "I got'em" rather than "I think we may have'em." TIm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 22:32:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:32:54 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA07251 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:32:48 +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 MAA14893 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:33:31 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980605083408.006e9b9c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 08:34:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Declarer asks re tricks In-Reply-To: <3573EB03.B6A180A7@village.uunet.be> References: <35735869.CED4346D@pinehurst.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:07 PM 6/2/98 +0200, Herman wrote: >However L42A2 specifically authorises dummy to keep count of tricks. >He is allowed to putting them facing correctly before him. >So declarer is allowed to look at this. >So I would also allow declarer to actively ask and dummy responding, so >many tricks. >Please remark that L42A2 talks about 'keep count', not merely of facing >them correctly. Exactly. L42A2 permits dummy to keep the count such that it is visible to declarer. To then say that declarer cannot ask dummy what that count is would be to impose a penalty on declarers with vision disabilities. 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 Jun 5 23:25:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 23:25:39 +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 XAA07488 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 23:25:31 +1000 Received: from client15f9.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.15.249] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yhwVu-0007kG-00; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:26:35 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Holiday. Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:21:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd9084$d3a60e80$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD908D.356A7680" 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_0006_01BD908D.356A7680 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 Three weeks in Canada. (Nanaimo, Banff, Calgary, Harwood/Bewdley Ont.) This machine closes today. The one at home=20 closes Sunday evening. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD908D.356A7680 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  
Three weeks in Canada. (Nanaimo, = Banff,=20 Calgary, 
Harwood/Bewdley=20 Ont.)
This machine closes today. = The one at home
closes Sunday=20 evening.
          &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;       =20  

 
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01BD908D.356A7680-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 5 23:44:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 23:44:48 +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 XAA07555 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 23:44:36 +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 OAA15633; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:43:37 +0100 (BST) Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA20304; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:43:35 +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 OAA23026; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:43:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 98 14:43:17 BST Message-Id: <20266.9806051343@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: no agreement Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman goes on: > How can you prove you have NO agreement. > > Do you keep a tape recording of all your conversations ever, with > everyone ? You do not have to prove that you have NO agreement. AFAIK, all the laws say is (L75) " but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." All that is required to rule that there was not a Mistaken Explanation is "evidence to the contrary" not "documentary evidence to the contrary" nor "irrefutable evidence to the contrary" (= proof). The laws do not even put the onus on the players to produce this evidence: the director should try to establish the facts (what, if any, is their agreement), by making some attempt to find some evidence. Simply listening to the players may be sufficient to convince you that they have no agreement. Or perhaps the auction is sufficiently complicated that you would only expect experience partnerships to have agreements, whereas you have evidence that this is not an experienced partnership. [ Evidence of not being an experienced partnership: - they don't know each other's names, - you told them to sit down together 10 minutes ago to fill the last table, - you had to show them how to use a bidding box. ] I'm ranting I know, but this perversion of "evidence" to "OS must prove" is silly. 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 Jun 5 23:49:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 23:49:28 +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 XAA07572 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 23:49:21 +1000 Received: from BillS ([192.168.3.1]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.03/64) id 1355700 ; Fri, 05 Jun 1998 09:46:40 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980605095325.007d85a0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 09:53:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3577D6AF.F4BABAB1@village.uunet.be> References: <199806041956.OAA01998@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies if I have missed a post or two and am covering old ground, but this thread seems to have meandered into territory which is of particular interest to me in the context of what constitutes implicit agreement vs. general bridge knowledge, and the implications of this distinction vis a vis disclosure obligations. By virtue of their lack of explicit agreement, is a pair be freed from their obligations of disclosure on certain auctions? Who is to judge whether their decisions are being made based on general bridge knowledge? Is general bridge knowledge invariant over time and space, or might it vary from country to country and over time? Does knowledge of partner's bridge background (e.g., location and time-frame of experience, preferred authors and bridge magazine subscriptions, general knowledge of peripheral agreements that tend to go along with a given system) lead to meaningful implicit agreement? >From a practical standpoint, there are many players who could sit down at the table with 5 seconds notice opposite a random east or west coast U.S. expert, say "all the usual stuff" and have reasonable certainty that they could use about 50 pages worth of conventions and treatments with only modest risk of a misunderstanding on any given hand. If they are completely free to say "no agreement" about each of these conventions and treatments, the opponents will be heavily disadvantaged unless they happen to also be knowledgeable about consensus U.S. coastal expert practice. There is, in practice, some conflict between the *perceived* obligations under law 40B and the *perceived* limitations to those obligations under law 75C. Usually the arguments break down into two camps with the disclosers pointing to the words "whether explicit or implicit" and the non-disclosers pointing to the words "*special* partnership agreements" and "general bridge knowledge". I would be most interested to know how members of BLML regard the limits of implicit agreement and how this conflict should be resolved. Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 00:53:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 00:53:35 +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 AAA10020 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 00:53:20 +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 OAA17850 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:49:26 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA21331; Fri, 5 Jun 98 14:20:49 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980605142101.007e0ad0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 14:21:01 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3577D321.6C769F5@village.uunet.be> References: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:14 05/06/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> >> > > True enough--but why should I want that? If partner and I have >> > > blundered into a region of bidding we have absolutely no agreements on, we >> > > are already at a serious disadvantage. What entitles opponents to the >> > > knowledge of partner's hand which I do not possess? >> > > I am not trying to hide behind the letter of the law--indeed, I >> > > think the opponents should be told more than most people on this list seem >> > > to think they should be told. But I don't see _anything_ that suggests I >> > > should tell them this. >> > > I will, if they ask, be happy to tell them that I think it is 45% >> > > strong take-out, 45% Michaels, and 10% natural. [Or whatever.] That is >> > > the closest to an 'agreement' we have. >> > > >> > >> > And I will happily rule against you whatever partner actually holds. >> > >> > If he has a two-suiter, then I will rule that your agreement is >> > 'Michaels'. This is not what you have told opponents, so : >> > misinformation. >> > >> > Please then prove to me that you were not playing Michaels ! >> >> I can't, of course. We obviously do not have any written evidence >> showing that this call is not Michaels in this sequence, since we have no >> agreements at all about this sequence. I could try to point out to you >> how little time we have spent playing together, and if I myself happen to >> have guessed wrong I will add this as evidence that we really cpouldn't >> have had such an agreement. But I suspect no such evidence will convince >> you. >> > >If your partner happens to hold a two-suiter, and he used a completely >conventional method of showing this, then no, I will not accept any >evidence that he was not under the impression he had an agreement with >you. > >Why should this case be any different to the one where you simply answer >: "no agreement, so I suppose natural". There should be a threshold somewhere: do you admit this response? "no agreement, so I suppose Stayman". I understand you want to discourage any use of artificial bid in a situation in which a partnership has not explicitely established an agreement. At least, this is a politically correct step towards prohibitting every conventional bid. >By saying "no agreement, so either natural, strong or weak, or maybe >Michaels or possibly Modified Sterling" you are covering all bases and >expect not to be ruled against ? Not with me, you don't. Some bad guys have these bad manners, I agree, but most people are simply candid and when they tell you "no agreement", it's because (don't laugh) they have no agreement. Why do you dislike them? You systematically suspect them to be liars? You blame them for their bad choice of a partner who (in opposition to your sense of good ethics) tries an artificial bid and hopes to be understood? > >Which goes to the point of my arguments on this thread : "no agreement" >can be a valid response, as in John's highly unusual system where indeed >nothing is agreed. But in most cases "no agreement" is simply a >cover-up, an intentional trying to cover as many bases as possible, >simply because one forgot to convene even the most simple things. >Ususally these cases come up with pairs without convention cards, who >HAVE played before, and who take a strange regards of ethics. > >That's who I'm ruling against ! I know dictators who also, with very noble intents, followed similar methods; the best way to eliminate a whole category of evil-minded people is to exterminate a larger group or race in which they are included (babies in Palestina with Herode, ...). Kill them all, God will recognize his. JP Rocafort > >-- >Herman DE WAEL ________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Jun 6 01:19:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:19:48 +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 BAA10093 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:19:42 +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 PAA19124 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 15:20:19 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980605112057.006ee448@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 11:20:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Re Dallas Appeal Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199806050346.UAA23794@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:43 PM 6/4/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Just a side comment on all these other comments, which have been very >interesting: > >Bridge World Standard says that "Pass-and-pull" is a stronger action >than bidding immediately, when a pass would be forcing. Some good >players are of the opposite opinion, holding that an immediate bid is >stronger than "pass-and-pull." > >The technical argument in favor of strong pass-and-pull is that when >in doubt about slam a player can decide to pass a bid around to >partner, intending to bid slam if partner bids, but to pull if >partner doubles. Accordingly, the pull does not discourage more >bidding. Bidding five immediately is a merely competitive action, >indicating little if any interest in slam. > >The reverse method, while more intuitive (bid with strength, >pass-and-pull when weak), does not offer this flexibility. An >immediate bid will be recognized as strong, the bidder perhaps hoping >to make, but it would not necessarily express slam interest. This sounds backwards to me. If you pass, planning to pull partner's double to invite slam, and partner instead bids at the 5-level, you can no longer offer your planned invitation; you must now guess whether to bid slam or not on your own. If you bid immediately with the invitational hand, partner will always get to hear the invitation; when you pass with a hand that knows it wants to play at the 5- but not the 6-level, you always get to the 5-level whether partner doubles or bids. And if (for some odd reason) you want to play at the 5-level if partner doubles but at the 6-level if partner bids on, you can still pass and continue as planned. 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 Jun 6 01:44:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:44:49 +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 BAA10166 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:44:39 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhygZ-0002Lp-00; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 15:45:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:19:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3577D6AF.F4BABAB1@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3577D6AF.F4BABAB1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes big snip > >Now I do see your point and maybe in your club, DOPI is not as standard >(barring agreements - quite a lot of people play something else) as it >is in mine. > You probably should say "No agreement but the house style is DOPI ... I could be wrong". This does create UI for partner but is the best you can do, and after your bid partner could alert and say "if its DOPI it's this and if its DEPO its that, and I confirm that we have no agreement and that the house style is DOPI" >But can you really play bridge like that ? > Yep! Exacting levels of ethics at all times :) >And is it in the spirit of the game that we can let a pair apparently >agree (both guessing the same thing) and NOT tell opponents the system >they both guessed correctly ? > Well so we lucked out, and the oppo knew it was likely to be correct >If you have to guess, then do so. > >If you guess wrong, then the bad score will be a result from your lack >of effort in agreeing things. >But if you guess right, then please do not try and win extra points by >not telling opponents what you guessed ! > > -- 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 Jun 6 01:44:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:44:49 +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 BAA10167 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:44:41 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhygZ-0000BJ-00; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:45:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:10:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3577D321.6C769F5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3577D321.6C769F5@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> > But in most cases "no agreement" is simply a >cover-up, an intentional trying to cover as many bases as possible, >simply because one forgot to convene even the most simple things. >Ususally these cases come up with pairs without convention cards, who >HAVE played before, and who take a strange regards of ethics. > >That's who I'm ruling against ! > Now I am with you Herman, but a pick-up partnership is a different ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ kettle of fish - and if it's not on the cc there probably is no agreement. I'd ask did you agree eg "Standard Young Chelsea in doubt" which certainly would cover this or "do you have any blanket agreements" and failing all these I'd rule "Fixed! No adjustment" -- 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 Jun 6 01:56:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:56:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA10213 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 01:56:42 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1024526; 5 Jun 98 15:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:04:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Declarer asks re tricks In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980605083408.006e9b9c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980605083408.006e9b9c@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 02:07 PM 6/2/98 +0200, Herman wrote: > >>However L42A2 specifically authorises dummy to keep count of tricks. >>He is allowed to putting them facing correctly before him. >>So declarer is allowed to look at this. >>So I would also allow declarer to actively ask and dummy responding, so >>many tricks. >>Please remark that L42A2 talks about 'keep count', not merely of facing >>them correctly. > >Exactly. L42A2 permits dummy to keep the count such that it is visible to >declarer. To then say that declarer cannot ask dummy what that count is >would be to impose a penalty on declarers with vision disabilities. > > Dummy *may* keep count, and is not obliged to, so asking dummy (or indeed looking at dummy's quitted tricks) does not provide the answer We have a duty at the end of the hand to agree on tricks scored, but apart from L65B we don't need to agree before then. However if we aren't in agreement then we have an infraction, so we can call in the TD and he can (and I would - along with dire warnings about Law 65!) instruct dummy to sort out the tricks won. IMO we need a TD at the table to resolve this one. >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 > -- 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 Jun 6 02:40:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 02:40:03 +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 CAA10475 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 02:39:57 +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 MAA24764; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 12:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980605124028.0e272598@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 12:40:28 To: Jean-Pierre Rocafort , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980605142101.007e0ad0@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <3577D321.6C769F5@village.uunet.be> <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:21 PM 6/5/98 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > I understand you want to discourage any use of artificial bid in a >situation in which a partnership has not explicitely established an >agreement. At least, this is a politically correct step towards >prohibitting every conventional bid. I certainly don't want to discourage artificial bids, nor prohibit every conventional bid. In fact, I think more should be allowed rather than less (speaking from an ACBL viewpoint), in many events. >>By saying "no agreement, so either natural, strong or weak, or maybe >>Michaels or possibly Modified Sterling" you are covering all bases and >>expect not to be ruled against ? Not with me, you don't. > > Some bad guys have these bad manners, I agree, but most people are simply >candid and when they tell you "no agreement", it's because (don't laugh) >they have no agreement. Why do you dislike them? You systematically suspect >them to be liars? You blame them for their bad choice of a partner who (in >opposition to your sense of good ethics) tries an artificial bid and hopes >to be understood? Why make this personal? I don't accuse anyone of being a liar, nor do I dislike the people who disagree with my point of view here. Nor, do I think it is in poor ethics to try an artificial bid and hope to be understood. I do think that if you're going to try an artificial bid with the hope of being understood, you should disclose your hoped for agreement to the opponents. I play most of my bridge on OKBridge where self alerts are the norm. I can't imagine someone responding 4D to partner's 1S opening bid and telling the opponents there is no agreement. Or worse yet, telling them it could be a splinter or it could be Swiss or it could be a natural preempt (yes, I've played it that way before), or it could be a fit bid, but they aren't sure how partner will take it. Mind you, if someone did answer this way, they could well be fulfilling their obligations under the Laws. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 03:42:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 03:42:54 +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 DAA10657 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 03:42:48 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093nab.san.rr.com [204.210.49.171]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA01498 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806051743.KAA01498@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #8 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:39:21 -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 I wrote: >The technical argument in favor of strong pass-and-pull is that when >in doubt about slam a player can decide to pass a bid around to >partner, intending to bid slam if partner bids, but to pull if >partner doubles. Accordingly, the pull does not discourage more >bidding. Bidding five immediately is a merely competitive action, >indicating little if any interest in slam. > >The reverse method, while more intuitive (bid with strength, >pass-and-pull when weak), does not offer this flexibility. An >immediate bid will be recognized as strong, the bidder perhaps hoping >to make, but it would not necessarily express slam interest. And Eric Landau wrote: ####This sounds backwards to me. If you pass, planning to pull partner's double to invite slam, and partner instead bids at the 5-level, you can no longer offer your planned invitation; you must now guess whether to bid slam or not on your own. If you bid immediately with the invitational hand, partner will always get to hear the invitation; when you pass with a hand that knows it wants to play at the 5- but not the 6-level, you always get to the 5-level whether partner doubles or bids. And if (for some odd reason) you want to play at the 5-level if partner doubles but at the 6-level if partner bids on, you can still pass and continue as planned.#### If partner bids, showing extras, then you probably have enough information to bid any slam. An immediate bid will sound competitive, not invitational, even if pass-and-pull is the weaker action. I've always found it to be somewhat irritating when partner passes a decision around for me to make, then I decide to double, and partner pulls. It's a waste of brain power, besides requiring good tempo. And Tim Goodwin wrote: ####I play weak pass-and-pull in my regular partnerships. Our system notes specifically state: "Pass and pull to show a strong hand is untenable when the double is not in perfect tempo." I would think it is easier to defend pulling a slow penalty double with a weak hand than pulling a slow penalty double with a strong hand. After all, with a strong hand you have reason to believe you can contribute to the defense, with a weak hand you may not. Especially in today's bidding style where almost no double means "I got'em" rather than "I think we may have'em."#### N-S on the subject deal could not successfully defend pulling the double with a weak hand. The AC will always say, "If partner had doubled fast, you would not have pulled, despite your weakness." With a strong hand I can say, "Why would I pass, knowing that we can make five and possibly six?" I admit that I am not sure of all the technical aspects of this argument. John Strauch and Evan Bailey, the top pair around these parts (San Diego), play weak pass-and-pull. When I discussed with John the tempo aspects of this approach, he said that wasn't a problem for them because they always bid in tempo in a competitive auction. Most of us can't do that. Bridge World Standard is a system based on the majority preferences of approximately 125 leading experts (with BW readers' opinions governing when a vote is close). The current BWS states: "Pass and pull strong in forcing situation." I can't find the BW issue that showed the vote on this item, but I doubt it was a close vote (I believe readers would lean toward weak pass-and-pull). Maybe someone can look this up? Jeff Rubens, are you reading this? I'll ask good friend Danny Kleinman to give us his views on the subject, and pass them on to BLML (Danny is not an internet user). He always has strong opinions, and good justifications for them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 04:42:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 04:42:35 +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 EAA10890 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 04:42:29 +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 SAA23062 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 18:43:13 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980605144352.006963b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 14:43:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeal Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199806051743.KAA01498@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:39 AM 6/5/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >I wrote: > >>The technical argument in favor of strong pass-and-pull is that when >>in doubt about slam a player can decide to pass a bid around to >>partner, intending to bid slam if partner bids, but to pull if >>partner doubles. Accordingly, the pull does not discourage more >>bidding. Bidding five immediately is a merely competitive action, >>indicating little if any interest in slam. >> >>The reverse method, while more intuitive (bid with strength, >>pass-and-pull when weak), does not offer this flexibility. An >>immediate bid will be recognized as strong, the bidder perhaps >hoping >>to make, but it would not necessarily express slam interest. > >And Eric Landau wrote: > >####This sounds backwards to me. If you pass, planning to pull >partner's >double to invite slam, and partner instead bids at the 5-level, you >can no >longer offer your planned invitation; you must now guess whether to >bid >slam or not on your own. If you bid immediately with the >invitational >hand, partner will always get to hear the invitation; when you pass >with a >hand that knows it wants to play at the 5- but not the 6-level, you >always >get to the 5-level whether partner doubles or bids. And if (for some >odd >reason) you want to play at the 5-level if partner doubles but at the >6-level if partner bids on, you can still pass and continue as >planned.#### > >If partner bids, showing extras, then you probably have enough >information to bid any slam. An immediate bid will sound competitive, >not invitational, even if pass-and-pull is the weaker action. I've >always found it to be somewhat irritating when partner passes a >decision around for me to make, then I decide to double, and partner >pulls. It's a waste of brain power, besides requiring good tempo. But why would partner's bid show extras? Opposite a forcing pass, partner will normally bid on with a more offensively oriented hand and double with a more defensively oriented hand, regardless of strength. Marv is certainly right that when you make a forcing pass, planning to pull a subsequent double by partner, you force partner to make an unnecessary decision and risk a tempo problem. But this is equally true whether your pass-and-pull sequence is defined as stronger or weaker than an immediate bid. As I see it, if you have a slam invitation you're also more likely to have some values that will probably be working on defense. It should be easier to convince a TD/AC that your pull of partner's slow double was simply completing a systemic two-step sequence (therefore passing wasn't an LA) when you have a defenseless hand; with some trick-taking potential, it's much more likely to look like you might have passed an in-tempo double. 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 Jun 6 05:24:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 05:24:33 +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 FAA10982 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 05:24:25 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-141.access.net.il [192.116.204.141]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA20050; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:24:12 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <357846B0.EBA0B864@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 22:27:44 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hirsch Davis CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" References: <199806050121.VAA07788@smtp2.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Hirsch Hirsch Davis wrote: > > [snip] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grattan > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 2:48 AM > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" > > > > IMO there is an enormous difference between the unethical "now we > > just need one more trick to defeat the contract, partner" and > > "that was our/their trick, partner". > > \x/ > > It's partner's lead. He's staring into space, the clock is moving, and the > round is nearing it's end. You notice that partner has his card turned > wrong, and obviously has no clue that he won the last trick and it's his > lead. > > Can you tell him? IMO , you can't even look at him !!!!! Law 44G enforces him to play to the subsequent trick ... By the very strict law ,the opponents should call the TD , for slow play = from the legal point of view they don't know if your partner fell asleep or thinks a very long while ...... But if they draw his attention that it is his turn to play .... there is no penalty for them , as much as I remember the Laws. I believe that the Lawmakers wanted to avoid any procedure or Law which could be ambiguous with a "show" of UI. Cheers Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 06:12:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 06:12:09 +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 GAA11150 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 06:12:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA16765 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 15:12:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.68) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016662; Fri Jun 5 15:11:54 1998 Received: by har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD909C.68B481C0@har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:10:08 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD909C.68B481C0@har-pa2-04.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:10:06 -0400 Encoding: 85 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Your comment is Kaplanesque in its majesty. But when I say who wants to win that way, I mean would it not be better for all if it were IMPOSSIBLE to revoke, or LOOT, or BOOT, or miscount tricks taken. That has long seemed to be an advantage online. To the extent that such technical errors can be eliminated with little effort, no bad ethics, and an even playing field why indeed would anyone want to win that way? I was beginning to wonder if I'd disagree with you on anything this spring. :-) As for the Mets, I think you may have balked. Do we really want as adversarial a relationship with our TD's as baseball players have with umpires? But to answer your question, it is not unfair if you gain from an irregularity. If, on the other hand, I would prefer to wait with bated breath (or baited if you choose) for an irregularity to make me a profit, I would have some difficulty in separating myself ethically from the carrion eaters. Bridge should be a game of skill not accident or mechanical error insofar as possible. And it should be a sporting contest between ladies and gentlemen, nor predators seeking advantage from the technical imperfection. To want to win by ANY legal means is the credo of the BL. If I can win by a falsecard or a psych or a superior system, or good card reading (or even from opponents inferior bidding and play) that is a fair part of the contest. But it is hard to find much joy in winning by irregularity. (And it is even more frustrating to lose thereby.) To the extent irregularities can be eliminated from the game and allow bridge skill, judgement and style to determine contests, we will have a better and more enjoyable game. Craig ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:19 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Craig Senior wrote: >In most social games and less competitive club games it is standard >courtesy to let any player at the table know when he has turned a card >wrong. Not everywhere: it is my view that part of the problem of bridge in certain parts of the world is the failure to assume the Law book applies at club level. > It would also appear to be in accord with active ethics. Absolutely not. > Unless the >laws clearly forbid the practice it should be permitted, nay encouraged, at >all levels. Who wants to win because of an irregularity? (All who raised >their hands please take up another game.) Oh, I hate that question. It is so unfair. When you think of all the tricks that I have thrown away over the years by revoking, not drawing trumps, not knowing how many tricks I need to beat the contract, and all the other methods: when you think that I allow poorer plays to rob me blind by cheating, using UI, and everything else that poor players do: when you think that I will be the first to fight for the opponents' rights if my partner uses UI: when you think of all these things, what is so unfair if I happen to gain from an irregularity? The effects of irregularities balance out, well not in my case, but I lose a couple of tricks every so often, and gain a trick to compensate also every so often. If one of these irregularities gives me a win, why should I not take it? Twice as often I shall be losing by them. What do you think the Mets do if their opponents make an illegal play? Dash up to the Umpire, and say we don't want to win that way? In your dreams! When players infract at this game you take what you get so long as your ethics are pure. If you get handed a win, so be it. If you are actively ethical, you will be giving them away as well, and more often. -- 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 Jun 6 06:12:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 06:12:41 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11166 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 06:12:34 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.68.9.13]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980605201308.GISQ27858@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 20:13:08 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Fw: Dallas Appeal Case #8 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd90bd$e6de7800$4107440c@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 At the request of Craig Senior, to whom I sent this private post, I place my e-letter on the public dais. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior To: 'JApfelbaum' Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 10:43 AM Subject: RE: Dallas Appeal Case #8 > You make your arguments so much more clearly and effectively in this >private post that I would urge you to send it to the list. While I still do >not fully agree under the standards currently used to evaluate UI, you make >an interesting case for changing those standards. You have a view that >differs intellignetly from the prevailing one, and one that should be >considered in developing future concepts in this area. > Since I respect that you retain a copyright in private email, the >decision to post to group must be yours. But I think you have said >something interesting here that was not made nearly so clear before, and >that some on group would enjoy and benefit from it. In any case, thank you >for taking the time to clarify and share your thoughts with me. > Best regards from the District next door :-) > >Craig > >---------- >From: JApfelbaum[SMTP:JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net] >Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:06 PM >To: Craig Senior >Subject: Re: Dallas Appeal Case #8 > >I decided to post this message privately. Many thanks for the compliments >on my skill and sincerity. You are most kind. However, the analysis is one >of law. The fact that one person would or would not do something is not >dispositive. And there seems to be a great deal of "wrong thinking" on the >precise test that should be used. > >Please read on. And keep well. I enjoy reading your posts. > >Jay > >-----Original Message----- >From: Craig Senior >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; >'JApfelbaum' >Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 11:37 AM >Subject: RE: Dallas Appeal Case #8 > > >> >>### What it adds is the knowledge that doubler was not able to make his >>call without some delay. He was either uncertain of it, or had to weigh his >>actions. Even if, and this is an uncertain matter, an in tempo double >>conveys the message "I don't know what to do partner" the slow double says >>AT A MINIMUM "I had to think it over before deciding I don't know what to >>do." I don't claim to be in Jay's class as a player, but the primary >>message of a penalty double in this auction seems to me to be AT LEAST an >>invitation to partner to leave it in unless a good reason exists for >>pulling it. It would seem to require less of a good reason to pull given >>the added uncertainly conveyed by the hesitation. Complex analysis of >>system might possibly allow adjustment at the committee level if it could >>be demonstrated unequivocably that this pairs' methods would have demanded >>a pull on the auction sans the hitch. But the TD surely should rule in >>favour of the NOS and roll back to 4H doubled.### >> > >You correctly point out there is an emotional difference between a slow and >a fast double. However, what I fail to see is any difference in the HAND. >Yes, North might not be certain of his/her double. BUT IN THIS AUCTION >NORTH'S LACK OF CERTAINTY DOES NOT CHANGE THE PICTURE OF HIS HAND. > >> >> >>### It always conveys extraneous information: that doubler for some reason >>had to delay before making his call. That ITSELF IS extraneous. The EI as >>it were is there without question...the only question at issue is whether >>it suggests an LA over another.### > >OK, suppose for the sake of argument I accept that the break in tempo always >conveys extraneous information. My point from the beginning was that in THIS >CASE the information is readily available through authorized means. We know >that North has a big hand with a heart void with his/her primary suit being >diamonds. This is authorized. We know that North's values are primary (A & >K), rather than secondary (Q & J) in nature. This is authorized. The classic >view of the hesitation double is that there are always poor trumps in the >doubler's hand. We know, from our hand (authorized information) that North >has to be void in hearts. > >So how is the North hand different? And what do we do when the supposed EI >is available as authorized information through other sources? > >> >> >>### There is no quarrel with North's BID. I'm quite cetain he can easily >>justify his bid. It's the tempo of the bid that places the constraint on >>partner.### > >I do not belong to the "If it hesitates, shoot it" school of thought. I >would suppose that IF South has received extraneous information and IF that >information were not available through authorized means, THEN South's >choices would be restricted to those logical alternatives not reasonably >suggested by the EI. > >However, your analysis consistently assumes that a break in tempo MUST >convey EI and that this information is not readily available by authorized >means. We should be willing to abandon this assumption (you know what they >say about people who "assume" - ) and set out what this EI is. And >emotion is not EI unless it conveys useful information about the hand. > >> >> >>### Here I respectfully disagree. Your failure to see the UI does not mean >>it is not there. NOS has requested redress. For that reason you must go >>through the analysis. You don't have to come to the conclusion that there >>was damage resulting from UI...but you must perform the analysis to >>determine this.### > >You are corect, but when it may be concluded that there is no EI conveyed >there is nothing further to discuss as to Law 16. > >> >>I already concluded there is no extraneous information from the break in >>tempo. Now, I am suggesting that a 5D bid by South is clear on this >>auction. >> >>### I agree. ### >> >> >>Pass is not a logical alternative. >> >>### Here, again, we disagree. It is inferior, perhaps, but a substantial >>number of players of like quality are likely to seriously consider it, and >>perhaps a few actually do it. If there's one thing notable about expert >>bridge it is the disagreement that abounds. Read any Master Solvers column >>in TBW, and you will find at least one expert calling an action obvious >>that another calls absurd. ### > >Not sure how these last two statements logically can exist together. The >test properly is whether some number would ACTUALLY pass. The problem with >seriously consider is that EVERY expert seriously considers his or her >possible courses of action. On the hand in question it is fair that every >expert would look at pass and 5D and evaluate their relative merits. That >does not mean that pass is a LOGICAL alternative. > >An action that is logical does not have to be the best action, but it does >have to have a reasonable chance of being the correct action on a single >dummy basis. Consider a hypothetical situation where there are two choices >- >one will be correct 60% of the time and the other 40% of the time. For the >sake of simplicity let us further assume that the method of scoring does >not >alter this percentage. (e.g., vul game at imps) I submit that virtually >every expert faced with such a choice will opt for the 60% action. The 40% >action is an alternative, but not a LOGICAL one. However, it is fair to say >that any expert would seriously EVALUATE the 40% action to determine that >it is 40%. Doing an analysis does not mean it is seriously considered. > >> >>### I don't question your analysis. But by the mere fact of presenting it, >>you hint that pass is at worst anti-percentage, and not an egregious error. >>And you make this analysis to pull to 5D as an alternative to pass. The >>pull is suggested without the hitch...it only becomes close to mandated >>with the hitch. ### > >At some point, any anti-percentage action becomes so poor a gamble that it >ceases to be a logical alternative. To establish this, it is necessary to analyze >it in depth. The fact of the analysis does not make the anti-percentage action >a logical alternative. In fact, you have to seriously examine any alternative to >determine if it is a logical possibility. So, it follows that an analysis does not, >of itself, make some action logical. The description "logical" requires an analysis. >The description "not logical" requires the same analysis. > >> >> >>### I agree, a minority would actually pass. I submit that a significant >>number would seriously consider passing and reject it in favour of the >>pull. After the hitch, less would even consider a pass. Those who were on >>the fence would jump off on the side of 5D if it were not banned...so it >>is. ### > >I do not agree that a minority would actually pass. One or two is not >significant enough to constitute a basis to decide pass is a LA. The rest >of this paragraph only repeats earlier argument, so I refer to my earlier >arguments as well. > > >> >>> >>>[1] Was there UI? Yes, definitely. A slow double shows that the >>>action taken was not completely obvious. There was some doubt. >> >>Granted the break in tempo shows some doubt. However, the double itself >>conveys the same message. So I still fail to see how the break in tempo >>conveys UI. >> >>### It shows more uncertainty. ### > >Uncertanty is an emotional statement. How does it change your picture of >the North hand? > >> >>Trump void? Already obvious from the South hand. Poor defensive values? >>Impossible considering the cue bid on the previous round. Long second >>suit? Also impossible considering failure to show second suit on previous >>round. >> >>>[2] Was there an LA? The main question seems to be, was Pass an LA? >>>Craig says yes: Jay does not answer this. But it is required as part of >>>the decision making process. However, I think it is implicit in Jay's >>>answer that he accepts this. >> >>I do not accept that pass is a logical alternative. Not with the hand >>actually held by South. As stated in a previous post, depending on >>partnership methods I believe that South should have bid 5D on the >>previous round. However, the analysis of the auction puts the partnership >>in 5D regardless. >> >>### Does not his failure to bid it on the previous round suggest that for >>this pair South's pass at that time was forcing, transferring the >>captaincy of the hand to North to either double or take out? Why then is >>it so clearcut a matter for him now to override the decision partner has >>made?### > >A matter of partnership at worst. Or, perhaps, simply passing knowing that >partner has another bid and wanting to know more before deciding for the >partnership on the final contract with only a king's worth of assets. > > > >>>[3] Was the action taken demonstrably suggested over pass by the UI? >>>Craig says yes: in fact he thinks there is no doubt whatever. Now, I >>>think Jay means no, but has approached it wrong. 'Extra' information is >>>not an issue: the issue is whether the action taken is suggested. If >>>you believe that partner's apparent doubt does not suggest bidding >>>rather than passing [and that is probably what you do mean] then you are >>>right there is no reason to adjust. >> >>A point worth mentioning here. This case was heard before the 1997 changes >>went into effect. At that time, the test was whether the UI "reasonably >>suggested" one action over another. My analysis has been based on the >>pre-1997 version. Under the current law, I believe the answer is totally >>clear - table result stands. >> >>Under the pre-1997 laws, the test for UI is much easier to meet. >> >>However, the difference is meaningless in this case as the break in tempo >>does not convey any extraneous information. >> >>As previously stated, in my opinion there is no LA to bidding 5D. >> >>### And mine is that there "demonstrably" is one: pass. This also seems to >>have been the view of the AC. ### > >I always hated going with popularity contests when everyone is using the >wrong test. However, you make a strong point here that the commentators >found favor with the decision. Read the analysis and you will see that no >one ever considered how the break in tempo DOES NOT CHANGE THEIR IMAGE OF >THE NORTH HAND. > > >>### While you have made an eloquent case for it, I am totally unconvinced >> of its merits. I have no doubt of your sincerity, or that YOU would have >>bid 5D without seriously considering a pass absent the hesitation. I just >>do not believe that every expert would. > >Thanks for the compliment. My point as always is that we should be using >the proper test. The comments in the Case Book and on BLML so far show >me that people are not considering this hand properly. By this, I only mean >that they are not employing the proper tests. You are quite correct that I might >never seriously consider pass an LA. And that others might. However, the >question is whether others might IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EI. And, of course, >how the EI might suggest alternatives. BUT NO ONE HAS EVER CONSIDERED WHAT >TO DO WHEN THE EI IS READILY AVAILABLE THROUGH AUTHORIZED MEANS. > >Thanks for listening. Keep postiing! >Jay From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 19:41:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:50 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA12493 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27195 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:42:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3579082D.6A01388A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 11:13:17 +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: <199806041956.OAA01998@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980605095325.007d85a0@cshore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Segraves wrote: > > Apologies if I have missed a post or two and am covering old ground, but > this thread seems to have meandered into territory which is of particular > interest to me in the context of what constitutes implicit agreement vs. > general bridge knowledge, and the implications of this distinction vis a > vis disclosure obligations. > > By virtue of their lack of explicit agreement, is a pair be freed from > their obligations of disclosure on certain auctions? Who is to judge > whether their decisions are being made based on general bridge knowledge? > Is general bridge knowledge invariant over time and space, or might it vary > from country to country and over time? Does knowledge of partner's bridge > background (e.g., location and time-frame of experience, preferred authors > and bridge magazine subscriptions, general knowledge of peripheral > agreements that tend to go along with a given system) lead to meaningful > implicit agreement? > > >From a practical standpoint, there are many players who could sit down at > the table with 5 seconds notice opposite a random east or west coast U.S. > expert, say "all the usual stuff" and have reasonable certainty that they > could use about 50 pages worth of conventions and treatments with only > modest risk of a misunderstanding on any given hand. If they are > completely free to say "no agreement" about each of these conventions and > treatments, the opponents will be heavily disadvantaged unless they happen > to also be knowledgeable about consensus U.S. coastal expert practice. > > There is, in practice, some conflict between the *perceived* obligations > under law 40B and the *perceived* limitations to those obligations under > law 75C. Usually the arguments break down into two camps with the > disclosers pointing to the words "whether explicit or implicit" and the > non-disclosers pointing to the words "*special* partnership agreements" and > "general bridge knowledge". I would be most interested to know how members > of BLML regard the limits of implicit agreement and how this conflict > should be resolved. > > Bill Segraves > Guilford, CT I don't have to say that I agree with what Bill is saying, do I ? "no agreement" can indeed mean "actually, quite a lot of agreements, but we are not going to tell them, since you are supposed to guess as much as we do". My P-o-v regarding Bill's question : If opponents are also east or west coast experts _and_ they happen to have understood the same thing when they have received as response "all the usual stuff", then there need not be misinformation. But if the opponents have a different opinion of what "the usual stuff" means to them, then there shall be misinformation. So what's wrong with saying "modified Segraves" instead of "no special agreement". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 19:41:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:53 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA12500 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:46 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27203 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:42:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35790AA3.37F13937@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 11:23:47 +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: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980605142101.007e0ad0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Like so many of you, Jean-Pierre has misunderstood what I am trying to convey. Is my English so bad ? Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > > >Why should this case be any different to the one where you simply answer > >: "no agreement, so I suppose natural". > > There should be a threshold somewhere: do you admit this response? "no > agreement, so I suppose Stayman". > I have no problem whatsoever with someone adding the words "no agreement, so I suppose ..." to the complete explanation (in this case Stayman). I advise against it, but there is no legal reason why one should not reveal to opponents that there was doubt. I only have problems with people simply saying "no agreement" and NOT offer any explanation to opponents about what they think the agreement could be. > I understand you want to discourage any use of artificial bid in a > situation in which a partnership has not explicitely established an > agreement. At least, this is a politically correct step towards > prohibitting every conventional bid. > I do not want to discourage this. I only want to discourage people hiding behind the words "no agreement" when they happen to both guess they have the same agreement. > >By saying "no agreement, so either natural, strong or weak, or maybe > >Michaels or possibly Modified Sterling" you are covering all bases and > >expect not to be ruled against ? Not with me, you don't. > > Some bad guys have these bad manners, I agree, but most people are simply > candid and when they tell you "no agreement", it's because (don't laugh) > they have no agreement. Why do you dislike them? You systematically suspect > them to be liars? You blame them for their bad choice of a partner who (in > opposition to your sense of good ethics) tries an artificial bid and hopes > to be understood? > I do not particularly dislike people who sit down and make few agreements. As long as they know that they are treading on a fine line. I do not suspect them of being liars, nor do I call them liars. All I am saying is that when two people sit down and bid Michaels, and then say they had no agreement about playing Michaels, there is something fishy. If "no agreement" means, "no agreement, so I assume ..." then why not say so ? > > > >Which goes to the point of my arguments on this thread : "no agreement" > >can be a valid response, as in John's highly unusual system where indeed > >nothing is agreed. But in most cases "no agreement" is simply a > >cover-up, an intentional trying to cover as many bases as possible, > >simply because one forgot to convene even the most simple things. > >Ususally these cases come up with pairs without convention cards, who > >HAVE played before, and who take a strange regards of ethics. > > > >That's who I'm ruling against ! > > I know dictators who also, with very noble intents, followed similar > methods; the best way to eliminate a whole category of evil-minded people > is to exterminate a larger group or race in which they are included (babies > in Palestina with Herode, ...). Kill them all, God will recognize his. > Totally invalid parallel, Jean-Pierre, When I say I am ruling against those "criminals" it simply means that I suspect people who do this ARE criminals. People who are not covering up their bad intentions do not simply answer "no agreement". The correct players DO offer a more complete answer. I say it is virtually impossible that "no agreement" is both true AND complete. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 19:41:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:56 +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 TAA12506 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:49 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27212 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:42:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35790BCF.CC78929C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 11:28:47 +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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >And is it in the spirit of the game that we can let a pair apparently > >agree (both guessing the same thing) and NOT tell opponents the system > >they both guessed correctly ? > > > Well so we lucked out, and the oppo knew it was likely to be correct > But you DID reply, "no agreement, but the house style is DOPI". Which is the least I expect you to do. You did NOT reply, "no agreement", nor did you not add the comment about house style, when pressed by opponents. The original thread was about people responding "no agreement" AND not offering a comment about house style or something. Those are the Bridge Lawyers I was arguing against. Not the people who explain their guesses. Do remark that my advise to reply "DOPI" in stead of "no agreement, but house style DOPI" is just that, an advise. The second type of answer is just as good IMO, when information to opponents is concerned. (In your opinion it is better, but that's a different thread). > >If you have to guess, then do so. > > > >If you guess wrong, then the bad score will be a result from your lack > >of effort in agreeing things. > >But if you guess right, then please do not try and win extra points by > >not telling opponents what you guessed ! > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 19:41:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:48 +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 TAA12491 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:41:40 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-92.uunet.be [194.7.9.92]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27190 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 11:42:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35790706.236F7D7E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 11:08:22 +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: <20266.9806051343@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: > > Herman goes on: > > How can you prove you have NO agreement. > > > > Do you keep a tape recording of all your conversations ever, with > > everyone ? > > You do not have to prove that you have NO agreement. > > AFAIK, all the laws say is (L75) " but the Director is to presume > Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of > evidence to the contrary." > > All that is required to rule that there was not a Mistaken Explanation > is "evidence to the contrary" > not "documentary evidence to the contrary" > nor "irrefutable evidence to the contrary" (= proof). > > The laws do not even put the onus on the players to produce this > evidence: the director should try to establish the facts (what, if > any, is their agreement), by making some attempt to find some > evidence. > > Simply listening to the players may be sufficient to convince you that > they have no agreement. Or perhaps the auction is sufficiently > complicated that you would only expect experience partnerships to have > agreements, whereas you have evidence that this is not an experienced > partnership. > > [ Evidence of not being an experienced partnership: > - they don't know each other's names, > - you told them to sit down together 10 minutes ago to fill the last table, > - you had to show them how to use a bidding box. > ] > OK, sometimes "no agreement" can be proven. Which has nothing to do with my arguments. > I'm ranting I know, but this perversion of "evidence" to "OS must prove" is > silly. > > Robin > I'm also ranting, I know. But all these threads have one thing in common. I am trying to explain generalisations, and many of you come up with counter-examples. Counter-examples do not disprove the things I am saying. I hope by now you have understood what I have been saying. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 21:59:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA12767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:59:31 +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 VAA12762 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:59:24 +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 IAA04047 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id IAA28619; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806061200.IAA28619@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Holiday. Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 >Grattan Endicott =20 >Liverpool L18 8DJ : > =20 >Three weeks in Canada. (Nanaimo, Banff, Calgary, >Harwood/Bewdley Ont.) >This machine closes today. The one at home=20 >closes Sunday evening. > =20 But, Grattan...there's nothing there! Why don't you visit Quebec city, Montreal, Ottawa (especially Ottawa!) and Toronto instead? :-) Hoping you change your mind, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 6 23:07:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:07:23 +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 XAA12840 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:07:11 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-165.access.net.il [192.116.204.165]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id QAA09405; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:07:26 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35793FE4.D5223AB2@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 16:11:00 +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: no agreement References: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980605142101.007e0ad0@phedre.meteo.fr> <35790AA3.37F13937@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman Herman De Wael wrote: < snip > > If "no agreement" means, "no agreement, so I assume ..." then why not > say so ? Because this is exactly what Law 75 wanted to avoid - to tell your partner what you DO assume ..... i don't believe there is any worst UI (maybe showing him your cards....). Dany > > > > ... [snippy .....] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 7 04:55:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 04:55:05 +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 EAA16109 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 04:54:58 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA16854 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 13:52:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806061852.NAA16854@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 13:52:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > By virtue of their lack of explicit agreement, is a pair be freed from > their obligations of disclosure on certain auctions? Who is to judge Since their obligation is to disclose agreements, not having agreements certainly should free them from the obligation to reveal them. [Just as Americans are legally obligated to have insurance for the cars, but choosing not to own a car removes that obligation.] > whether their decisions are being made based on general bridge knowledge? The TD and [if necessary] AC, I would suppose. > Is general bridge knowledge invariant over time and space, or might it vary > from country to country and over time? Does knowledge of partner's bridge It varies, I would say, in content though not in nature. > background (e.g., location and time-frame of experience, preferred authors > and bridge magazine subscriptions, general knowledge of peripheral > agreements that tend to go along with a given system) lead to meaningful > implicit agreement? Yes, indeed, it often does. > >From a practical standpoint, there are many players who could sit down at > the table with 5 seconds notice opposite a random east or west coast U.S. > expert, say "all the usual stuff" and have reasonable certainty that they > could use about 50 pages worth of conventions and treatments with only > modest risk of a misunderstanding on any given hand. If they are > completely free to say "no agreement" about each of these conventions and > treatments, the opponents will be heavily disadvantaged unless they happen > to also be knowledgeable about consensus U.S. coastal expert practice. Quite true. But they have an agreement--they have agreed to play all conventions that are 'usual'. So they must alert where appropriate, and explain when asked. "No agreement" here would be a lie. > There is, in practice, some conflict between the *perceived* obligations > under law 40B and the *perceived* limitations to those obligations under > law 75C. Usually the arguments break down into two camps with the > disclosers pointing to the words "whether explicit or implicit" and the > non-disclosers pointing to the words "*special* partnership agreements" and > "general bridge knowledge". I would be most interested to know how members > of BLML regard the limits of implicit agreement and how this conflict > should be resolved. I appreciate that some think this is a terribly difficult problem, but it seems rather easy to me in the vast majority of cases. Ask [roughly] "do I know anything about this bid that someone with the same amount of experience as me but no knowledge of this partner wouldn't know?" If so, then it is 'partnership' information and I must reveal it. If not, then it is general bridge knowledge and I need not reveal it. For example, if I know that this partner prefers natural bids whenever possible and we enter an unexpected point in an auction where partner makes an ambiguous bid for which we have no explicit agreement, then I will surely tell opponents that he tends to prefer natural bids. If I know partner is from my club, and in my club most people play Reverse Humperdink over weak notrumps, then I will reveal that. Someone with as much experience as I have who didn't know my partner might not guess the first bid was natural, or that the second was Rev. Hump. OTOH, if we did not explicitly discuss forcing pass auctions, and I think on the present auction partner's pass is clearly forcing, I will happily say "No Agreement" when asked, unless opponents are so inexperienced that I think they might not have the capacity to work it out for themselves. [I mean "if I think the bid is clearly forcing based only on the bidding itself".] Sometimes, of course, I may find myself playing with a partner I know nothing personal about at all--in that case, I will end up saying "No Agreement" a lot if asked, if I haven't had time to make many clear agreements. > Bill Segraves > Guilford, CT -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 7 07:31:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 07:31:56 +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 HAA16341 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 07:31:50 +1000 Received: from BillS ([192.168.3.15]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.03/64) id 1765200 ; Sat, 06 Jun 1998 17:29:06 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980606173703.007f5140@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 17:37:03 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199806061852.NAA16854@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I very much like Grant's approach to this, and theoretically it seems spot on to me. Unfortunately, many people seem to have a hard time applying it in practice within a highly geographically diverse playing environment. Mostly, I chalk this up to provincialism, rather than ill intent. Most players, myself included, are grossly ignorant of "standard" bidding practice in more than a few countries. Unfortunately, many of these players simply assume that what they know as "standard" *IS* standard and anyone who doesn't know it is deficient in general bridge knowledge. This is exacerbated under conditions (internet or play with screens #) where self alerts and explanations to both opponents or to a screen-mate may be the standard. At times, an expectation of provision, *by the bidder*, of relevant circumstantial evidence regarding the potential meaning of a bid may come uncomfortably close to an expectation that he explain the meaning of the bid, rather than the nature of relevant agreements. I would like nothing more than to be thoroughly convinced that this is *not* a difficult problem, or at least to be armed to the teeth with arguments on behalf of the position. :) # While this is not apt to be a substantial problem in most events being played with screens, due to the extent of partnership discussion and agreement, I bring it up as a relevant model for theoretical comparison. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT Grant Sterling wrote: [snip] > I appreciate that some think this is a terribly difficult problem, >but it seems rather easy to me in the vast majority of cases. Ask >[roughly] "do I know anything about this bid that someone with the same >amount of experience as me but no knowledge of this partner wouldn't >know?" If so, then it is 'partnership' information and I must reveal it. >If not, then it is general bridge knowledge and I need not reveal it. > For example, if I know that this partner prefers natural bids >whenever possible and we enter an unexpected point in an auction where >partner makes an ambiguous bid for which we have no explicit agreement, >then I will surely tell opponents that he tends to prefer natural bids. >If I know partner is from my club, and in my club most people play Reverse >Humperdink over weak notrumps, then I will reveal that. Someone with as >much experience as I have who didn't know my partner might not guess the >first bid was natural, or that the second was Rev. Hump. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 7 09:23:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 09:23:10 +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 JAA16546 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 09:23:04 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-9.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.175]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA18348; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3579CF9A.F900B807@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 19:24:10 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws CC: ferencz@pinehurst.net Subject: What happened? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At a local game, the following auction occurred: N E S W 1H - 1S - 2H - 2S 4S (1) - P - 4NT - all pass (1) When pulling out the bid card, South accidently pulled 3 spades, said oh, no and pulled the 4S card and placed it on the table. Next player snickered and passed and N bid 4NT. The opening lead hit the table as she was putting her cards back in the box and S now realized that she had bid 4S. Her logic in passing was that she knew from partners 2H bid that with her 12 point opening, and the opponent's bidding, they could not have slam and felt that partner had for some reason decided that 4NT was the best contact so "trusting partner" she passed. 4NT made easily and was a clear top on the board. In this whole situation there was never a director call. Did an infraction occur and how would you rule??? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 7 09:46:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 09:46:13 +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 JAA16608 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 09:46:08 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA02486 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806062347.TAA10478@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3579CF9A.F900B807@pinehurst.net> (message from Nancy T Dressing on Sat, 06 Jun 1998 19:24:10 -0400) Subject: Re: What happened? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing writes: > At a local game, the following auction occurred: > N E S W > 1H - 1S - 2H - 2S > 4S (1) - P - 4NT - all pass > (1) When pulling out the bid card, South accidently pulled 3 spades, > said oh, no and pulled the 4S card and placed it on the table. This is allowed if South pulled the wrong card, and produces only minor UI. > Next > player snickered and passed and N bid 4NT. The opening lead hit the > table as she was putting her cards back in the box and S now realized > that she had bid 4S. South has no UI. She decided to pass a Blackwood bid because she knew that something had gone wrong, and she might well have done the same if she had seen her 4S bid at the time 4NT hit the table (in many partnerships, such a bid would show a slam try with a singleton or void in spades, which presumably is not what she had.) The table result stands. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 7 22:23:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 22:23:20 +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 WAA17906 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 22:23:12 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yieUk-0002uA-00; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 13:24:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 02:56:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: <3579CF9A.F900B807@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3579CF9A.F900B807@pinehurst.net>, Nancy T Dressing writes >At a local game, the following auction occurred: >N E S W >1H - 1S - 2H - 2S >4S (1) - P - 4NT - all pass >(1) When pulling out the bid card, South accidently pulled 3 spades, >said oh, no and pulled the 4S card and placed it on the table. Next >player snickered and passed and N bid 4NT. The opening lead hit the >table as she was putting her cards back in the box and S now realized >that she had bid 4S. Her logic in passing was that she knew from >partners 2H bid that with her 12 point opening, and the opponent's >bidding, they could not have slam and felt that partner had for some >reason decided that 4NT was the best contact so "trusting partner" she >passed. 4NT made easily and was a clear top on the board. In this >whole situation there was never a director call. Did an infraction >occur and how would you rule??? Nancy > probably the only infraction was not to call the director to change the call made, evidently, as a mechanical error. No UI, No problem. So pard bids 4NT, so I passed, partner didn't even have an accident with her bidding box :) -- 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 Mon Jun 8 02:59:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 02:59:07 +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 CAA20835 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 02:59:00 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-85.uunet.be [194.7.9.85]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA16613 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:09:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <357AB86D.794607E7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 17:57:33 +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: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980605142101.007e0ad0@phedre.meteo.fr> <35790AA3.37F13937@village.uunet.be> <35793FE4.D5223AB2@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 > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > < snip > > > > If "no agreement" means, "no agreement, so I assume ..." then why not > > say so ? > > Because this is exactly what Law 75 wanted to avoid - > to tell your partner what you DO assume ..... i don't > believe there is any worst UI (maybe showing him your cards....). > > Dany > > > > > > > ... [snippy .....] And now we've come full circle ... Not telling opponents what you suppose it is because you would be telling partner that you have (mis)understood him. I don't believe this is a correct assumption. Partner has meant something. You must tell opponents something. Suppose you simple tell opponents one thing. Either this one thing was (maybe just by accident) the same thing as what partner has meant, and then there is no misinformation and no UI. Or you have told them something else, then there is misinformation and UI, and more than probable a bad hand because of the misunderstanding and no ruling necessary. Now by answering anything else than one thing, you just compound these problems : - you are likely to give misinformation - you do not avoid giving UI. So please again, what is wrong with giving one simple answer, of one meaning (of course as complete as possible), preferably without showing doubt. Remember that showing doubt, or not answering, or whatever, is always UI to partner. The only way to avoid giving UI to partner is by answering without doubt, and (perhaps just by chance) giving the explanation corresponding to his hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 04:22:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 04:22:47 +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 EAA21103 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 04:22:40 +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 SAA12086 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:23:15 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980607142410.0068e608@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 14:24:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What happened? In-Reply-To: <3579CF9A.F900B807@pinehurst.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:24 PM 6/6/98 -0400, Nancy wrote: >At a local game, the following auction occurred: >N E S W >1H - 1S - 2H - 2S >4S (1) - P - 4NT - all pass >(1) When pulling out the bid card, South accidently pulled 3 spades, >said oh, no and pulled the 4S card and placed it on the table. Next >player snickered and passed and N bid 4NT. The opening lead hit the >table as she was putting her cards back in the box and S now realized >that she had bid 4S. Her logic in passing was that she knew from >partners 2H bid that with her 12 point opening, and the opponent's >bidding, they could not have slam and felt that partner had for some >reason decided that 4NT was the best contact so "trusting partner" she >passed. 4NT made easily and was a clear top on the board. In this >whole situation there was never a director call. Did an infraction >occur and how would you rule??? Nancy I would rule no infraction, no problem, some days you get the bear... There was, of course, a minor technical infraction by South, who should, if following the letter of the law, call the director before putting her 3S bid back, but nobody said anything at the time, and I wouldn't consider it worth mentioning. 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 Jun 8 06:00:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 06:00:01 +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 FAA21329 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 05:59:53 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-179.access.net.il [192.116.204.179]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA03415; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 22:59:57 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <357AF208.4B1CF1B6@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 23:03:20 +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: no agreement References: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980605142101.007e0ad0@phedre.meteo.fr> <35790AA3.37F13937@village.uunet.be> <35793FE4.D5223AB2@internet-zahav.net> <357AB86D.794607E7@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 mind to try to follow your approach bellow . One will say just .. "it is cucuricu..." ( let even assume without hesitation , no doubt , etc. ; though such things can happen even when you DO have agreements ). The question now is : If what I said is "wrong" and they are declaring side , we always loose , because we can't tell them anything - if they succeed we get bad score ; if not - they"ll get an adjusted score because : Either it isn't on the CC - if CC exists at all.... Or partner got UI....... If we are declaring side we"ll warn them , before the OL , and still , if they will feel hurt , we get a bad score. If it is right, well .. nothing , just luck - it deems to me something like Law25b - play for 40%. My conclusion is - if I want to get good results : Never play with a partner , before writing togheter a bidding book ............ I think that this is against my Law 00 . This is why I prefer the lawmakers' approach : no agreement and "eat" what you "cooked" , but don't "starve". What do you think ?? Your friend Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > < snip > > > > > > If "no agreement" means, "no agreement, so I assume ..." then why not > > > say so ? > > > > Because this is exactly what Law 75 wanted to avoid - > > to tell your partner what you DO assume ..... i don't > > believe there is any worst UI (maybe showing him your cards....). > > > > Dany > > > > > > > > > > ... [snippy .....] > > And now we've come full circle ... > > Not telling opponents what you suppose it is because you would be > telling partner that you have (mis)understood him. > > I don't believe this is a correct assumption. > > Partner has meant something. > > You must tell opponents something. > > Suppose you simple tell opponents one thing. > > Either this one thing was (maybe just by accident) the same thing as > what partner has meant, and then there is no misinformation and no UI. > > Or you have told them something else, then there is misinformation and > UI, and more than probable a bad hand because of the misunderstanding > and no ruling necessary. > > Now by answering anything else than one thing, you just compound these > problems : > - you are likely to give misinformation > - you do not avoid giving UI. > > So please again, what is wrong with giving one simple answer, of one > meaning (of course as complete as possible), preferably without showing > doubt. > > Remember that showing doubt, or not answering, or whatever, is always UI > to partner. > > The only way to avoid giving UI to partner is by answering without > doubt, and (perhaps just by chance) giving the explanation corresponding > to his hand. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 06:03:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 06:03:14 +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 GAA21350 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 06:03:07 +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 PAA19121 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:32:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980607160406.0def9744@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 16:04:06 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <357AB86D.794607E7@village.uunet.be> References: <199806041921.OAA27188@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980605142101.007e0ad0@phedre.meteo.fr> <35790AA3.37F13937@village.uunet.be> <35793FE4.D5223AB2@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:57 PM 6/7/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Not telling opponents what you suppose it is because you would be >telling partner that you have (mis)understood him. > >I don't believe this is a correct assumption. > >Partner has meant something. > >You must tell opponents something. > >Suppose you simple tell opponents one thing. > >Either this one thing was (maybe just by accident) the same thing as >what partner has meant, and then there is no misinformation and no UI. > >Or you have told them something else, then there is misinformation and >UI, and more than probable a bad hand because of the misunderstanding >and no ruling necessary. > >Now by answering anything else than one thing, you just compound these >problems : >- you are likely to give misinformation >- you do not avoid giving UI. > >So please again, what is wrong with giving one simple answer, of one >meaning (of course as complete as possible), preferably without showing >doubt. > >Remember that showing doubt, or not answering, or whatever, is always UI >to partner. > >The only way to avoid giving UI to partner is by answering without >doubt, and (perhaps just by chance) giving the explanation corresponding >to his hand. There is also the option of allowing partner to explain his own bid while you excuse yourself from the table. This gives partner the UI information that you are unsure about what his bid meant, but assures the opponents of getting the correct explanation. And, partner won't know if you guess wrong. Hhe won't know what your guess is because you have avoided both: "No agreement but I assume...." and making a very confident sounding guess. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 10:24:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 10:24:17 +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 KAA21943 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 10:24:09 +1000 Received: from modem1.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.129] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yipkO-0008NE-00; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 01:25:12 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Holiday. Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 01:18:25 +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 Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms, and four legs. ---------- > From: A. L. Edwards > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Holiday. > Date: 06 June 1998 13:00 > > >Three weeks in Canada. (Nanaimo, Banff, Calgary, > >Harwood/Bewdley Ont.)> > But, Grattan...there's nothing there! > ++++ Nothing? A sister-in-law*, one nephew, four nieces, fourteen assorted great- nieces and nephews, and one great great niece? That's not nothing. But I would love to make time on this earth to visit Montreal, Ottawa, and lots more of Canada. (*except she may still be in Florida, I gather). ~~G~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 10:24:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 10:24:14 +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 KAA21942 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 10:24:07 +1000 Received: from modem1.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.129] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yipkJ-0008NE-00; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 01:25:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: " you turned that card wrong" Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 00:48:11 +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 Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms, and four legs. ---------- > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael > \x/ \x/ \x/ > So I ask the world again. Which Law says that Declarer must ask Dummy to > lead a card from the hand faced on the table, if this is where the > previous trick was won. If Declarer is the only player left in this > partnership which Law says he must lead from the hand which won the > previous trick?? ++++ Law 55B2 does not seem to allow of any alternative proposition. ## Grattan ## ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 12:31:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:31:52 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA22277 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 12:31:46 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-27.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.224]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA24913 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 22:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <357B4D5E.6F782C72@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 22:33:02 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: " you turned that card wrong" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 41D,42a3,44G,45B,45D,46,55 do you need more??? Nancy Grattan wrote: > Grattan > > Our language quite frequently begs > A meaning to hang on its pegs > But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows > A back, two arms, and four legs. > > ---------- > > From: Anne Jones > > To: BLML > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Herman De Wael > > > > \x/ \x/ \x/ > > > So I ask the world again. Which Law says that Declarer must ask Dummy to > > lead a card from the hand faced on the table, if this is where the > > previous trick was won. If Declarer is the only player left in this > > partnership which Law says he must lead from the hand which won the > > previous trick?? > > ++++ Law 55B2 does not seem to allow of any alternative > proposition. ## Grattan ## ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 13:14:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:14:42 +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 NAA22369 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:14:36 +1000 Received: from BillS ([192.168.3.4]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.03/64) id 2004200 ; Sun, 07 Jun 1998 23:11:44 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980607222939.007fbd20@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 22:29:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Holiday. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: A. L. Edwards > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Holiday. > Date: 06 June 1998 13:00 > > >Three weeks in Canada. (Nanaimo, Banff, Calgary, > >Harwood/Bewdley Ont.)> > But, Grattan...there's nothing there! These sound like the words of a man trying to keep the trout to himself. :) Bill S. Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 16:05:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:05:11 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22602 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:04:56 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id JAA20558 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:57:20 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199806080557.JAA20558@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Worldwide Contest Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:57:42 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This board comes from Saturday session of the worldwide contest. 26 Qxxx E,All 98xx xxx xx Jx A9x QTx AJxx xxx KJxx QJxxx xx Kxxx Kx AQx AKxx Bidding: E S W N 1NT dbl p 2H p ..p dbl 2S p 3S dbl all pass. 1NT was asked and explained as weak. Pairs are plaing a lot of boards agains each other and know style of he opponents. So there were no more questions. There was agreed slow pass from S on 2H. At the end of the play (just made) EW called for TD. Your ruling? Sergei Litvak Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 17:23:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 17:23:47 +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 RAA22696 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 17:23:41 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA13637 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:23:42 +0200 Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:23:41 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sergei Litvak Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Worldwide Contest In-Reply-To: <199806080557.JAA20558@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Sergei Litvak wrote: > This board comes from Saturday session of the worldwide contest. > 26 Qxxx > E,All 98xx > xxx > xx > Jx A9x > QTx AJxx > xxx KJxx > QJxxx xx > Kxxx > Kx > AQx > AKxx > Bidding: E S W N > 1NT dbl p 2H > p ..p dbl 2S > p 3S dbl all pass. > 1NT was asked and explained as weak. Pairs are plaing a lot of boards > agains each other and know style of he opponents. So there were no more > questions. There was agreed slow pass from S on 2H. At the end of the > play (just made) EW called for TD. Your ruling? 2H, down 2 (on a trump lead, it looks as if the defense can make 2 spades, 3 hearts and 2 diamonds, if they don't touch any pointed suit. Note that it is 9.15am and my analytical skills aren't fully awake yet. In fact, no part of my body is fully awake...). South's break in tempo seems to suggest that he didn't like the contract of 2H and considered running to something else, or that he was worth a strong move over 2H. In the first case, bidding is much more attractive than passing, in the second case, it cannot do much harm. 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 Jun 8 19:36:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 19:36:02 +1000 Received: from nfg.sci-nnov.ru (nfg.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.186.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA23098 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 19:35:41 +1000 Received: from c186-26 (iap-3.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.186.1]) by nfg.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA14058 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:38:01 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199806080938.NAA14058@nfg.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Alexey V. Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Worldwide Contest Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:38:51 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > > This board comes from Saturday session of the worldwide contest. > > 26 Qxxx > E,All 98xx > xxx > xx > Jx A9x > QTx AJxx > xxx KJxx > QJxxx xx > Kxxx > Kx > AQx > AKxx > Bidding: E S W N > 1NT dbl p 2H > p ..p dbl 2S > p 3S dbl all pass. > > 1NT was asked and explained as weak. Pairs are plaing a lot of boards > agains each other and know style of he opponents. So there were no more > questions. There was agreed slow pass from S on 2H. At the end of the play > (just made) EW called for TD. Your ruling? > > Sergei Litvak > Chief TD of RBL. > I was AC chairman at this appeal. We have no doubts about NS results: 2h* -1 -200. (N has s10 - Serg, why you didn't draw it?, - hasn't s9, and any defence will give 7 trick for NS if N will finesse sJ). N had LA (pass after 1-st double) and 2s bid was more attractive after long pass. But what about EW? IMO (and AC agreed), the double after 2h is very doubted bid. But the final double from W is serious bridge mistake, it's crazy bid especially after first double. He MUST passed with this hand and MUST wait partner's decision. Our ruling: -200 for NS, +730 for EW. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 8 23:16:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:16:10 +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 XAA23602 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:16:04 +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 JAA12219 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA19709; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806081317.JAA19709@freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Holiday. Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> From: A. L. Edwards >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Holiday. >> Date: 06 June 1998 13:00 >> >> >Three weeks in Canada. (Nanaimo, Banff, Calgary, >> >Harwood/Bewdley Ont.)> >> But, Grattan...there's nothing there! > > >These sound like the words of a man trying to keep the trout to himself. :) > > >Bill S. >Guilford, CT > Trout? Isn't that what you call a pard who muffs a cold contract? A trout is what an Ontario pike snacks on. Catching a trout is like an easy 8 trick 1NT; landing a pike is like landing a doubled slam on a double squeeze--there's nothing like a good fight followed by a good feed. :-) And the bridge is better in the better half of Canada, too. :-) Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 01:05:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 01:05:28 +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 BAA26137 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 01:05:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018528; 8 Jun 98 15:04 GMT Message-ID: <$ZUIUjAjj9e1EwqR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:28:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival 1998 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Board 20 Q IMP pairs W/All A 7 3 Appeals unlikely Q J 6 4 3 2 K 10 4 3 J 9 2 A 9 8 6 W N E S 8 2 Q 6 5 P P 1NT P K 8 A 9 7 5 P 2D& P 2S K 7 6 5 3 J 7 5 2 Q 8 X 3D AP K J 10 9 4 10 Lead: CQ A 10 4 Result: 3D= & Described as spades + minor West claimed damage because of misinformation. Specifically, he said that after a club lead, trump, club to the king, club seven asking for spade ruffed, East led a low spade and West failed to play his spade king because he thought East's spade was a singleton, so the singleton queen scored a trick. North-South stated that everyone played 2D as spades and a minor at their club, and it was on their CC. Actually, their CC was only part filled in and Defence to 1NT was still blank. West said he accepted that the CC would say 2D = spades + minor when it was filled in. North said he realised what had happened as soon as his partner alerted and considered his ethical position before bidding 3D. He decided that 3D was the bid he would have made behind screens, especially since South had not bid 2S over 1NT. How would you rule? Full results on http://www.dybdal.dk/results/fabf1998.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 01:18:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 01:18:27 +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 BAA26225 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 01:18:19 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yj3hi-0001pe-00; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:19:22 +0100 Message-ID: <512XPaAe+$e1Ewpu@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:13:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Worldwide Contest In-Reply-To: <199806080557.JAA20558@pent.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199806080557.JAA20558@pent.sci-nnov.ru>, Sergei Litvak writes >This board comes from Saturday session of the worldwide contest. > >26 Qxxx >E,All 98xx > xxx > xx >Jx A9x >QTx AJxx >xxx KJxx >QJxxx xx > Kxxx > Kx > AQx > AKxx >Bidding: E S W N > 1NT dbl p 2H > p ..p dbl 2S > p 3S dbl all pass. > >1NT was asked and explained as weak. Pairs are plaing a lot of boards >agains each other and know style of he opponents. So there were no more >questions. There was agreed slow pass from S on 2H. At the end of the play >(just made) EW called for TD. Your ruling? > >Sergei Litvak >Chief TD of RBL. > > Let us consider a pass in tempo by S. Does North have a pull to 2S? IMO I think he does, the opponents have suggested 2H is not going to be a success so I allow the pull, particularly as the hesitation does not seem to suggest whether hearts is a good idea or not (pard's options are likely to be Pass, 2N, 2S and 3H). The rest of the auction is positively barmy, and West's double of 3S gets all it deserves. I can be persuaded out of this one though. -- 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 Tue Jun 9 03:07:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:07:38 +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 DAA26683 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:07:31 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yj5PF-0000Sl-00; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 17:08:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:35:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival 1998 In-Reply-To: <$ZUIUjAjj9e1EwqR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <$ZUIUjAjj9e1EwqR@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > >Board 20 Q IMP pairs > W/All A 7 3 Appeals unlikely > Q J 6 4 3 2 > K 10 4 3 J 9 2 A 9 8 6 W N E S > 8 2 Q 6 5 P P 1NT P > K 8 A 9 7 5 P 2D& P 2S > K 7 6 5 3 J 7 5 2 Q 8 X 3D AP > K J 10 9 4 > 10 Lead: CQ > A 10 4 Result: 3D= > > & Described as spades + minor > > West claimed damage because of misinformation. Specifically, he said >that after a club lead, trump, club to the king, club seven asking for >spade ruffed, East led a low spade and West failed to play his spade >king because he thought East's spade was a singleton, so the singleton >queen scored a trick. > > North-South stated that everyone played 2D as spades and a minor at >their club, and it was on their CC. Actually, their CC was only part >filled in and Defence to 1NT was still blank. West said he accepted >that the CC would say 2D = spades + minor when it was filled in. > West is a very sporting player. Well that disposes of the cc problem. > North said he realised what had happened as soon as his partner >alerted and considered his ethical position before bidding 3D. He >decided that 3D was the bid he would have made behind screens, >especially since South had not bid 2S over 1NT. > > How would you rule? >From North's point of view South hasn't bid 2S over 1NT, but may have 6 bad spades, or 5 goodish ones. West has told North that 2S is not a good idea. I think we should probably move as North, if we have somewhere sensible to go. When I balanced with 2D I only promised 5. Do I want to play a 6-1 or 6-2 fit at the three level, or do I want to play a 5-1 or 6-1 fit at the two level doubled? I think this is close, so I'd rule that pass is a LA. 2Sx down 2 looks about right > > Full results on http://www.dybdal.dk/results/fabf1998.htm > -- 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 Tue Jun 9 03:44:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:44:03 +1000 Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA26763 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:43:56 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3BHEa18311 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8540ccdf.357c22ee@aol.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:44:13 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival 1998 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 6/8/98 10:10:29 AM EST, David S. writes: > Board 20 Q IMP pairs > W/All A 7 3 Appeals unlikely > Q J 6 4 3 2 > K 10 4 3 J 9 2 A 9 8 6 W N E S > 8 2 Q 6 5 P P 1NT P > K 8 A 9 7 5 P 2D& P 2S > K 7 6 5 3 J 7 5 2 Q 8 X 3D AP > K J 10 9 4 > 10 Lead: CQ > A 10 4 Result: 3D= > > & Described as spades + minor > > West claimed damage because of misinformation. Specifically, he said > that after a club lead, trump, club to the king, club seven asking for > spade ruffed, East led a low spade and West failed to play his spade > king because he thought East's spade was a singleton, so the singleton > queen scored a trick. > > North-South stated that everyone played 2D as spades and a minor at > their club, and it was on their CC. Actually, their CC was only part > filled in and Defence to 1NT was still blank. West said he accepted > that the CC would say 2D = spades + minor when it was filled in. > > North said he realised what had happened as soon as his partner > alerted and considered his ethical position before bidding 3D. He > decided that 3D was the bid he would have made behind screens, > especially since South had not bid 2S over 1NT. > > How would you rule? I think the only issue here is whether to allow the 3D bid. There was clearly UI from the explanation. I think I could argue either side of that issue but believe I would feel more strongly that it is indeed a LA to pass 2S. In an IMP pairs, I would not feel partner was removing my "natural" (the assumption I must make) 2D without at least 6 spades. The fact that he did not overcall is not that relevant. I know there was a double but that doesn't mean that bidding 3D is going to be a good call. Sometimes you're just in trouble. Now to the issue of the defense and alleged damage from the misinformation. West heard the 3D bid, knew what the contract was, and still played his partner to have opened 1NT with a singleton spade and doubleton club. And was there some real purpose to be served by E underleading his AS? I would rule that there was MI but that the damage to E-W was subsequent to the MI issue and not a consequence of the MI. My ruling? E-W -110 N-S -800 (That may be too friendly an adjustment for N- S.) Did N disclose the MI after the final pass? I basically feel that the 3D bid "disclosed" what was happening. But it is still clear that the issue of whether 3D made would have been a non-issue had N properly disclosed prior to the opening lead. At the very least he should be chided for failing to do so. Many get caught up on these problems trying to determine what their real agreement was in order to figure whether or not there was MI. I have always been taught that in a situation like this where a pair doesn't have a clear agreement (there is plenty of evidence supporting that fact), any incorrect explanation constitutes MI since it is being represented that an "agreement" exists when in fact it does not. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 03:45:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:45:38 +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 DAA26774 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:45:32 +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 NAA11354 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:46:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806081746.NAA20573@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <$ZUIUjAjj9e1EwqR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 8 Jun 1998 13:28:19 +0100) Subject: Re: Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival 1998 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Board 20 Q IMP pairs > W/All A 7 3 Appeals unlikely > Q J 6 4 3 2 > K 10 4 3 J 9 2 A 9 8 6 W N E S > 8 2 Q 6 5 P P 1NT P > K 8 A 9 7 5 P 2D& P 2S > K 7 6 5 3 J 7 5 2 Q 8 X 3D AP > K J 10 9 4 > 10 Lead: CQ > A 10 4 Result: 3D= > & Described as spades + minor > West claimed damage because of misinformation. > North-South stated that everyone played 2D as spades and a minor at > their club, and it was on their CC. Actually, their CC was only part > filled in and Defence to 1NT was still blank. West said he accepted > that the CC would say 2D = spades + minor when it was filled in. Therefore, there was no misinformation. North misbid. > West failed to play his spade > king because he thought East's spade was a singleton, so the singleton > queen scored a trick. What are the relevant rules on opening 1NT with a singleton? It seems that West should have suspected North's hand, even if there was MI. The other issue is UI: > North said he realised what had happened as soon as his partner > alerted and considered his ethical position before bidding 3D. He > decided that 3D was the bid he would have made behind screens, > especially since South had not bid 2S over 1NT. I don't know the N-S style, but given that South didn't show both majors with his actual hand, I wouldn't expect him to bid a potentially-constructive 2S on a similar hand with six spades and one diamond. When South is doubled in 2S, he knows the spade position, and behind screens he already knows North's hand and can run to 3D if appropriate. I would rule that North's 3D could have been suggested by UI, and would adjust to 2Sx, which looks like it can go for -800, but this depends on the definition of LA in use here, and I could be persuaded to let the table result stand. It is rather unlikely that South would bid 2S at IMPs with no chance of game before 2D was doubled (since +90 and +110 are equivalent). -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 09:13:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:13:45 +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 JAA27625 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:13:38 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h11.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.51) id DAA19265; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 03:13:53 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <357D0ABA.5E32@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 03:13:15 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival 1998 References: <$ZUIUjAjj9e1EwqR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="FREDERIK.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="FREDERIK.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) What a nice example for underlining difference between old-fashioned and nowa-days styles of making bridge decision! Thank you, David:)) But let me start. According with Laws-97 (L16A, L16C2) there is word "demonstrably". And this case is crying with demonstrating of Spades problem: South directly explained that his bid was based on North's Spades... And there are players (discussion in BLML showed - there were even reasonable number of them) that seriously confirmed: pass (instead of 3 Diamonds) as LA. So - it should be decided 2 Spades, doubled, down 2-3. -500 or -800. And it does not matter that West made a bridge mistake because there should not be such contract (3 Di) at all... And now I'd like to re-think the case from the bridge logics point of view, with old-fashioned method of 75:25 rule. 1. In the IMP contest there is almost no difference between -500 and -800 (or -800 and -1100) against part score... 2. But there is great difference between -500 and -200 (or even between -500 and +110). 3. North's hand contains only 2 tricks in Spade contract (Q of Spades and A). 4. But in Diamond contract it contains about 3.5-4 tricks. 5. Bidding showed some points at South's hand - that may provide to 2-3 honour's triks. 6. As opponent have already doubled 2 Spades - the suit broke not good for N-S (even if there are 6 cards at South's hand) 7. The Diamond distribution is not still known - if that suit breaks favourable North will be able to establish 2-3 tricks more - that means 8-9 tricks summary 8. Even if Diamonds breaks not good (for N-S) it will cost one downed trick more - almost does not matter for IMP's That's why I (as a member of AC) would stay at the position that 3 Diamonds should be estimated for more than 75%:) Especially - in strong tournament. And I believe that AC would agree with me (yeah, after hot discussion). And such decision would hold West's obvious bridge mistake... And that's why I prefer previous wording of L16 and previous style of AC's ruling in UI cases. Sorry - but for my personal opinion there were more ordinary (common) bridge sense.. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 09:38:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:38:07 +1000 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA27680 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:38:01 +1000 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:38:01 +1000 Received: (qmail 25791 invoked from network); 8 Jun 1998 23:39:07 -0000 Received: from pm02-d081.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.81) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 8 Jun 1998 23:39:07 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980608192220.3ab7c2ae@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: blatant use of UI?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi folks The following occured during a sectional tournament in ACBL-land not long ago Dealer: North vul: NS North J43 void Q64 AQT9643 West East 7 K862 AJ964 8532 J98753 AT2 7 J2 South AQT95 KQT7 K K85 North East South West 3Cl p 4Cl(1) p 5Cl all pass Result contract made 7 when East missed the A of Di lead 1) 4Cl is bidded after an agreed 45 second break in tempo And Director is called to the table when North bids 5cl Directors ruling is Result stands with motivation 5cl is NOT suggested with the very long hesitation. EW appeals the ruling and to the AC North,West and East are present Norths "defense" to bid 5cl is I have a lot unshowed with the void in Hearts EW are saying pass is a LA on 4cl and that the result should be ruled back to 4cl making 7 for 190. AC's decision is result stands 5cl making 7 I personally thinks this case is the easiest break in tempo case I have seen in a longtime and can't beleive both the director and AC gets it wrong, but the motivation both of them had could have something with it too do NS where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. If this isn't blatant use of UI, nothing is in my opinion. Are ACBL more concerned to get the weak players to play in tournaments instead of learning them what is correct ethical behaviour regarding UI. Here we told them huddle for a minute to show good cards, bid direct to show a bad hand that just wants to raise the preempt NS CC had Sound preempts checked on the CC. just to make that clear. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 10:30:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:30:08 +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 KAA27819 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:30:02 +1000 Received: from client2635.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.53] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yjCJi-00012I-00; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 01:31:11 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Law25 and others Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 01:33:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd933e$3fa6e6c0$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 5 nations Ladies Home Internationals K76 K92 A854 KT3 T52 J93 J8765 T3 void T763 J8764 AQ92 AQ84 AQ4 KQJ92 5 Dlr W N/S Game N E S W P 1D- P -2D*(1S) TD?? S expressed the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S. She said she had not made a mechanical error but wished to change her bid to 1S. During the reading of Law 25B, as soon as the mention of 40% score was made North interupted with instructions to S that the side should not choose an option that would give them an automatic penalty.While this was going on E/W appeared to consult on whether or not it was right that they could not accept the 2D bid. At this point I made a ruling. The result on the board was exactly the same in both rooms.6D=. The method of scoring was imps converted to VPs. How would you have ruled. What score would have been entered.?? In view of the fact that this was a 5 way competition playing the same boards, do you think it is right that one head to head match could attract more or less than 20VPs for one particular team beacause of a ruling of this order?. (or of any order?) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 11:05:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:05:29 +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 LAA27933 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:05:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1003648; 9 Jun 98 1:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:11:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival 1998 In-Reply-To: <8540ccdf.357c22ee@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Al wrote: >Many get caught up on these problems trying to determine what their real >agreement was in order to figure whether or not there was MI. I have always >been taught that in a situation like this where a pair doesn't have a clear >agreement (there is plenty of evidence supporting that fact), any incorrect >explanation constitutes MI since it is being represented that an "agreement" >exists when in fact it does not. I agree with the principle, but wonder if this is such a case? As you realise from my other postings, I believe that there are far too many automatic rulings, and the first thing in this type of case is to decide whether there is MI. That does not mean nearly always assume there is, but to investigate. In other words, if the pair does not convince me that the system was described correctly then there was MI, but I do expect to give them that chance to persuade me. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 13:03:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:03:24 +1000 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA28326 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:03:17 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcju3.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.195]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19114 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980608230348.00765380@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 23:03:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980608192220.3ab7c2ae@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:38 AM 6/9/98 +1000, Robert wrote: > >I personally thinks this case is the easiest break in tempo case I have >seen in a longtime and can't beleive both the director and AC gets it wrong, >but the motivation both of them had could have something with it too do NS >where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that >the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. > > >If this isn't blatant use of UI, nothing is in my opinion. > >Are ACBL more concerned to get the weak players to play in tournaments >instead of learning them what is correct ethical behaviour regarding UI. >Here we told them huddle for a minute to show good cards, bid direct to >show a bad hand that just wants to raise the preempt > > >NS CC had Sound preempts checked on the CC. just to make that clear. > > I agree it is an apallingly easy ruling to have got wrong, but what is more dismaying is that this type of ruling is actually quite common, in my experience. The argument that the hesitation doesn't suggest moving forward is just plain silly. The misunderstanding may result from the extension of the following type of ruling: with opps silent: 1S - 2S - 3S (after long hesitation, by agreement invitational). In this auction, it is unclear whether opener is just slightly too weak for the invitation or slightly too strong, or perhaps whether opener was considering a different path for inviting. The ambiguity in such a case is the basis for judging that the hesitation does not suggest either passing or continuing to game, and so either course is allowable. But if the sample 3S bid is merely competitive, rather than invitational by agreement, then the matter is quite different, and the logical inference is that opener may be a touch too strong for the 3S bid. In this instance, responder is not allowed to go on to game, even with a maximum 2S, following the 3S re-raise. Your case is much more similar to the latter than the former. The 4C bid is nominally competitive, rather than invitational, and _only_ the hesitation gives North any reason to go on to game. Result rolled back to 4D making 7, with just a friendly lecture to NS rather than the PP which might be handed to a more experienced pair. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 14:29:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:29:26 +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 OAA28584 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:29:17 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-119-95.s95.tnt2.brd.erols.com [207.172.119.95]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02296 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:30:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806090430.AAA02296@smtp1.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: Worldwide Contest Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:29:56 -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: <199806080938.NAA14058@nfg.sci-nnov.ru> 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 Alexey V. > Gerasimov > Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 5:39 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Worldwide Contest > > > ---------- > > > > This board comes from Saturday session of the worldwide contest. > > > > 26 Qxxx > > E,All 98xx > > xxx > > xx > > Jx A9x > > QTx AJxx > > xxx KJxx > > QJxxx xx > > Kxxx > > Kx > > AQx > > AKxx > > Bidding: E S W N > > 1NT dbl p 2H > > p ..p dbl 2S > > p 3S dbl all pass. > > > > 1NT was asked and explained as weak. Pairs are plaing a lot of boards > > agains each other and know style of he opponents. So there were no more > > questions. There was agreed slow pass from S on 2H. At the end of the > play > > (just made) EW called for TD. Your ruling? > > > > Sergei Litvak > > Chief TD of RBL. > > > > I was AC chairman at this appeal. > > We have no doubts about NS results: 2h* -1 -200. (N has s10 - Serg, why > you didn't draw it?, - hasn't s9, and any defence will give 7 trick for NS > if N will finesse sJ). N had LA (pass after 1-st double) and 2s bid was > more attractive after long pass. But what about EW? > First, I would like to know a lot more about the NS system. but... I believe that the committee should have had doubts about the NS score, even if they finally decided to adjust. There are several possible explanations for the S hesitation. As Henk pointed out, S could be considering a run, or might be on the border of a strong advance. Unlike Henk, I think 2S with the N hand is contraindicated if S is strong- S is likely to go overboard if he thinks partner has values. So I don't think the UI by itself suggests a pull. The double by W makes it likelier that the S hesitation was based on heart weakness, but the double is completely AI. Which leads to an interesting question: If UI does not suggest an action by itself, but does suggest an action in combination with AI, how do we go about applying Law 16? IMO it is the double by W that makes the hesitation interpretable, and suggests the pull. However, even if we allow that the hesitation suggests a pull by N, converting N's call back to pass would not necessarily end the auction. Bear in mind that S has another call after the double. And S has no UI. If S was reluctant to sit for 2H undoubled, which is the interpretation that allows us to adjust due to the UI, he certainly won't sit for 2H doubled. If I force N to pass, I'm going to let S make an SOS redouble, so NS still get to spades. IMO, if W wanted to play in hearts his call was pass. I don't adjust this score. Best wishes, Hirsch > IMO (and AC agreed), the double after 2h is very doubted bid. But > the final > double from W is serious bridge mistake, it's crazy bid especially after > first double. He MUST passed with this hand and MUST wait partner's > decision. > > Our ruling: -200 for NS, +730 for EW. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 16:25:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:25:46 +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 QAA28980 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:25:39 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093nab.san.rr.com [204.210.49.171]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA26387; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806090626.XAA26387@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: Worldwide Contest Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:23:07 -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 > > > > > > This board comes from Saturday session of the worldwide contest. > > > > > > 26 Qxxx > > > E,All 98xx > > > xxx > > > xx > > > Jx A9x > > > QTx AJxx > > > xxx KJxx > > > QJxxx xx > > > Kxxx > > > Kx > > > AQx > > > AKxx > > > Bidding: E S W N > > > 1NT dbl p 2H > > > p ..p dbl 2S > > > p 3S dbl all pass. > > > > > > 1NT was asked and explained as weak. Pairs are plaing a lot of boards > > > agains each other and know style of he opponents. So there were no more > > > questions. There was agreed slow pass from S on 2H. At the end of the > > play > > > (just made) EW called for TD. Your ruling? > > > > > > Sergei Litvak > > > Chief TD of RBL. I would think it obvious that when North bid 2H the plan was to run to 2S if doubled. If one is not going to run from a double, why not bid the better suit? One thing I know for sure: If I were playing behind a curtain and bid 2H, I would certainly bid 2S when West doubles. My ruling (were I a TD, which I'm not): The result stands for both sides. But I wouldn't bid 2H, or 2S. Running from a business double of 1NT to a four-card suit is seldom worthwhile for two reasons: Partner may not have support, and partner is unlimited. In this case the pass would be rewarded. North has the 10 of spades and 1NT doubled is down at least one, +200, for a 90% score. West is the one who should run from the double, although that may not work out well in this case. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 19:10:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:10:30 +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 TAA29482 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:10:24 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjKQo-0004xX-00; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:11:02 +0000 Message-ID: <3rXqoPArgPf1EwgE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:54:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Worldwide Contest In-Reply-To: <199806090430.AAA02296@smtp1.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >I believe that the committee should have had doubts about the NS score, even >if they finally decided to adjust. There are several possible explanations >for the S hesitation. As Henk pointed out, S could be considering a run, or >might be on the border of a strong advance. Unlike Henk, I think 2S with >the N hand is contraindicated if S is strong- S is likely to go overboard if >he thinks partner has values. So I don't think the UI by itself suggests a >pull. The double by W makes it likelier that the S hesitation was based on >heart weakness, but the double is completely AI. Which leads to an >interesting question: If UI does not suggest an action by itself, but does >suggest an action in combination with AI, how do we go about applying Law >16? IMO it is the double by W that makes the hesitation interpretable, and >suggests the pull. Your last two sentences are in contradiction with each other. Either [a] the pull is suggested by a combination of the slow pass and the double, ie by AI and UI in combination, or [b] the pull is suggested by a the double solely, ie by AI alone. Obviously, if [b] were true, then we would not adjust. Your question suggests [a], however. In my view, if a player takes an action, which is demonstrably suggested over an LA by UI and AI combined, then we adjust. In fact, this is the norm. If the bidding goes 1H P 4H ..P; P X then the double is based on UI [partner's slow pass] and AI [the rest of the auction]. There is no problem in making adjustments when the action is only partly based on the UI since that is normal. >However, even if we allow that the hesitation suggests a pull by N, >converting N's call back to pass would not necessarily end the auction. >Bear in mind that S has another call after the double. And S has no UI. >If S was reluctant to sit for 2H undoubled, which is the interpretation that >allows us to adjust due to the UI, he certainly won't sit for 2H doubled. >If I force N to pass, I'm going to let S make an SOS redouble, so NS still >get to spades. This is often forgotten by TDs. Even if you disallow 2S you still have to consider the rest of the auction. In such cases I always tell the players that I am adjusting, even if I am adjusting to the same score, since I believe they should realise why I am ruling as I do. -- 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 Jun 9 23:49:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:49:56 +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 XAA00865 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:49:50 +1000 Received: from default (ppp088.232.mmtl.videotron.net [207.96.232.88]) by boito.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA20539; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:50:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806091350.JAA20539@boito.videotron.net> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: , "Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:39:58 -0400 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 d'origine----- De : Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 8 juin, 1998 20:43 Objet : blatant use of UI?? > > >Hi folks > > >The following occured during a sectional tournament in ACBL-land not long ago > > > >Dealer: North >vul: NS > > > > North > J43 > void > Q64 > AQT9643 > > West East > 7 K862 > AJ964 8532 > J98753 AT2 > 7 J2 > South > AQT95 > KQT7 > K > K85 > >North East South West >3Cl p 4Cl(1) p >5Cl all pass > >Result contract made 7 when East missed the A of Di lead > >1) 4Cl is bidded after an agreed 45 second break in tempo > >And Director is called to the table when North bids 5cl > > >Directors ruling is Result stands with motivation 5cl is NOT suggested with >the very long hesitation. > >EW appeals the ruling and to the AC North,West and East are present > >Norths "defense" to bid 5cl is I have a lot unshowed with the void in Hearts > >EW are saying pass is a LA on 4cl and that the result should be ruled back >to 4cl making 7 for 190. > >AC's decision is result stands 5cl making 7 > > > > > >I personally thinks this case is the easiest break in tempo case I have >seen in a longtime and can't beleive both the director and AC gets it wrong, > >but the motivation both of them had could have something with it too do NS >where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that >the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. This is a situation we see every day with beginners. South is sitting with a powerhouse, with first and second round control in every suit, and is not sure if he even has game. The bid and the response are actually very consistent with novice bidding. It would have been interesting to know what he was thinking about. Did he ever consider bidding spades? Was he afraid partner would pass? Did he know if it was even forcing? > > >If this isn't blatant use of UI, nothing is in my opinion. OK, so South hesitated about 45 seconds before bidding 4Cl. But let me ask you, what UI are you talking about? Would you please specify what it was that caused North to make a bid he would not have normally made had South bid in tempo? There is a very good reason why the TD and the AC let the table result stand : because, the hesitation notwithstanding, South's 4Cl bid was nothing more than a yes or no question, asking partner if he's maximum for his bid or not. Plain and simple bridge! The kind of bridge we all teach in beginner's class. Once this is established, no one can dispute North bidding game. As he stated, he had the values to accept the invitation. The fact that his partner took 45 seconds to ask now becomes irrelevant. > >Are ACBL more concerned to get the weak players to play in tournaments >instead of learning them what is correct ethical behaviour regarding UI. >Here we told them huddle for a minute to show good cards, bid direct to >show a bad hand that just wants to raise the preempt Are you serious? Raising the preempt? Instead of making self-righteous statements like this, maybe you should consider the damage YOU have done to the game. No sir, beginners are not taught how to cheat at tournaments. They are simply trying to feel their way through a difficult game, one it takes years to master. One it took YOU years to master. When you started playing duplicate bridge, you hesitated for the simplest bids just like the other guy. You just couldn't understand what language the opponent was speaking we he angrily called the director and said you "hesitated", and rightfully so for you had done nothing wrong! It is that aggressiveness that turns off most novices from tournament play. We expect them to bid and play perfectly, to have read every single book and understand everything. And when they don't perform according to our standards or play the systems we want them to play, we come down hard on them and credit them with an astounding level of resourcefulness for dishonesty. > >>NS CC had Sound preempts checked on the CC. just to make that clear. > > > >Robert > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 9 23:52:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:52:58 +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 XAA00882 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 23:52:52 +1000 Received: from default (ppp088.232.mmtl.videotron.net [207.96.232.88]) by boito.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA21430; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806091354.JAA21430@boito.videotron.net> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: , "Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:49:46 -0400 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 d'origine----- De : Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 8 juin, 1998 20:43 Objet : blatant use of UI?? > > >Hi folks > > >The following occured during a sectional tournament in ACBL-land not long ago > > > >Dealer: North >vul: NS > > > > North > J43 > void > Q64 > AQT9643 > > West East > 7 K862 > AJ964 8532 > J98753 AT2 > 7 J2 > South > AQT95 > KQT7 > K > K85 > >North East South West >3Cl p 4Cl(1) p >5Cl all pass > >Result contract made 7 when East missed the A of Di lead > >1) 4Cl is bidded after an agreed 45 second break in tempo > >And Director is called to the table when North bids 5cl > > >Directors ruling is Result stands with motivation 5cl is NOT suggested with >the very long hesitation. > >EW appeals the ruling and to the AC North,West and East are present > >Norths "defense" to bid 5cl is I have a lot unshowed with the void in Hearts > >EW are saying pass is a LA on 4cl and that the result should be ruled back >to 4cl making 7 for 190. > >AC's decision is result stands 5cl making 7 > > > > > >I personally thinks this case is the easiest break in tempo case I have >seen in a longtime and can't beleive both the director and AC gets it wrong, > >but the motivation both of them had could have something with it too do NS >where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that >the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. This is a situation we see every day with beginners. South is sitting with a powerhouse, with first and second round control in every suit, and is not sure if he even has game. The bid and the response are actually very consistent with novice bidding. It would have been interesting to know what he was thinking about. Did he ever consider bidding spades? Was he afraid partner would pass? Did he know if it was even forcing? > > >If this isn't blatant use of UI, nothing is in my opinion. OK, so South hesitated about 45 seconds before bidding 4Cl. But let me ask you, what UI are you talking about? Would you please specify what it was that caused North to make a bid he would not have normally made had South bid in tempo? There is a very good reason why the TD and the AC let the table result stand : because, the hesitation notwithstanding, South's 4Cl bid was nothing more than a yes or no question, asking partner if he's maximum for his bid or not. Plain and simple bridge! The kind of bridge we all teach in beginner's class. Once this is established, no one can dispute North bidding game. As he stated, he had the values to accept the invitation. The fact that his partner took 45 seconds to ask now becomes irrelevant. > >Are ACBL more concerned to get the weak players to play in tournaments >instead of learning them what is correct ethical behaviour regarding UI. >Here we told them huddle for a minute to show good cards, bid direct to >show a bad hand that just wants to raise the preempt Are you serious? Raising the preempt? Instead of making self-righteous statements like this, maybe you should consider the damage YOU have done to the game. No sir, beginners are not taught how to cheat at tournaments. They are simply trying to feel their way through a difficult game, one it takes years to master. One it took YOU years to master. When you started playing duplicate bridge, you hesitated for the simplest bids just like the other guy. You just couldn't understand what language the opponent was speaking we he angrily called the director and said you "hesitated", and rightfully so for you had done nothing wrong! It is that aggressiveness that turns off most novices from tournament play. We expect them to bid and play perfectly, to have read every single book and understand everything. And when they don't perform according to our standards or play the systems we want them to play, we come down hard on them and credit them with an astounding level of resourcefulness for dishonesty. Just curious...are you really proud to be a bridge player when you talk like that? I really doubt it. Christian Chantigny > >>NS CC had Sound preempts checked on the CC. just to make that clear. > > > >Robert > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 00:04:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:04:06 +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 AAA00920 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:03:39 +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 PAA18601; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:04:01 +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 PAA12040; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:04:00 +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 PAA17598; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:03:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 98 15:03:36 BST Message-Id: <20885.9806091403@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Law25 and others Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > > 5 nations Ladies Home Internationals [snip] > > Dlr W > N/S Game > > N E S W > P > 1D- P -2D*(1S) TD?? > > S expressed the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S. She said she had not > made a mechanical error > but wished to change her bid to 1S. > During the reading of Law 25B, as soon as the mention of 40% score was > made North interupted with instructions to S that the side should not > choose an option that would give them an automatic penalty.While this > was going on E/W appeared to consult on whether or not it was right that > they could not accept the 2D bid. > At this point I made a ruling. > The result on the board was exactly the same in both rooms.6D=. The > method of scoring was imps converted to VPs. > How would you have ruled. What score would have been entered.?? I would allow South all her options under L25B. For the moment I ignore the comments from North, East and West. There are a number of cases: (1) South does not bid 1S, 2D remains and is NF. Result: NS 2D+4 ? (2) South does not bid 2S, 2D remains and is F (IMSR?). Result: NS 6D=. (3) South does bid 1S but then lets 2D remain under L25B2b1. North must pass. Result: NS 2D+4 ? (4) South does bid 1S (I assume not accepted under L25B1). South bids 1S (or any other bid) under L25B2b2. Auction continues to NS 6D=, NS -3IMPs. Returning to those comments ... East/West's consultation was (it appears) only on whether the laws (or the TD reading of the laws) is right. I don't think this is a damaging infraction. North's instruction to South is UI, and suggests letting 2D stay rather than bid 1S (or anything else). The UI available to South suggested not "correcting" her 2D bid: correcting to 1S under L25B2b2 is a LA, so I adjust the NS score to -3IMPs. > In view of the fact that this was a 5 way competition playing the same > boards, do you think it is right that one head to head match could > attract more or less than 20VPs for one particular team beacause of a > ruling of this order?. (or of any order?) > I think this is relatively common: excess (e.g. 20-1) due to director's error, etc.; deficit (e.g. 19-0) due to non-balancing adjustment, slow play, etc. It seems to be what the laws/regulations require, and I see no problem. 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 Jun 10 00:44:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:44:25 +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 AAA03448 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:44:19 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA23987 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01236; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:45:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:45:33 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806091445.KAA01236@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law25 and others X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > During the reading of Law 25B, as soon as the mention of 40% score was > made North interupted with instructions to S that the side should not > choose an option that would give them an automatic penalty. Surely a PP to NS, whatever else you rule. (I'd think 1-2 VP unless your SO has different guidelines or you are playing something other than a 20 VP scale.) > While this > was going on E/W appeared to consult on whether or not it was right that > they could not accept the 2D bid. A warning is probably adequate for this. You might explain that you are reading from the lawbook, and you don't care for L25B either (You don't, do you?), but while it is on the books, we all have to play by it. (You could also explain about the race if you feel inclined.) > How would you have ruled. What score would have been entered.?? The interesting question here is how to apply L10C2, which uses the strongest word "must." Hence the PP. (I'd suggest reading L10C2 verbatim and explaining the significance of "must.") The first option seems to be under L25B1, which lets LHO condone the 1S bid but NOT the original 2D bid. There is no reason the NOS should lose any options. Assuming LHO declines this.... One possibility is to let North have his way under L25B2b1. The 2D bid stands, and North is barred for one round. If EW are sensible and pass, 2D becomes the final contract, and the result is 2D making six. Thus EW win a slam swing. The PP is subtracted as well. Another possibility is to give South her options under L25B2b. South will presumably choose 1S, and the auction will proceed normally except that North "may not base calls on information" from 2D. Assuming NS reach 6D and this condition is satisfied, the score will be NS -3 IMPs, EW 0 IMPs. Again the PP is subtracted. Contrary to another correspondent, there is no reason to adjust the score immediately. South will take some action, and the result will be what it turns out, and you will apply the -3 IMP ceiling if needed. Only if there is some later infraction will the score need to be adjusted. So, David, what do you think? General comments on how L10C2 should work will be most welcome. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 01:05:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 01:05:53 +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 BAA03553 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 01:05:44 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjPzA-0003vE-00; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:06:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:33:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: L72B1 and corrected revokes MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me to poll blml as follows: The situation: A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the penalties are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to change card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken but for the revoke, and drops a trick. Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known ..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. Your views please. 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 Wed Jun 10 02:00:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:00:12 +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 CAA03765 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:00:04 +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 MAA03819 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA09191; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:00:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:00:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806091600.MAA09191@freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L72B1 and corrected revokes Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me to >poll blml as follows: > >The situation: > >A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes >established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the penalties >are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to change >card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally >confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken >but for the revoke, and drops a trick. > >Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was >accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known >..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. > >Your views please. Cheers John You can if you have determined, to your satisfaction, that this is indeed the case. IMHO, however, I think that the clause "could have known...ect." should be used seldomly, and with great discretion. Players make errors for many reasons, the least of them, I suspect, because they didn't know it was ag'in the rules. In the player's mind, ruling against him because of this could have known clause is like the directer saying, "I know you tried to cheat, but I can't prove it; I'm ruling against you anyway." Yes, i know that isn't what we are really doing; yes, I know that the player shouldn't think this way, or take it personally; however, they do take it personally, anyway. In this particular case, I would not adjust. If a player loses concentration just because there is an unintentional irregularity which requires the director, well, too bad; they just need to concentrate harder. However, if a player has a history of deliberately engaging in this type of gamesmanship, in order to throw off his opponents' concentration, then perhaps a few well-placed PPs, C&Es, and AK47s(47 ass kicks) would be in order. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 02:06:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:06:21 +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 CAA03984 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:06:15 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA12926; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:06:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.33) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011172; Tue Jun 9 10:58:48 1998 Received: by har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD939D.B055BF40@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:56:51 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD939D.B055BF40@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:56:43 -0400 Encoding: 177 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I see this case has migrated over from rgb. It still looks as though pass was in no way an LA, and that 4C continuation of preempt would be absurd red against white. The extreme length of the hitch screams novice! By no means is this an "easy" break in tempo case Robert. Looks for all the world like momma-poppa bridge by players who are afraid of making a mistake. Unlike the case I debated with Jay recently, here I do not see what else a pair of this quality could have done absent the UI. 5 is mandated. As Christian has put more delicately, don't be such a BL. We should encourage new players by not penalizing them when they have not done harm. While the hesitation provides the UI of the uncertainty of partner, the subsequent action is clear cut not only by the 75/25 standard, but even by the standard of whether comparable players would seriously consider a pass. A director's lot is not a happy one...he got it right and someone still went away mad! :-) Craig Senior ---------- From: christian chantigny[SMTP:ohmss@videotron.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 9:49 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? -----Message d'origine----- De : Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren A : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 8 juin, 1998 20:43 Objet : blatant use of UI?? > > >Hi folks > > >The following occured during a sectional tournament in ACBL-land not long ago > > > >Dealer: North >vul: NS > > > > North > J43 > void > Q64 > AQT9643 > > West East > 7 K862 > AJ964 8532 > J98753 AT2 > 7 J2 > South > AQT95 > KQT7 > K > K85 > >North East South West >3Cl p 4Cl(1) p >5Cl all pass > >Result contract made 7 when East missed the A of Di lead > >1) 4Cl is bidded after an agreed 45 second break in tempo > >And Director is called to the table when North bids 5cl > > >Directors ruling is Result stands with motivation 5cl is NOT suggested with >the very long hesitation. > >EW appeals the ruling and to the AC North,West and East are present > >Norths "defense" to bid 5cl is I have a lot unshowed with the void in Hearts > >EW are saying pass is a LA on 4cl and that the result should be ruled back >to 4cl making 7 for 190. > >AC's decision is result stands 5cl making 7 > > > > > >I personally thinks this case is the easiest break in tempo case I have >seen in a longtime and can't beleive both the director and AC gets it wrong, > >but the motivation both of them had could have something with it too do NS >where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that >the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. This is a situation we see every day with beginners. South is sitting with a powerhouse, with first and second round control in every suit, and is not sure if he even has game. The bid and the response are actually very consistent with novice bidding. It would have been interesting to know what he was thinking about. Did he ever consider bidding spades? Was he afraid partner would pass? Did he know if it was even forcing? > > >If this isn't blatant use of UI, nothing is in my opinion. OK, so South hesitated about 45 seconds before bidding 4Cl. But let me ask you, what UI are you talking about? Would you please specify what it was that caused North to make a bid he would not have normally made had South bid in tempo? There is a very good reason why the TD and the AC let the table result stand : because, the hesitation notwithstanding, South's 4Cl bid was nothing more than a yes or no question, asking partner if he's maximum for his bid or not. Plain and simple bridge! The kind of bridge we all teach in beginner's class. Once this is established, no one can dispute North bidding game. As he stated, he had the values to accept the invitation. The fact that his partner took 45 seconds to ask now becomes irrelevant. > >Are ACBL more concerned to get the weak players to play in tournaments >instead of learning them what is correct ethical behaviour regarding UI. >Here we told them huddle for a minute to show good cards, bid direct to >show a bad hand that just wants to raise the preempt Are you serious? Raising the preempt? Instead of making self-righteous statements like this, maybe you should consider the damage YOU have done to the game. No sir, beginners are not taught how to cheat at tournaments. They are simply trying to feel their way through a difficult game, one it takes years to master. One it took YOU years to master. When you started playing duplicate bridge, you hesitated for the simplest bids just like the other guy. You just couldn't understand what language the opponent was speaking we he angrily called the director and said you "hesitated", and rightfully so for you had done nothing wrong! It is that aggressiveness that turns off most novices from tournament play. We expect them to bid and play perfectly, to have read every single book and understand everything. And when they don't perform according to our standards or play the systems we want them to play, we come down hard on them and credit them with an astounding level of resourcefulness for dishonesty. Just curious...are you really proud to be a bridge player when you talk like that? I really doubt it. Christian Chantigny > >>NS CC had Sound preempts checked on the CC. just to make that clear. > > > >Robert > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 02:15:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:15:42 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04023 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 02:15:36 +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 MAA27006 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:16:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01308; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:16:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:16:51 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806091616.MAA01308@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Robert Nordgren > Dealer: North > vul: NS > North > J43 > void > Q64 > AQT9643 > North East South West > 3Cl p 4Cl(1) p > 5Cl all pass > 1) 4Cl is bidded after an agreed 45 second break in tempo > NS > where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that > the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. For ruling under L16A, the legal question is indeed the one given in the last sentence. What does the hesitation suggest? South could have been thinking about any number of things. I can see good arguments for suspecting a strong hand is more likely than a weak one, but I can also see good arguments on the other side. Why couldn't South have a weak hand of some sort, where 5C will be a bad contract? This is the kind of case where you really have to be there, and I'm not at all prepared to say the TD and AC got it wrong without a whole lot more information. EW may think the rule is "after partner hesitates, you must pass," but that's not what L16A says at all. The other possibility is to rule under L73C, but we would need a whole lot more information before doing that. Finally, the status of NS as weak players may very well affect what we decide about "suggested over another," but it shouldn't affect whether or not we enforce the rules. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 03:09:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:09:48 +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 DAA04274 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:09:42 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27329; 9 Jun 98 10:10 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jun 1998 23:03:48 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19980608230348.00765380@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:10:19 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806091010.aa27329@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > Your case is much more similar to the latter than the former. The 4C bid is > nominally competitive, rather than invitational, and _only_ the hesitation > gives North any reason to go on to game. Of course, 4C should be competitive. However, this argument (which makes a lot of sense) assumes that North-South know the bid is supposed to be competitive, rather than invitational or something else. Looking at South's hand makes me wonder whether this pair had a clue at all. (Why 4C, when 3S and 3NT are available???) I'd have to ask them some questions at the table. If South knows the bid is supposed to be competitive, you make a good case for adjusting, but if South is clueless as I suspect, then I wouldn't adjust. By the way, if this is matchpoints, I submit that it doesn't matter much whether you adjust back to 4C or not (unless it's a weak field). 3NT, 4S, and 6C are all possible contracts that will score better than both 4C and 5C; 6S should go down on the HA lead. So I'm guessing the difference between +190 and +440 will be one matchpoint at most. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 03:35:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:35:34 +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 DAA04413 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:35:26 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h4.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.51) id VAA16316; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 21:36:33 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <357E0D3C.59A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 21:36:12 -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: Worldwide Contest References: <199806080557.JAA20558@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="WORLD.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="WORLD.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Marvin L. French wrote that "when North bid 2H the plan was to run to 2S if doubled. If one is not going to run from a double, why not bid the better suit? One thing I know for sure: If I were playing behind a curtain and bid 2H, I would certainly bid 2S when West doubles. My ruling (were I a TD, which I'm not): The result stands for both sides". Well... >From the other side, Hirsch Davis wrote that "even if we allow that the hesitation suggests a pull by N, converting N's call back to pass would not necessarily end the auction. Bear in mind that S has another call after the double. And S has no UI. If S was reluctant to sit for 2H undoubled, which is the interpretation that allows us to adjust due to the UI, he certainly won't sit for 2H doubled. If I force N to pass, I'm going to let S make an SOS redouble, so NS still get to spades" And both of them voted for "result stands". Moreover, there was extremely soft reaction from David, almost did not touch the matter of case. I was surprised - was there UI or not? For me it obviously was. M-r Davis described right mechanism for reaching contract of 2 Spades - but North decided to bid it at once. Based on his cards, opponent's double and partner's hesitations. David wrote that it was UI case. And what - no adjustment? Because South might bid redouble-SOS? And it might provide to "no damage"? I'd like to remind quotation from L12: "The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent". "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing". And based on these quotations I would ruled that for EW result stands (as m-r Davis remarked). Result of NS would depend on their level: - if they are novices - result stands, I would warn them and explain North's infraction - if they are experienced players - I would take away from 5 till 15 percentage of one-board-max - if they are masters - I would take away from 20 till 50 percentage of one-board-max Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 03:44:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:44:53 +1000 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA04449 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:44:47 +1000 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:44:47 +1000 Received: (qmail 16469 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1998 17:45:55 -0000 Received: from pm02-d110.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.110) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 9 Jun 1998 17:45:55 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980609134338.0c974564@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hand sniped out >For ruling under L16A, the legal question is indeed the one given in >the last sentence. What does the hesitation suggest? South could have >been thinking about any number of things. I can see good arguments for >suspecting a strong hand is more likely than a weak one, but I can also >see good arguments on the other side. Why couldn't South have a weak >hand of some sort, where 5C will be a bad contract? > >This is the kind of case where you really have to be there, and I'm not >at all prepared to say the TD and AC got it wrong without a whole lot >more information. > >EW may think the rule is "after partner hesitates, you must pass," >but that's not what L16A says at all. I totally agrees with you sometimes pass isn't a LA > >The other possibility is to rule under L73C, but we would need a whole >lot more information before doing that. > >Finally, the status of NS as weak players may very well affect what we >decide about "suggested over another," but it shouldn't affect whether >or not we enforce the rules. weak or strong players is relative both north and south in this case where holding more Masterpoints combined than East West. But where seen as a weak pair by the TD and AC. I'm curious how often it will be right to bid on when pd have hesitated in a position like this i think we are getting close to 80-90% of the time it is right to not pass, instead of when 4cl is made in tempo I think bidding further on 4cl will be a lot more likely to give the pair a bad score. when a player hesitates it is almost never with a busted hand there is usually a flaw in the hand or extra values but doubt about what to bid. For North to bid 5cl I think he needs some significant extra values that havn't been showed already like that he had opened 3Cl with this hand Jxx void Axx AQJT9xx This is a hand some people would open 3Cl with others would say the hand is too strong for it but it is definately a "sound" 3cl opening :) Robert From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 04:27:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:27:23 +1000 Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04702 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:27:17 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3XVAa20982 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:27:51 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? 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 6/8/98 6:45:20 PM EST, Robert Nordgren writes: [hand deleted] > Directors ruling is Result stands with motivation 5cl is NOT suggested with > the very long hesitation. > > EW appeals the ruling and to the AC North,West and East are present > > Norths "defense" to bid 5cl is I have a lot unshowed with the void in Hearts > > > EW are saying pass is a LA on 4cl and that the result should be ruled back > to 4cl making 7 for 190. > > AC's decision is result stands 5cl making 7 > > > > > > I personally thinks this case is the easiest break in tempo case I have > seen in a longtime and can't beleive both the director and AC gets it wrong, Perhaps by now you've realized that this is an easy case and you've gotten it wrong! > but the motivation both of them had could have something with it too do NS > where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that > the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. The motivation might just have been that the Law uses the word demonstrably for a good reason. I would feel this way about any level player. But as other posters have pointed out to you, players at this level agonize over every action. Very few bids are made quickly. Even so, I'm often willing to agree that there was UI and rule against them. I will always go out of my way to explain to them what happened. I wouldn't even consider adjusting this result. > If this isn't blatant use of UI, nothing is in my opinion. Blatant use of UI usually means that everyone stands up and agrees that the UI was there and clearly suggested the action taken and there were clear LAs. By now you must recognize that this case was not even close to that standard. You may still disagree with the decision, but "blatant" would hardly apply. > Are ACBL more concerned to get the weak players to play in tournaments > instead of learning them what is correct ethical behaviour regarding UI. > Here we told them huddle for a minute to show good cards, bid direct to > show a bad hand that just wants to raise the preempt Many of us do try to "learn them what is correct ethical behaviour". And I do not see them getting rulings at tournaments just because of their level of play. They may get some well deserved protection in clubs. But this is a bridge ruling based on the Laws and has nothing to do with their level of play. I was recently quite upset about a ruling in a New England tournament. A player took a very long time and opened 5C in first seat. His partner bid 6C and it made. The 6C call was not clear. The TD was called and they rolled it back to 5C. And the AC agreed with the TDs. The attitude of the TDs is what was really sick, IMO. They told the players that had they passed 5C and it had only made 5, they would have adjusted to 6C -1. They were basically saying that after the break in tempo, the partner could not make the right decision. Many were horrified by this decision and the TDs later admitted that an error had been made. This occurred AFTER the Laws Commission discussed the case and further elaborated on what was meant by "demonstrably". When I addressed this ruling I suggested that after a break in tempo we might as well call the TD over, give them the auction to that point and go on to the next hand. They could then come back later and tell us what had happened. You weren't a member of the committee in this case, were you? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 04:27:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:27:09 +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 EAA04696 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:27:02 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjT7x-0002P6-00; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 18:28:10 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:27:08 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: L72B1 and corrected revokes Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:27:07 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: > There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me > to > poll blml as follows: > > The situation: > > A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes > established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the > penalties > are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to > change > card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally > confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken > but for the revoke, and drops a trick. > > Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was > accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known > ..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. > > Your views please. Cheers John > > > ########### In my view, most players do not deliberately revoke to > put off their opponents and therefore the "could have known" clause of > 72B1 makes this law inappropriate in this situation as, at the time of > the revoke, the revoker is normally unaware of their error. Cf. > hesitations where this is clearly not the case as most hesitators are > aware that they have been thinking. In the extremely unlikely event > that I had any evidence to suggest that a player had revoked > deliberately in order to put off another player then this would be an > extremely serious breach of the proprieties and far more serious > consequences than 72B1 would follow. ############# From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 04:51:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:51:44 +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 EAA04933 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:51:38 +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 OAA31228 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:52:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01493; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:52:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 14:52:52 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806091852.OAA01493@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robert Nordgren > I totally agrees with you sometimes pass isn't a LA Pass clearly is a LA in this case, though, in spite of what Craig says. If you preempt, and partner doesn't make a forcing bid, pass is always* a LA under the North American rules, and I think you would have to go quite some way to find an exception even under the less stringent EBU/European rules. The issue in this case is "suggested over another." Does the hesitation _suggest_ bidding on, or does it not suggest any particular action over another? > I'm curious how often it will be right to bid on when pd have hesitated in > a position like this i think we are getting close to 80-90% of the time it > is right to not pass, instead of when 4cl is made in tempo I think bidding > further on 4cl will be a lot more likely to give the pair a bad score. when > a player hesitates it is almost never with a busted hand there is usually a > flaw in the hand or extra values but doubt about what to bid. The above is a good way to state the question. You may well be right, but this is exactly the sort of thing for which you have to understand the methods and habits of the pair in question. In particular, could the "flaw" be one that makes 5C a bad contract? The TD and AC both disagreed with your analysis _for this specific pair in this specific auction_, and I don't see that we have anywhere near enough facts to decide that they were wrong. --- *This is the bridge version of "always," to be sure. Maybe if the preempt is psychic or something, pass wouldn't be a LA, but even then.... The North American definition of LA is very strict indeed! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 05:47:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 05:47:23 +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 FAA05315 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 05:47:17 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjUNX-0006Ys-00; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:48:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:23:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L72B1 and corrected revokes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me to >poll blml as follows: > >The situation: > >A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes >established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the penalties >are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to change >card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally >confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken >but for the revoke, and drops a trick. > >Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was >accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known >..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. I don't understand this. Please explain further. Are you saying that when I revoke I could know it might work in my favour, so you will adjust if I gain from it? Or are you saying that if I revoke, find out in time, and draw attention to the irregularity, then if my opponent gets a bad board you are adjusting because I could have known that drawing attention to the irregularity might work in my favour, so you will adjust if I gain from it? -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 06:35:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 06:35:38 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05712 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 06:35:32 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA28009; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 15:36:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-14.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.78) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027949; Tue Jun 9 15:35:25 1998 Received: by har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD93C4.5393A520@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:33:26 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD93C4.5393A520@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Steve Willner'" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:33:24 -0400 Encoding: 63 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I beg to differ, Steve. This 3C-..4C invitational sequence is the cousin to 1S-2S-..3S invitational, or 1N-,,2N. Without the hesitation it says bid game with the top of your range, pass with the lower part. Even red this is a VERY solid 3C with a seven card suit and three honours, PLUS two outside controls. There is no "extraneous" information being conveyed here. Systemically this is as much a 5C bid as 3N would be with an 18 count on 1N-..2N, or 4S would be on 1S-2S-..3S with ten HCP and KJTx of spades. I know, you and I don't bid that way...but this pair appears to have been doing just that, and on those methods there is no LA here. I will concede that a polite word of caution from the director that such long hesitations could often convey information to partner and might sometimes be penalized would be in order. They can't learn if we don't make use of the teachab;le moments. :-) Craig ---------- From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 2:52 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? > From: Robert Nordgren > I totally agrees with you sometimes pass isn't a LA Pass clearly is a LA in this case, though, in spite of what Craig says. If you preempt, and partner doesn't make a forcing bid, pass is always* a LA under the North American rules, and I think you would have to go quite some way to find an exception even under the less stringent EBU/European rules. The issue in this case is "suggested over another." Does the hesitation _suggest_ bidding on, or does it not suggest any particular action over another? > I'm curious how often it will be right to bid on when pd have hesitated in > a position like this i think we are getting close to 80-90% of the time it > is right to not pass, instead of when 4cl is made in tempo I think bidding > further on 4cl will be a lot more likely to give the pair a bad score. when > a player hesitates it is almost never with a busted hand there is usually a > flaw in the hand or extra values but doubt about what to bid. The above is a good way to state the question. You may well be right, but this is exactly the sort of thing for which you have to understand the methods and habits of the pair in question. In particular, could the "flaw" be one that makes 5C a bad contract? The TD and AC both disagreed with your analysis _for this specific pair in this specific auction_, and I don't see that we have anywhere near enough facts to decide that they were wrong. --- *This is the bridge version of "always," to be sure. Maybe if the preempt is psychic or something, pass wouldn't be a LA, but even then.... The North American definition of LA is very strict indeed! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 09:08:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:08:11 +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 JAA06612 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:08:06 +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 QAA08257 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806092308.QAA08257@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Worldwide Contest Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 16:05:51 -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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Deal No. 26, Second session of contest--We all know the deal by now Does anyone really doubt that North's original plan was to run from 2H to 2S if 2H gets doubled? If not, why on earth would he bid 2H instead of the safer 2S? And if that was his plan, then passing the double is not an LA. Suppose running to 2S would be the wrong move, South holding good hearts with thoughts of raising on the previous round, e.g., S- QT75 H- 9654 D- 642 C- 85 S- J4 S- AK93 H- QT7 H- 82 D- T75 D- K983 C- QJ976 C- KT4 S- 862 H- AKJ3 D- AQJ C- A32 Now North would be chastised for passing the double, making the contract after a trump lead. TD: "Your original plan was obviously to run to two spades if doubled, but now you pass, taking advantage of your partner's hesitation, which could mean that he was thinking of raising hearts. If not, his break in tempo suggests that he would likely rescue you in some way, perhaps with an S. O. S. redouble, so your unethical pass is safer than bidding two spades as originally planned. Two spades is a logical alternative, therefore the score is adjusted to three hearts, down one doubled, minus 200, plus 200 for East-West. You are warned that any break in tempo by partner must not affect your plan of bidding. Any further incidents of this nature could result in severe consequences." Or, more likely if this is an ACBL TD, "You get average-minus and East-West average-plus." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 12:13:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:13:26 +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 MAA07717 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:13:16 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjaPC-0002EC-00; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:14:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 03:09:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L72B1 and corrected revokes 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: >> >>There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me to >>poll blml as follows: >> >>The situation: >> >>A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes >>established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the penalties >>are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to change >>card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally >>confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken >>but for the revoke, and drops a trick. >> >>Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was >>accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known >>..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. > > I don't understand this. Please explain further. > > Are you saying that when I revoke I could know it might work in my >favour, so you will adjust if I gain from it? > > Or are you saying that if I revoke, find out in time, and draw >attention to the irregularity, then if my opponent gets a bad board you >are adjusting because I could have known that drawing attention to the >irregularity might work in my favour, so you will adjust if I gain from >it? > No I'm saying that if you hadn't revoked declarer would have played the 95% obvious line, but because you revoked (and we got it all sorted out) declarer adopted an obviously inferior line because he was totally confused. He probably shouldn't have been confused but was, and it occured *because* you revoked, and I accept that this was accidental. In other words if you hadn't revoked declarer would have done the right thing, but because you did, he did the wromg thing. The question now is "Can I apply 72B1, because, when you revoked you *could have known* etc." -- 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 Jun 10 19:41:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:41:58 +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 TAA10108 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 19:41:36 +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 KAA09454; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:40:57 +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 KAA01608; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:40:55 +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 KAA24156; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:40:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 98 10:40:36 BST Message-Id: <21074.9806100940@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Law25 and others Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: > S expressed the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S. She said she had not > made a mechanical error > but wished to change her bid to 1S. > During the reading of Law 25B, as soon as the mention of 40% score was > made North interupted with instructions to S that the side should not > choose an option that would give them an automatic penalty.While this > was going on E/W appeared to consult on whether or not it was right that > they could not accept the 2D bid. > At this point I made a ruling. Anne: Do tell, what was the ruling? Steve seemed to rule on the basis that South had corrected to 1S. Does expressing the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S constitute a substitution under Law 25? Steve went on to write: > So, David, what do you think? General comments on how L10C2 should > work will be most welcome. IIRC. The way I was told (probably with David present) to deal with L10C2 infractions was as follows: 1) Allow the player with the choice to make his choice, even if this goes on with partner's suggestion (it may be a bad score anyway) 2) If the player has followed partner's suggestion and consequently got a good score and another choice (a LA?) would be give a worse score apply L16A2 and L12C2. 3) If the player did not follow partner's suggestion, then do not adjust. 4) In any case a PP(at least a warning) may be appropriate. 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 Jun 10 22:23:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:23:39 +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 WAA10563 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:23:32 +1000 Received: from client2501.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.1] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yjjvm-0002Pm-00; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:24:42 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law25 and others Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:27:14 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd946b$199441c0$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: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; willner@cfa183.harvard.edu ; eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Law25 and others >Anne: Do tell, what was the ruling? > >Steve seemed to rule on the basis that South had corrected to 1S. >Does expressing the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S constitute a >substitution under Law 25? South had corrected to 1S. The 2D bid was back in the box and the 1S bid was on the table. Interesting here was the fact that the SO regulations pertaining were that a bid is considered made when removed from the box with apparent intent.(unlike the EBU regs that it must be on the table) I ruled that the 2D bid was made and that the 1S bid was substituted. Then, on reflection, I consider I made my mistakes. In order not to allow N/S to benefit from the UI from North. I read Law 10c2 and withdrew the right of E/W to accept the 1S bid as this could only benefit N/S..I informed the players of the fact that the 2D bid was UI to North but was AI to E/W under Law 16.( I am sure that UI to N is right, but is this particular bid AI to E/W?) S confirmed her choice to bid 1S and the auction proceeded. 1D-1S-1NT-6D The contract and the result was the same in the other room. Score E/W 0: N/S-3. And yes I did give a stern! warning but I did not impose a PP. The ruling was not appealed and in view of the outcome I did not see reason to take it to appeal myself. Interesting point: Does partner blurting out guidance(which is what happened) constitute "consultation" under Law 10. Surely "consultation" is a 2 way thing. > >Steve went on to write: >> So, David, what do you think? General comments on how L10C2 should >> work will be most welcome. > >IIRC. The way I was told (probably with David present) to deal with >L10C2 infractions was as follows: > >1) Allow the player with the choice to make his choice, even if this > goes on with partner's suggestion (it may be a bad score anyway) > >2) If the player has followed partner's suggestion and consequently > got a good score and another choice (a LA?) would be give a worse > score apply L16A2 and L12C2. > >3) If the player did not follow partner's suggestion, then do not > adjust. > >4) In any case a PP(at least a warning) may be appropriate. I have not been taught this but it seems to be correct thinking. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 10 22:24:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:24:50 +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 WAA10581 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:24:37 +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 MAA12083 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:39:29 +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 MAA17534 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:39:28 +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 MAA25064 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:39:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 98 12:39:05 BST Message-Id: <21097.9806101139@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Revoke and claim (an old favourite) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night, in a club in middle England. I was moving to the next table when that table call for the director. I obliged, and gave a ruling which every one at the table thought was wrong. South is declarer in 3NT. At trick 7, dummy plays SK and declarer throws a diamond. At tricks 8/9/10, declarer cashes tricks (not spades) in hand. At trick 11, cashes HA in this position: J 7 5 - - - Q 10 4 - A K 2 - - 4 A 3 - - East throws SQ, and West claims the remainder (there were no clubs, declarer has only red cards and his hand is high). I ruled that we deal with the established revoke at the end of play, so first we deal with the claim. In the position at trick 12, declarer can take two spades; so before we deal with the revoke penalty South has the rest of tricks (making NS 11). South did not win the revoke trick, or win a subsequent trick with a spade (even in the tricks following the claim), so the penalty under L64A is one trick (making NS 10). This is not equitable, since East might not throw SQ if she thought South had spades. So I adjusted on the basis that East throws D2 to trick 11, and East/West get the last two tricks (making NS 9). 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 Jun 10 22:40:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:40:53 +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 WAA10660 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:40:46 +1000 Received: from client26e6.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.230] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yjkCT-0002u8-00; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:41:57 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law25 and others Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:44:30 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd946d$82a8f960$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: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; willner@cfa183.harvard.edu ; eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Law25 and others >Anne: Do tell, what was the ruling? > >Steve seemed to rule on the basis that South had corrected to 1S. >Does expressing the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S constitute a >substitution under Law 25? South had corrected to 1S. The 2D bid was back in the box and the 1S bid was on the table. Interesting here was the fact that the SO regulations pertaining were that a bid is considered made when removed from the box with apparent intent.(unlike the EBU regs that it must be on the table) I ruled that the 2D bid was made and that the 1S bid was substituted. Then, on reflection, I consider I made my mistakes. In order not to allow N/S to benefit from the UI from North. I read Law 10c2 and withdrew the right of E/W to accept the 1S bid as this could only benefit N/S..I informed the players of the fact that a withdrawn call would be UI to North but would be AI to E/W under Law 16.( I am sure that UI to N is right, but is this particular bid AI to E/W?) [got this bit in the wrong order in previous posting!!] S confirmed her choice to bid 1S and the auction proceeded. 1D-1S-1NT-6D The contract and the result was the same in the other room. Score E/W 0: N/S-3. And yes I did give a stern! warning but I did not impose a PP. The ruling was not appealed and in view of the outcome I did not see reason to take it to appeal myself. Interesting point: Does partner blurting out guidance(which is what happened) constitute "consultation" under Law 10. Surely "consultation" is a 2 way thing. > >Steve went on to write: >> So, David, what do you think? General comments on how L10C2 should >> work will be most welcome. > >IIRC. The way I was told (probably with David present) to deal with >L10C2 infractions was as follows: > >1) Allow the player with the choice to make his choice, even if this > goes on with partner's suggestion (it may be a bad score anyway) > >2) If the player has followed partner's suggestion and consequently > got a good score and another choice (a LA?) would be give a worse > score apply L16A2 and L12C2. > >3) If the player did not follow partner's suggestion, then do not > adjust. > >4) In any case a PP(at least a warning) may be appropriate. I have not been taught this but it seems to be correct thinking. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 01:48:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:48:01 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13631 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:47:54 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA20297 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02130; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:49:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 11:49:12 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806101549.LAA02130@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L72B1 and corrected revokes X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > In other words if you hadn't revoked declarer would have done the right > thing, but because you did, he did the wromg thing. The question now is > "Can I apply 72B1, because, when you revoked you *could have known* > etc." I don't think you can adjust under 72B1. It is wildly unlikely that a player could have guessed that a revoke and resulting confusion could have caused an opponent to go wrong. If you are determined to adjust, the proper Law to use is 12A1. (I am not recommending this, you understand, but I think it is a whole lot more plausible than 72B1. I was going to suggest 64C, but that applies only to _established_ revokes.) My real opinion is that no adjustment is warranted. Part of the game is dealing with infractions, both one's own and opponents'. Declarer has my sympathy but no score increase. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 02:01:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:01:17 +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 CAA13878 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:01:11 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA20814 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02152; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:02:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:02:29 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806101602.MAA02152@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law25 and others X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > Steve seemed to rule on the basis that South had corrected to 1S. I hope I didn't write that badly. I meant to say that South should have her options explained, but I expected, once that was done, she would choose 1S. (Choosing the original 2D bid would be pretty silly in this case.) Robin's explanation of L10C2 makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks. Presumably one tells the player how the law will be applied before he chooses his option. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 05:38:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:38:50 +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 FAA15107 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:38:43 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00400 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:36:22 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806101936.OAA00400@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:36:22 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I very much like Grant's approach to this, and theoretically it seems > spot on to me. Unfortunately, many people seem to have a hard time > applying it in practice within a highly geographically diverse playing > environment. Mostly, I chalk this up to provincialism, rather than ill > intent. Most players, myself included, are grossly ignorant of "standard" > bidding practice in more than a few countries. Unfortunately, many of > these players simply assume that what they know as "standard" *IS* standard > and anyone who doesn't know it is deficient in general bridge knowledge. I agree that those are the hardest conditions to deal with. And this is the place where I _do_ agree with Herman and Tim --the use of a convention does often suggest the likelihood of an implicit agreement. That is why I agreed that when I possess information about this partner [such as 'we both come from my club back home and everyone there plays this bid as Whoozits'] it should be revealed when partner makes a bid for which we have no explicit agreement. But what about those cases where I am equally in the dark about partner? I live in the Midwestern US--suppose I acquire a first-time partner from one of the Coasts, or from one of our European colonies [:):):)]? Then _I_ may very well be just as much in the dark as opponents--the very same "Provincialism" that prevents them from knowing what the bid means prevents me from knowing it as well. So I'm afraid I must stick with my original claim. Anything I know _about this partner's likely habits_ must be revealed. This includes facts about "standard" bidding in this partner's usual haunts or region. Of course, if I _don't know_ those things, then they are not implicit agreements [two people are needed for an agreement, not just one!] and I have no obligation to reveal them. {Which is fortunate, since I don't know them.} > This is exacerbated under conditions (internet or play with screens #) where > self alerts and explanations to both opponents or to a screen-mate may be > the standard. At times, an expectation of provision, *by the bidder*, of > relevant circumstantial evidence regarding the potential meaning of a bid > may come uncomfortably close to an expectation that he explain the meaning > of the bid, rather than the nature of relevant agreements. This is, of course, the hardest case. Obviously, the bidder must attempt to figure out how well partner knows him! > I would like nothing more than to be thoroughly convinced that this is > *not* a difficult problem, or at least to be armed to the teeth with > arguments on behalf of the position. :) > > # While this is not apt to be a substantial problem in most events being > played with screens, due to the extent of partnership discussion and > agreement, I bring it up as a relevant model for theoretical comparison. I have much more sympathy with the arguement that bidder should explain his own bid in cases where he is required to do so anyway [internet or screens]. :) In any case, I think this is not a theoretical question but a practical one. [You seem to agree.] Practially, then, we must either: a) Expect bidder to simply state the meaning of his bid [which is simple to apply but goes far beyond what the Laws demand] b) Allow bidder to say "No agreement" whenever the agreement was not explicit, or c) Try to perform the more difficult task of determining what partner could know given what he knows about your background. I favor 'c', because although it will be difficult to do the situation doesn't come up _that_ often, and it is the closest we can come to following the Laws. > Cheers, > > > Bill Segraves > Guilford, CT > Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 08:37:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:37:25 +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 IAA15367 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:37:07 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjsIN-0000mZ-00; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:20:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4olZI$Aijcf1Eww4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:44:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <199806091852.OAA01493@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Robert Nordgren >> I totally agrees with you sometimes pass isn't a LA > >Pass clearly is a LA in this case, though, in spite of what Craig says. >If you preempt, and partner doesn't make a forcing bid, pass is always* >a LA under the North American rules, and I think you would have to go >quite some way to find an exception even under the less stringent >EBU/European rules. I cannot see this. Let us take an extreme case. AJT9xx Qxxxx x x You open 2S. You wouldn't? Then let me direct your attention to a Bridge World MSC problem of about 18 months ago. It was made clear from that problem that several very good NAmerican players open such freaks as a weak two as a first move. The bidding goes 3C by LHO, 3H by CHO [_not_ forcing] and 4C by RHO. Tell me that pass is an LA! Too extreme? But that is what is wrong with an analytical approach based on "always" or "never". -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 08:47:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:47:22 +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 IAA15398 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:47:15 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2593.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.147]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA29845 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:48:19 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Revoke and claim (an old favourite) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:50:52 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd94c2$384eda60$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: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 1:52 PM Subject: Revoke and claim (an old favourite) > >Last night, in a club in middle England. > >I was moving to the next table when that table call for the director. >I obliged, and gave a ruling which every one at the table thought was >wrong. Are we missing something? I would have ruled the same way. Why did everyone think you were wrong? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 09:33:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:33:31 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA15843 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:33:25 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA10824; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:34:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:34:33 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The Night of the ArtAS Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A story about last night's club game, and a ruling question. Enjoy. What is the most artificial assigned scores you've ever had to hand out in a single session? Last night I was put in the uncomfortable position of giving no less than twelve of them: 8 A-, 1 A, 3 A+. This, I might add, in a game of only 5 tables! Here is how it came about --- One player telephoned the club to say she would be a few minutes late arriving. She wound up 15 minutes late so her table was given two late plays for Round 1. (At my club, late plays are commonly given, so as not to hold others up, both for late arrivals and for slow play. Penalties for either cause are rare.) At the start of the last round, another player (a novice) comes up to me and says, "My partner took off. He had to go pick up his daughter. What should I do for the last round?" I muttered under my breath about his !@#$%^ partner, who a) should have planned to stay for the whole game and b) should have seen me himself before he left. "A- to your side, because your partner prevented the boards being played, and A+ to your opponents," I said. Unfortunately, his last-round opponents overheard him say that his partner had left and he couldn't play the last round. One of them took it upon herself to get up and leave without consulting me, since she "knew" she had no more boards to play. OK, so now those three boards are A- to both sides, since *neither* side was willing to stay around long enough to tell me what the heck was going on before they left. It just so happens the second player who left early was the one who arrived late. She had forgotten about her two late-play boards. So now I have two more boards, A- to her, A+ to her first-round opponents. Sigh. All is well for about ten minutes, and then I am summoned to another table. It seems declarer claimed the last three tricks but everyone else at the table had four cards left. There followed a lengthy search for the missing card, questioning of the people who last played the board, etc, etc, but the missing card was not found. I say (incorrectly) that it looks like this will be A+/A+ since we don't know who is responsible for fouling the board. They continue to search for the missing card, with their already-played tricks still arranged on the table. A few minutes later I am summoned back by them. "We've found the missing card." "Where was it and what was it?" "We don't know." Since they were finished for the night they put the deck into suits and -- surprise! -- all 52 cards were there again. Now, if we know what card is missing, it looks like my ruling should be 'table result stands, revoke penalties may apply.' [Is it too late to do this or not? They hadn't started the next hand yet, since this was the last hand of the night, nor had they recorded the A+/A+ on the traveller yet.] No line of inquiry could uncover any information about what the missing card might have been, when it might have been played (all concerned were pretty sure declarer had two cards stuck together during the play, though they weren't found earlier when the tricks were inspected), or what declarer had left in her hand when she claimed. Now I have a dilemma. I am tempted to say 'table result minus two tricks', giving the OS the worst possible penalty for their possible revoke, but I'm not sure this is the right ruling, and it will be hard to explain to them why I want to give this ruling. Now the NOs claim declarer did not count her cards before the start of the hand. (I should have asked this earlier, and if I had, I wouldn't have said A+/A+ before.) Declarer isn't sure if she did. Whether declarer misplayed or miscounted, it looks like my ruling is now A-/A+. I am about to make this official when declarer says: "But wait! I know I had 5-4-3-1 distribution at the start of the hand! So I DID start with 13 cards!" Neither I nor those at the table are sure exactly who did what now. So in the end I give A+ to the NOs, and A to the declarer's side, on the basis of 'probably or partially at fault'. I am uncomfortable with this ruling... I suppose an AC could award a mixed score, some mixture of 170 (3S+4 was the table result), 140, and -50, depending on what revoke penalty, if any, the various possible missing cards would have incurred. Unfortunately there were not hand records and the actual holdings were destroyed (withot my permission) when they located the 52nd card. Any suggestions for how I should have handled this situation? [Since it was a friendlyclub game --STaC actually--and neither pair was in contention, there was no appeal. Thank heaven for that. Scoring the game took half the night anyway, since I had to do the factoring and adding by hand. We are still a computerless club.] Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 10:26:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:26:34 +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 KAA16106 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:26:27 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjvDN-0001QY-00; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:27:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:08:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L72B1 and corrected revokes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >>>There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me to >>>poll blml as follows: >>> >>>The situation: >>> >>>A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes >>>established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the penalties >>>are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to change >>>card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally >>>confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken >>>but for the revoke, and drops a trick. >>> >>>Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was >>>accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known >>>..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. >> >> I don't understand this. Please explain further. >> >> Are you saying that when I revoke I could know it might work in my >>favour, so you will adjust if I gain from it? >> >> Or are you saying that if I revoke, find out in time, and draw >>attention to the irregularity, then if my opponent gets a bad board you >>are adjusting because I could have known that drawing attention to the >>irregularity might work in my favour, so you will adjust if I gain from >>it? >> >No I'm saying that if you hadn't revoked declarer would have played the >95% obvious line, but because you revoked (and we got it all sorted out) >declarer adopted an obviously inferior line because he was totally >confused. He probably shouldn't have been confused but was, and it >occured *because* you revoked, and I accept that this was accidental. > >In other words if you hadn't revoked declarer would have done the right >thing, but because you did, he did the wromg thing. The question now is >"Can I apply 72B1, because, when you revoked you *could have known* >etc." No. How could he have known that if he revoked I would lose my mind? -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 10:29:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:29:07 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16125 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:29:02 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-8.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.104]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA13944; Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:30:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <357F1FFD.9AB4DB2A@idt.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:08:29 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A9D3FC3421D31079D5D92E9B" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A9D3FC3421D31079D5D92E9B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I hope this file is easily accessible for everyone. If not, I apologize, and will do whatever is necessary to correct the situation. Irv --------------A9D3FC3421D31079D5D92E9B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="Howell vs Lubesnik.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Howell vs Lubesnik.txt" A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other night= =2E I wonder what the group will make of it. = North The Bidding S void S W N E H Axx P P D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P C QJx 3H P 3S** P 3N all pass = West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle H xx H QJxxx D Kx D QJ C KTx C xxx South S AQ9x H Kxx D Ax C Axxx The Dramatis Personae: South is a genuinely nice lady, well-known in the local bridge community,= who though quite experienced, is not a skillful player, and has no aware= ness of the niceties of Logical Alternatives or Unauthorized Information.= = North is a competent player, in his early twenties, the regular (though p= erhaps a bit inexperienced) director of the game, who is playing to compl= ete the movement. That is, he has never played with South before. West is a quite decent player, with a somewhat irascible personality that= makes him something less than universally popular. East was a non-participant in the discussions. Inasmuch as I am the local Unit President, both parties have talked to me= about this incident, and I have become a sort of de facto committee of o= ne! = When the dummy appeared, West immediately announced that he wished to pro= test the board. I don't know exactly what was said at this point, but th= e hand was played out. The opening lead was a club to the Queen, followe= d by a low diamond to the jack, small(!), small. A spade from East to th= e Queen(!) and King, and a spade back, which South won with the ace (I am= running out of exclamation points!). South now cashed the Diamond ace an= d took eleven tricks, at which point West announced that he DEFINITELY wa= nted to protest the board. Various things were said, the exact content o= f which is no longer clear, but West felt that he had been damaged, and N= orth thought that he had been called a cheater, though when pressed, admi= tted the C-word had not actually been used. North now decided, without f= urther discussion, to throw the board out, removed the cards from the tra= y and re-dealt the cards. This further incensed West, who felt he should= at least be consulted. West maintains that North should play South for a five-card heart suit, a= position that seems impossible to me; this particular south has NEVER op= ened 1NT with a five card major. Another school of thought believes that= South should be cue-bidding with a big diamond fit, an equally improbabl= y bid from this particular South. She just doesn't know from cue-bids-in= -advance. My own feeling is, had she NOT announced the bid as a transfer= , North would have figured it out anyway! So the question has several facets. What should North, who is expected to= know the rules, do in the face of the UI about the 3H bid? What should = we expect from South after the long huddle before the 3S bid? How should= North, now donning his director hat, have dealt with the situation? Several people will be interested in everyone's comments, which I have pr= omised to relay to them. Irv Kostal --------------A9D3FC3421D31079D5D92E9B-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 11 20:27:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:27:39 +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 UAA19066 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:26:09 +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 LAA07783; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:24:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA26824; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:24:05 +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 LAA03205; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:24:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 11:23:50 BST Message-Id: <21589.9806111023@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bigfoot@idt.net Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Irwin J Kostal > I hope this file is easily accessible for everyone. If not, I > apologize, and will do whatever is necessary to correct the situation. [ I had to reformat the message, but it was OK for me. ] > Irv > > A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other > night. I wonder what the group will make of it. > > North The Bidding > S void S W N E > H Axx P P > D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P > C QJx 3H P 3S** P > 3N all pass > West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) > S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle > H xx H QJxxx > D Kx D QJ > C KTx C xxx > > South > S AQ9x > H Kxx > D Ax > C Axxx > > The Dramatis Personae: [snipped] > > When the dummy appeared, West immediately announced that he wished to > protest the board. I don't know exactly what was said at this point, I assume North was the only available director. North (as TD) should probably confirm the auction, with the alerts, explanations and huddles. > but the hand was played out. The opening lead was a club to the Queen, > followed by a low diamond to the jack, small(!), small. A spade from > East to the Queen(!) and King, and a spade back, which South won with > the ace (I am running out of exclamation points!). South now cashed the > Diamond ace and took eleven tricks, at which point West announced that > he DEFINITELY wanted to protest the board. Various things were said, > the exact content of which is no longer clear, but West felt that he > had been damaged, and North thought that he had been called a cheater, > though when pressed, admitted the C-word had not actually been used. Not easy to deal with as playing TD, either ruling the board or dealing with ch**ting allegations. With something as heated as this, I would rule against myself (NS 4Hx -2 (say)) and announce that I will appeal and suggest that West saves his comments for the AC. I would apologise to partner saying that in a confused position like this I really have no alertnative. Once ch**ting allegations were made, I would excuse myself, find a senior club official and ask him/her to come to the table while I tried to establish the facts. I would then rule against myself and have appeals, C&E hearings, whatever. > North now decided, without further discussion, to throw the board out, > removed the cards from the tray and re-dealt the cards. This further > incensed West, who felt he should at least be consulted. This action seems designed to incense West. Once a result has been obtained on the board it not usually right to have the board redealt, this sort of situation should only result in an assigned adjusted score. > West maintains that North should play South for a five-card heart suit, > a position that seems impossible to me; this particular south has NEVER > opened 1NT with a five card major. Another school of thought believes If South holding 5 hearts is impossible, then perhaps 4H is not a LA for North (although the Moysian fit with ruffs in the short hand may be OK). 4D is probably a logical alternative to 3S, probably leading to 4HX. > that South should be cue-bidding with a big diamond fit, an equally > improbably bid from this particular South. She just doesn't know from > cue-bids-in-advance. My own feeling is, had she NOT announced the bid > as a transfer, North would have figured it out anyway! > > So the question has several facets. What should North, who is expected > to know the rules, do in the face of the UI about the 3H bid? If the only explanation (in this context) for 3H is that it is a transfer then the UI (the announcement) does not suggest anything, and North's actions are not constrained. Otherwise, he should consider whether 4D or 4H are bids he would make without the UI, and bid not suggested by the UI. > What should we expect from South after the long huddle before the 3S bid? I'll stick my neck out and say that I don't think there are logical alternatives to 3NT. South does not have good support for diamonds for playing in D rather than NT and has been asked for a spade stop which he has. > How should North, now donning his director hat, have dealt with the > situation? Rule against himself, have a respected neutral party present to deal with the use of the C-word, and not have the board redealt. > Several people will be interested in everyone's comments, which I have > promised to relay to them. > > Irv Kostal This certainly puts the odd awkward incident at my club in perspective. Thanks for sharing it with us! 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 Jun 11 22:25:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:25:32 +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 WAA19478 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:25:25 +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 IAA01358 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980611082633.3757d4a8@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (16) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:26:33 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <199806101936.OAA00400@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:36 PM 6/10/98 -0500, Grant C. Sterling wrote: > This is, of course, the hardest case. Obviously, the bidder must >attempt to figure out how well partner knows him! Or, he could go beyond what the Laws require and explain his bid. > I have much more sympathy with the arguement that bidder should >explain his own bid in cases where he is required to do so anyway >[internet or screens]. :) > c) Try to perform the more difficult task of determining what >partner could know given what he knows about your background. > I favor 'c', because although it will be difficult to do the >situation doesn't come up _that_ often, and it is the closest we can come >to following the Laws. I'd be in favor of not asking players to tell opponents what they guess their partner might guess their bids mean. I don't think there is any law which prevents you from telling the opponents what your bid means (as long as you don't also tell partner). So, telling the opponents what your bid means seems to fulfill your obligations under the Laws, not just come close as you say c) does. I admit that it goes beyond what the laws require. But, it's not a crime to drive 50 in a 55 zone. Your method suggests that you could make a conventional call which your partner correctly tells the opponents you have no agreement about. He can then guess correctly. And, no one ever has to tell the opponents what is going on beyond saying you have no agreement. This just doesn't seem right to me. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 00:01:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:01:47 +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 AAA19793 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:01:41 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yk7wK-0004nr-00; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:02:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:01:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Frederiksburg Alle Bridge festival MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry this won't link to the rest of thread: small error committed! I wrote: >Board 20 Q IMP pairs > W/All A 7 3 Appeals unlikely > Q J 6 4 3 2 > K 10 4 3 J 9 2 A 9 8 6 W N E S > 8 2 Q 6 5 P P 1NT P > K 8 A 9 7 5 P 2D& P 2S > K 7 6 5 3 J 7 5 2 Q 8 X 3D AP > K J 10 9 4 > 10 Lead: CQ > A 10 4 Result: 3D= > > & Described as spades + minor > > West claimed damage because of misinformation. Specifically, he said >that after a club lead, trump, club to the king, club seven asking for >spade ruffed, East led a low spade and West failed to play his spade >king because he thought East's spade was a singleton, so the singleton >queen scored a trick. When I asked West [innocently] whether he normally opened 1NT with a singleton, the look on his face was priceless. In my view he had forgotten the 1NT opening when he failed to rise with the SK, so perhaps the damage was caused by this! > North-South stated that everyone played 2D as spades and a minor at >their club, and it was on their CC. Actually, their CC was only part >filled in and Defence to 1NT was still blank. West said he accepted >that the CC would say 2D = spades + minor when it was filled in. I am surprised that another poster failed to find this adequate evidence to prove there was no MI. The Law says: "... but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary ..." Note that it says "evidence" not "proof", and adequate evidence is what we look for. It is a judgement decision, and this seemed clearly not MI: anyway, I so ruled. > North said he realised what had happened as soon as his partner >alerted and considered his ethical position before bidding 3D. He >decided that 3D was the bid he would have made behind screens, >especially since South had not bid 2S over 1NT. > > How would you rule? Whenever one of these cases is brought to a TD's notice where a player suggests he has been damaged by a wrong explanation, the player will usually claim damage because of MI or because of UI, but not both. TDs should always consider both. Having considered I decided that despite the presence of the SQ and the absence of the D9 that North would have bid 3D once 2S was doubled, ie I did not consider Pass was an LA [not in Denmark, anyway!]. So I ruled no MI, no damage from the UI, result stands. I had consulted, of course, as TDs always do: I consulted with Jesper Dybdal! I consider it an extremely close decision. I also consider North did his best to follow L73C and try to avoid using the UI. Once I realised that West had played his partner for a singleton, forgetting that he had opened 1NT [although he did not admit that], I was quite amused since West was Jens Brix Christiansen! -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 00:01:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:01:43 +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 AAA19787 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:01:37 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yk7wF-0004ns-00; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:02:48 +0000 Message-ID: <$vRoJ2Awm7f1Ewhd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:04:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club In-Reply-To: <357F1FFD.9AB4DB2A@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: >I hope this file is easily accessible for everyone. If not, I >apologize, and will do whatever is necessary to correct the situation. It is accessible to me, but unreadable. General Netiquette asks for a right margin at 72 characters: this file has a right margin at 100 characters. Also it uses tabs in the hands diagram: not a good idea! I have edited it: I hope this helps. -------- A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other night. I wonder what the group will make of it. North The Bidding S void S W N E H Axx P P D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P C QJx 3H P 3S** P 3N all pass West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle H xx H QJxxx D Kx D QJ C KTx C xxx South S AQ9x H Kxx D Ax C Axxx The Dramatis Personae: South is a genuinely nice lady, well-known in the local bridge community, who though quite experienced, is not a skillful player, and has no awareness of the niceties of Logical Alternatives or Unauthorized Information. North is a competent player, in his early twenties, the regular (though perhaps a bit inexperienced) director of the game, who is playing to complete the movement. That is, he has never played with South before. West is a quite decent player, with a somewhat irascible personality that makes him something less than universally popular. East was a non-participant in the discussions. Inasmuch as I am the local Unit President, both parties have talked to me about this incident, and I have become a sort of de facto committee of one! When the dummy appeared, West immediately announced that he wished to protest the board. I don't know exactly what was said at this point, but the hand was played out. The opening lead was a club to the Queen, followed by a low diamond to the jack, small(!), small. A spade from East to the Queen(!) and King, and a spade back, which South won with the ace (I am running out of exclamation points!). South now cashed the Diamond ace and took eleven tricks, at which point West announced that he DEFINITELY wanted to protest the board. Various things were said, the exact content of which is no longer clear, but West felt that he had been damaged, and North thought that he had been called a cheater, though when pressed, admitted the C-word had not actually been used. North now decided, without further discussion, to throw the board out, removed the cards from the tray and re-dealt the cards. This further incensed West, who felt he should at least be consulted. West maintains that North should play South for a five-card heart suit, a position that seems impossible to me; this particular south has NEVER opened 1NT with a five card major. Another school of thought believes that South should be cue-bidding with a big diamond fit, an equally improbably bid from this particular South. She just doesn't know from cue-bids-in-advance. My own feeling is, had she NOT announced the bid as a transfer, North would have figured it out anyway! So the question has several facets. What should North, who is expected to know the rules, do in the face of the UI about the 3H bid? What should we expect from South after the long huddle before the 3S bid? How should North, now donning his director hat, have dealt with the situation? Several people will be interested in everyone's comments, which I have promised to relay to them. Irv Kostal -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 01:44:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:44:26 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA22352 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:44:20 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA18398 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02903; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:45:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:45:43 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806111545.LAA02903@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Too extreme? But that is what is wrong with an analytical approach > based on "always" or "never". OK, David has invented an example that is extreme enough. I did say "the bridge version of 'always'!" (Perhaps David missed the asterisk?) Even then, he created a highly abnormal hand, and he used a weak two-bid, which some of us don't consider a preempt. The original hand is nowhere close to David's example. It would be reasonable to argue whether pass is a LA in the EBU -- I am not sure it isn't, even there -- but in North America, I don't see how there can be any doubt. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 02:02:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:02:48 +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 CAA22566 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:02:42 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yk9pR-0005EM-00; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:03:54 +0000 Message-ID: <61AXvXAC+$f1EwgG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:02:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L72B1 and corrected revokes 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: >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>> >>>>There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me to >>>>poll blml as follows: >>>> >>>>The situation: >>>> >>>>A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes >>>>established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the penalties >>>>are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to change >>>>card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally >>>>confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken >>>>but for the revoke, and drops a trick. >>>> >>>>Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was >>>>accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known >>>>..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. >>> >>> I don't understand this. Please explain further. >>> >>> Are you saying that when I revoke I could know it might work in my >>>favour, so you will adjust if I gain from it? >>> >>> Or are you saying that if I revoke, find out in time, and draw >>>attention to the irregularity, then if my opponent gets a bad board you >>>are adjusting because I could have known that drawing attention to the >>>irregularity might work in my favour, so you will adjust if I gain from >>>it? >>> >>No I'm saying that if you hadn't revoked declarer would have played the >>95% obvious line, but because you revoked (and we got it all sorted out) >>declarer adopted an obviously inferior line because he was totally >>confused. He probably shouldn't have been confused but was, and it >>occured *because* you revoked, and I accept that this was accidental. >> >>In other words if you hadn't revoked declarer would have done the right >>thing, but because you did, he did the wromg thing. The question now is >>"Can I apply 72B1, because, when you revoked you *could have known* >>etc." > > No. > > How could he have known that if he revoked I would lose my mind? > OK, I'm out-voted 5-0. The jury says I cannot use L72B1 in this circumstance. Thank you all for your comments, appreciated as always. -- 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 Jun 12 03:25:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 03:25:44 +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 DAA22843 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 03:25:36 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-058.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.63]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA13411 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <357EC676.4355@lightspeed.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:46:30 -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: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club References: <$vRoJ2Awm7f1Ewhd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hand and story from Irv Kostal, very helpful formatting from David Stevenson. Comments imbedded. > > A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other > night. I wonder what the group will make of it. > > North The Bidding > S void S W N E > H Axx P P > D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P > C QJx 3H P 3S** P > 3N all pass > West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) > S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle > H xx H QJxxx > D Kx D QJ > C KTx C xxx > > South > S AQ9x > H Kxx > D Ax > C Axxx > > The Dramatis Personae: > > South is a genuinely nice lady, well-known in the local bridge > community, who though quite experienced, is not a skillful player, and > has no awareness of the niceties of Logical Alternatives or Unauthorized > Information. > > North is a competent player, in his early twenties, the regular (though > perhaps a bit inexperienced) director of the game, who is playing to > complete the movement. That is, he has never played with South before. > > West is a quite decent player, with a somewhat irascible personality > that makes him something less than universally popular. > > East was a non-participant in the discussions. > > Inasmuch as I am the local Unit President, both parties have talked to > me about this incident, and I have become a sort of de facto committee > of one! > > When the dummy appeared, West immediately announced that he wished to > protest the board. This is the right time to do so. The director failed to correct the misexplanation before the lead? Naughty director! I don't know exactly what was said at this point, > but the hand was played out. The opening lead was a club to the Queen, > followed by a low diamond to the jack, small(!), small. A spade from > East to the Queen(!) and King, and a spade back, which South won with > the ace (I am running out of exclamation points!). South now cashed the > Diamond ace and took eleven tricks, at which point West announced that > he DEFINITELY wanted to protest the board. Various things were said, > the exact content of which is no longer clear, but West felt that he had > been damaged, and North thought that he had been called a cheater, > though when pressed, admitted the C-word had not actually been used. > North now decided, without further discussion, to throw the board out, > removed the cards from the tray and re-dealt the cards. This further > incensed West, who felt he should at least be consulted. Yikes. First, let's get everyone to calm down. The first person to get calmed down is the director. Sometimes, people imply cheating in the heat of the moment, and at this level, instruction is better than sanctions. So, the director can explain. Next, the redeal is, um, wrong. Were I West, I'd be jumping up and down at this point, too. > > West maintains that North should play South for a five-card heart suit, > a position that seems impossible to me; this particular south has NEVER > opened 1NT with a five card major. Another school of thought believes > that South should be cue-bidding with a big diamond fit, an equally > improbably bid from this particular South. She just doesn't know from > cue-bids-in-advance. My own feeling is, had she NOT announced the bid > as a transfer, North would have figured it out anyway! > > So the question has several facets. What should North, who is expected > to know the rules, do in the face of the UI about the 3H bid? What > should we expect from South after the long huddle before the 3S bid? > How should North, now donning his director hat, have dealt with the > situation? > I sense that North tried to abide by the rules during the bidding. 3H is probably impossible on this sequence, since he's looking at the HA, even without the UI. 3S sounds like a cue-bid, and seems like the most disaster-prone effort (the basic standard here -- bids suggested would be those less likely to lead to disaster, like 4D or 3N). 4H looks unplayable in the Moysian fit, because the early ruff will probably kill the diamond suit, so 3NT appears to be the last best hope. As for the MI, the director needs to be informed of his obligation to explain before the opening lead. However, here it did not appear to cost the defense anything. As an independent director, I rule result stands. As playing director, I rule 5D+5 (slightly random, but I can't see how we can stop below game after this start, and I can't fault 3S), with review to a competent appeals committee if there is one. I also smack myself for failing to notify opponents of MI before the opening lead. This was a good problem. --JRM > Several people will be interested in everyone's comments, which I have > promised to relay to them. > > Irv Kostal > > -- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 03:26:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 03:26:28 +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 DAA22870 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 03:26:20 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ykB8J-0000Cm-00; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:27:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:24:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club In-Reply-To: <$vRoJ2Awm7f1Ewhd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Irwin J Kostal wrote: >>I hope this file is easily accessible for everyone. If not, I >>apologize, and will do whatever is necessary to correct the situation. > > It is accessible to me, but unreadable. General Netiquette asks for a >right margin at 72 characters: this file has a right margin at 100 >characters. Also it uses tabs in the hands diagram: not a good idea! I >have edited it: I hope this helps. > > -------- > >A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other >night. I wonder what the group will make of it. > > North The Bidding > S void S W N E > H Axx P P > D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P > C QJx 3H P 3S** P > 3N all pass > West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) >S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle >H xx H QJxxx >D Kx D QJ >C KTx C xxx > > South > S AQ9x > H Kxx > D Ax > C Axxx > >The Dramatis Personae: > >South is a genuinely nice lady, well-known in the local bridge >community, who though quite experienced, is not a skillful player, and >has no awareness of the niceties of Logical Alternatives or Unauthorized >Information. > >North is a competent player, in his early twenties, the regular (though >perhaps a bit inexperienced) director of the game, who is playing to >complete the movement. That is, he has never played with South before. > >West is a quite decent player, with a somewhat irascible personality >that makes him something less than universally popular. > >East was a non-participant in the discussions. > >Inasmuch as I am the local Unit President, both parties have talked to >me about this incident, and I have become a sort of de facto committee >of one! > >When the dummy appeared, West immediately announced that he wished to >protest the board. I don't know exactly what was said at this point, >but the hand was played out. The opening lead was a club to the Queen, >followed by a low diamond to the jack, small(!), small. A spade from >East to the Queen(!) and King, and a spade back, which South won with >the ace (I am running out of exclamation points!). South now cashed the >Diamond ace and took eleven tricks, at which point West announced that >he DEFINITELY wanted to protest the board. Various things were said, >the exact content of which is no longer clear, but West felt that he had >been damaged, and North thought that he had been called a cheater, >though when pressed, admitted the C-word had not actually been used. >North now decided, without further discussion, to throw the board out, >removed the cards from the tray and re-dealt the cards. This further >incensed West, who felt he should at least be consulted. As a general policy, we must realise the *very* strong distinction between accusations of cheating by other parties and self-accusations of cheating. When a player says "That is equivalent to calling me a cheat" then he *and only he* has accused himself of cheating. It is an attempt, often deliberate, to exacerbate the situation by over- emphasising what has been said. In the last couple of years, I have been at Appeals Committees where people have made these self-accusations: I have seen items because I am a member of two Laws & Ethics Committees: I have received comments when I am a TD. I have also had a strong disagreement with a friend [who reads BLML] who told me about such a case. I have been involved in about two dozen self-accusations of cheating, as against only one or two real accusations. Do not let yourself be seduced by the siren song of the self-accuser. When a player says to another player "You are a cheat!" _or_ when he accuses another player of deliberately intentionally and knowledgeably taking seriously unethical action, then he has accused him of being a cheat. When a player does anything less than this he has not accused anyone of being a cheat, and the fact that the victim now says that it is tantamount to being called a cheat is not something that we should accept as a cheating accusation. So, North has not been accused of cheating. West may have said things that he should not have said, though in mitigation, North did not handle this very well. West seeks a ruling, as is his right, and as most players would do in this situation. It is unfortunate that North is the TD, and it behoves him to be very careful in his actions. If there is any other competent TD present, then North should ask him to rule. If not, as another poster has pointed out, North should rule against himself and appeal. At that appeal [or when speaking to the other TD if one can be found] North can also mention any remarks made by West which appeared out of line. Of course, the idea of redealing the board merely suggests that this particular player should not direct again until he has learnt a bit more about directing. Even I would start to think nasty thoughts about North if he is going to do this sort of thing. >West maintains that North should play South for a five-card heart suit, >a position that seems impossible to me; this particular south has NEVER >opened 1NT with a five card major. Another school of thought believes >that South should be cue-bidding with a big diamond fit, an equally >improbably bid from this particular South. She just doesn't know from >cue-bids-in-advance. My own feeling is, had she NOT announced the bid >as a transfer, North would have figured it out anyway! > >So the question has several facets. What should North, who is expected >to know the rules, do in the face of the UI about the 3H bid? What >should we expect from South after the long huddle before the 3S bid? >How should North, now donning his director hat, have dealt with the >situation? North's position after the UI is very tricky, and he should merely take his best guess as to the ethical bid. South probably has no idea what is going on [would you have *any* idea what a huddle meant in this position?]. As a TD, North should rule it to -1700 and appeal. I have no idea what an AC would do, because it is not an easy TD/AC problem, but the main interest seems to me to be in the shenanigans that went on around it. Let me make one thing entirely clear: no TD has the right to redeal a board because there is a tricky ruling. Any TD who does when he is involved has taken himself over the ethical boundary, and should not direct again, though of course he may not know the ethical situation if he is not a very competent TD. >Several people will be interested in everyone's comments, which I have >promised to relay to them. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 04:54:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:54:23 +1000 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA23242 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:54:08 +1000 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 04:54:08 +1000 Received: (qmail 23483 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1998 18:55:19 -0000 Received: from pm02-d075.kism.fl.iag.net (207.30.80.75) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 11 Jun 1998 18:55:19 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980611145347.36af2094@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:45 AM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Too extreme? But that is what is wrong with an analytical approach >> based on "always" or "never". > >OK, David has invented an example that is extreme enough. I did say >"the bridge version of 'always'!" (Perhaps David missed the asterisk?) >Even then, he created a highly abnormal hand, and he used a weak >two-bid, which some of us don't consider a preempt. > >The original hand is nowhere close to David's example. It would be >reasonable to argue whether pass is a LA in the EBU -- I am not sure it >isn't, even there -- but in North America, I don't see how there can be >any doubt. The original hand is a "normal" 3cl preempt some people wouldn't open it 3cl because of Jxx in Sp others would open it 3cl. And once 3cl have been the choice pass will be an alternative "allowed" in the system NS plays if pd is bidding a non forcing call. 4cl was non forcing and when facing a non forcing bid I would ALWAYS concider pass being a LA, the hesitation suggest this alternative is not the winning one. after an in tempo 4cl odds are say 50/50 about pass on it or go further after the long break the odds are NOT 50/50 anymore more like 99/1 in favour of not passing the non forcing call. And one bid is clearly suggested in favour of another 5cl is with a very high % going to be better than passing on 4cl. A direct 3sp bid from South might have been a non forcing bid as well since they didn't bid it being worried pd would pass on it without support so South might not have had any good bids available at the time too worried about bidding 3 NT on K singel in Di. So a longtank and a raise shows good hand. a direct raise shows a much weaker hand. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 07:29:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:29:47 +1000 Received: from serv4.vossnet.co.uk (qmailr@serv4.vossnet.co.uk [195.188.10.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23893 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:29:35 +1000 Received: (qmail 24944 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1998 21:30:43 -0000 Received: from pool-195.vossnet.co.uk (HELO Vossnet) (195.188.90.205) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 11 Jun 1998 21:30:43 -0000 Message-ID: <000201bd957f$a41581a0$cd5abcc3@Vossnet> From: "Damian Hassan" To: Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:19:47 +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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 June 1998 20:47 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Greetings all. I have been reading BLML for a few months (very educational and enjoyable). Let's get the formalities out of the way first - I share ownership of my house with five cats: Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Lily and Baroo. >The original hand is a "normal" 3cl preempt some people wouldn't >3cl have been the choice pass will be an alternative "allowed" in the >system NS plays if pd is bidding a non forcing call. 4cl was non >forcing and when facing a non forcing bid I would ALWAYS concider >pass being a LA, *the hesitation suggest this alternative is not the >winning one*. Why is this so? Thinking about my own occasional breaks in tempo before making an invitational bid, they are divided fairly evenly between hands where I probably should pass but decide to give one more push, and hands where I probably should bid game but decide to give partner a chance to make the final mistake. (Given that my partner is John Probst, you can tell that this is losing bridge :)). I can't speak for everyone, but I've seen other players make both types of slow game try too. > So a longtank and a raise shows good >hand. a direct raise shows a much weaker hand. > > >Robert > Are you suggesting here that this is your past experience of such bids, or are you imputing that this pair were cheating in this way? I agree that UI is available in this case, namely that partner may have had doubts about the 4C bid, and that the LAs include Pass and 5C, but I am not convinced that either is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation. >after an in tempo 4cl odds are say 50/50 about pass on it or go >further after the long break the odds are NOT 50/50 anymore more >like 99/1 in favour of not passing the non forcing call. The assertion that this hesitation suggested bidding on seems to be the sort of post facto analysis that condemns any decision after a hesitation. If you bid on and it works then it is said that the hesitation could have suggested bidding on, so oppos claim a foul; and if you pass and that works, the opposite is asserted. I must admit that I also get annoyed when this type of auction happens against me at the table, but John usually shrugs his shoulders and says "next hand". Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 08:40:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:40:56 +1000 Received: from bach.videotron.net (bach.videotron.net [205.151.222.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24148 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:40:50 +1000 Received: from default (ppp106.117.mmtl.videotron.net [207.253.117.106]) by bach.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA29915; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002c01bd9589$8c216960$6a75fdcf@default> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: , "Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:37:41 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You still won't admit it, will you? Everyone so far has pointed out to you that the 5Cl bid is absolutely called-for. But you persist in seeing the 4Cl bid as a non-forcing one rather that what is was intended for : an invitation to game. An invitation that North clearly stated that he accepted because of his extra values. The TD told you that, so did the the AC and most of the rest of the world! You are totally wrong when you state that there was a 50/50 chance that the 4Cl bid could be passed. Had this been true, the TD would have ruled in favor of East/West. Pass was never considered a LA by anyone but you! You suggest that South doesn't know enough about bidding to find a forcing bid but yet you credit North with enough bidding analysis to decipher that South is trying to show a strong hand by taking a long time to bid. Don't you realize you're trying to have your cake and eat it when you make statements like that? Christian -----Message d'origine----- De : Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 11 juin, 1998 16:15 Objet : Re: blatant use of UI?? >At 11:45 AM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >>> From: David Stevenson >>> Too extreme? But that is what is wrong with an analytical approach >>> based on "always" or "never". >> >>OK, David has invented an example that is extreme enough. I did say >>"the bridge version of 'always'!" (Perhaps David missed the asterisk?) >>Even then, he created a highly abnormal hand, and he used a weak >>two-bid, which some of us don't consider a preempt. > > >> >>The original hand is nowhere close to David's example. It would be >>reasonable to argue whether pass is a LA in the EBU -- I am not sure it >>isn't, even there -- but in North America, I don't see how there can be >>any doubt. > > >The original hand is a "normal" 3cl preempt some people wouldn't open it >3cl because of Jxx in Sp others would open it 3cl. And once 3cl have been >the choice pass will be an alternative "allowed" in the system NS plays if >pd is bidding a non forcing call. 4cl was non forcing and when facing a >non forcing bid I would ALWAYS concider pass being a LA, the hesitation >suggest this alternative is not the winning one. after an in tempo 4cl odds >are say 50/50 about pass on it or go further after the long break the odds >are NOT 50/50 anymore more like 99/1 in favour of not passing the non >forcing call. > >And one bid is clearly suggested in favour of another 5cl is with a very >high % going to be better than passing on 4cl. > > >A direct 3sp bid from South might have been a non forcing bid as well since >they didn't bid it being worried pd would pass on it without support so >South might not have had any good bids available at the time too worried >about bidding 3 NT on K singel in Di. So a longtank and a raise shows good >hand. a direct raise shows a much weaker hand. > > >Robert > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 09:22:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:22:35 +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 JAA24319 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:22:29 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-058.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.63]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA22619 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <357F1A23.4167@lightspeed.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:43:31 -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: blatant use of UI?? References: <002c01bd9589$8c216960$6a75fdcf@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Comments embedded. christian chantigny wrote: > > You still won't admit it, will you? > > Everyone so far has pointed out to you that the 5Cl bid is absolutely > called-for. But you persist in seeing the 4Cl bid as a non-forcing one > rather that what is was intended for : an invitation to game. An invitation > that North clearly stated that he accepted because of his extra values. The > TD told you that, so did the the AC and most of the rest of the world! Earlier, christian chantiguy wrote that 3C-P-4C as invitational is "the kind of bridge we all teach in beginner's class" and asked "Are you serious?" to the contention that 4C was extending the preempt. These comments, taken together, appear to indicate the belief that this is an invitational sequence. If this sequence occurred in any tournament game I was in, I would have the director over in a heartbeat, and appeal any adverse ruling. In the Flight A games, I would estimate that fewer than 1 in 100 play this sequence as invitational. (Some might play P-3C-P-4C as invitational, but I've never seen 3C-P-4C as invitational. This would be alertable in ACBL play since it is abnormal.) 4C extends the preempt. That's what I teach my students; a balanced Yarborough calls for a friendly, helpful 4C bid to jam the auction. > > You are totally wrong when you state that there was a 50/50 chance that the > 4Cl bid could be passed. Had this been true, the TD would have ruled in > favor of East/West. Pass was never considered a LA by anyone but you! > The TD and AC apparently ruled that for this pair that either 4C was invitational, or that the hesitation didn't show anything. Both assertions are dubious, but I'd want to be there before I start chucking bombs at those who made the ruling. The offenders appear to be very weak players, giving potential credence to the "invitational" theory. But, often, pairs of any caliber develop knowledge of what hesitations show from experience. The hesitation, in this partnership, could well show extras. I don't know if the AC made the right decision or not. Certainly, at a higher level, the offenders would see a score adjustment and a nasty PP. But these may be such rookies that 4C is invitational and the hesitation doesn't show anything. I'd like to see the TD rule for the NO's in a case like this. > You suggest that South doesn't know enough about bidding to find a forcing > bid but yet you credit North with enough bidding analysis to decipher that > South is trying to show a strong hand by taking a long time to bid. Don't > you realize you're trying to have your cake and eat it when you make > statements like that? No. I know a dozen pairs that have no clue how to bid but land on their feet *way* more than they should because of inflections and pacing. Most of these are hard to catch because they're small. [Snip all previous] --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 09:49:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:49:45 +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 JAA24430 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:49:41 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p11.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.27]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21112 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:50:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980611070023.006bf390@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:00:23 +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 The situation I presented which opened this discussion: South opens 1C, West bids 2C, North asks, and East replies 'no agreement'. Definition of convention: A call that, *by partnership agreement*..... When East replies with a bald 'No agreement', then he is effectively saying that the 2C bid is not conventional. By definition, it cannot be conventional because there is no partnership agreement. This may seem a circular sort of argument, but there are some generally accepted conventional meanings to the 2C bid (Michaels etc), and East is effectively saying that it is not one of these. If it turns out that the bid was Michaels, for example, then don't NS have a case for misinformation if they have been damaged? I believe that they do, and have little sympathy for EW if East has used a bid which can have many different meanings, conventional or otherwise, with no attempt to establish prior partnership agreement. OTOH, EW may have an explicit agreement which East has forgotten, or West may believe that they have an implicit agreement based on their common experience, not necessarily partnership experience. So I see the TD as entitled to ask East to leave the table so that West can explain any agreement, explicit or implicit, but not of course to reveal his own card holding. If West confirms that there is no agreement, then NS are I believe entitled to treat this as a natural bid becaus it can't be conventional, and claim damage if necessary. In most of these situations, whilst there may not be a specific agreement, there is usually what one might call a 'default' agreement based on the common experience of both players. Thus a pair may not have discussed what they do over interference over Blackwood, but it is likely in my area that DOPI would be the default agreement. If asked, I would explain that, whilst we have not specifically agreed on this, the most likely implicit agreement is that it was DOPI. As I see it, 'No agreement' is rarely an adequate explanation. A fair explanation would be 'No explicit agreement, but partner may be assuming an implicit agreement, which would probably be.....'. In the rare instance of a scratch partnership where 'No agreement' is the only correct answer, then I believe that the opponents are entitled to treat the bid as non-conventional and are entitled to an adjusted score if damaged by misinformation. Reg. OTOH From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 11:42:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:42:39 +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 LAA24791 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:42:32 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcits.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.188]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA19275 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980611214235.0076ba1c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:42:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <000201bd957f$a41581a0$cd5abcc3@Vossnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 PM 6/11/98 +0100, Damian wrote: > >>The original hand is a "normal" 3cl preempt some people wouldn't >>3cl have been the choice pass will be an alternative "allowed" in the >>system NS plays if pd is bidding a non forcing call. 4cl was non >>forcing and when facing a non forcing bid I would ALWAYS concider >>pass being a LA, *the hesitation suggest this alternative is not the >>winning one*. > > >Why is this so? Thinking about my own occasional breaks in tempo >before making an invitational bid, they are divided fairly evenly >between hands where I probably should pass but decide to give one >more push, and hands where I probably should bid game but decide >to give partner a chance to make the final mistake. (Given that my >partner is John Probst, you can tell that this is losing bridge :)). I can't >speak for everyone, but I've seen other players make both types of >slow game try too. > A number of correspondents have described 4C as a "game try" or "invitational". My own initial response to the original posting (strongly worded assertion that 5C is not allowed) was predicated on the assumption that my treatment of this 4C as competitive was in fact the norm. As I tried to indicate in my discussion of the problem, a slow game try, if that is the agreed method, would not suggest either passing or bidding on. To me, a fundamental principle of preemption is that the preemptive hand can take no further action unless forced by partner. It is true that this principle is sometimes honored in the breach (e.g., David Stevenson's 6-5 2S bid), but the general idea is a sound one, I believe, and frequently re-emphasized in the literature. The corollary is that there is no such thing as an "invitational" raise after a preempt. And if that is a generally accepted principle, then the argument that the slow 4C bid suggests moving on with a super-max acquires more validity. The hesitation in that case would never suggest passing, because that is the semi-automatic action anyway. Partner's evident uncertainty raises the distinct possibility that 4C is not enough, and increases the attractiveness of bidding on with so much trick-taking power. So, 2 questions. Is it really quite normal to play this 4C bid as a game try? And if we agree that the standard meaning is competitive, does that change the "suggested by" argument? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 12:04:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:04:25 +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 MAA24892 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:04:16 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02490; 11 Jun 98 19:04 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:42:35 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19980611214235.0076ba1c@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:04:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806111904.aa02490@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > A number of correspondents have described 4C as a "game try" or > "invitational". My own initial response to the original posting (strongly > worded assertion that 5C is not allowed) was predicated on the assumption > that my treatment of this 4C as competitive was in fact the norm. As I > tried to indicate in my discussion of the problem, a slow game try, if that > is the agreed method, would not suggest either passing or bidding on. > > To me, a fundamental principle of preemption is that the preemptive hand > can take no further action unless forced by partner. It is true that this > principle is sometimes honored in the breach (e.g., David Stevenson's 6-5 > 2S bid), but the general idea is a sound one, I believe, and frequently > re-emphasized in the literature. > > The corollary is that there is no such thing as an "invitational" raise > after a preempt. And if that is a generally accepted principle, then the > argument that the slow 4C bid suggests moving on with a super-max acquires > more validity. The hesitation in that case would never suggest passing, > because that is the semi-automatic action anyway. Partner's evident > uncertainty raises the distinct possibility that 4C is not enough, and > increases the attractiveness of bidding on with so much trick-taking power. I think just about all experienced players agree with this. > So, 2 questions. Is it really quite normal to play this 4C bid as a game > try? Far from it. *B*U*T* . . . > And if we agree that the standard meaning is competitive, does that > change the "suggested by" argument? Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 12:30:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:30:34 +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 MAA24963 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:30:28 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ykJcx-0007Hd-00; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:31:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 03:30:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <9806111904.aa02490@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9806111904.aa02490@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if >the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is >the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the >UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair >was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have >been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. > > -- Adam I concur entirely. I think a lot of posters have missed this point. Beginners have *no idea* what they're doing (I've taught > 1000) and the hesitation contains no element of UI to a beginner (or even someone with 5 points given they come in the Cornflakes packet in the USA). An explanation to the beginners that if they were more experienced they might get the score adjusted is in order and is part of the teaching process. -- 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 Jun 12 13:17:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:17:10 +1000 Received: from minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA25145 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:17:02 +1000 Received: from nich-p166 by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0ykKJq-0007PcC; Thu, 11 Jun 98 22:15 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:12:19 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Revoke and claim (an old favourite) In-Reply-To: <21097.9806101139@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:39 PM 6/10/98 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > >Last night, in a club in middle England. > >I was moving to the next table when that table call for the director. >I obliged, and gave a ruling which every one at the table thought was >wrong. > >South is declarer in 3NT. >At trick 7, dummy plays SK and declarer throws a diamond. >At tricks 8/9/10, declarer cashes tricks (not spades) in hand. >At trick 11, cashes HA in this position: > > J 7 > 5 > - > - >- Q >10 4 - >A K 2 >- - > 4 > A 3 > - > - > >East throws SQ, and West claims the remainder (there were no clubs, >declarer has only red cards and his hand is high). > >I ruled that we deal with the established revoke at the end of play, so >first we deal with the claim. In the position at trick 12, declarer >can take two spades; so before we deal with the revoke penalty South >has the rest of tricks (making NS 11). > >South did not win the revoke trick, or win a subsequent trick with a >spade (even in the tricks following the claim), so the penalty under >L64A is one trick (making NS 10). This is not equitable, since East >might not throw SQ if she thought South had spades. So I adjusted on >the basis that East throws D2 to trick 11, and East/West get the last >two tricks (making NS 9). Something similar happened to me about a week ago. I was awarded the tricks I would have taken had I not had the bad information from the revoke, plus a one-trick revoke penalty. Actually, what I ended up with was what I would have taken had there been no revoke, but the director did not analyze the situation back that far into the hand and I was satisfied with the results. My oponents insisted to the director that I deserved ( in equity) the additional tricks--A wonderful couple! John S. Nichols jnichols@minfod.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 14:18:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:18:53 +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 OAA25404 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:18:44 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3TKa012329 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9477bf21.3580ac4d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:19:24 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? 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 6/11/98 9:17:11 PM EST, Adam writes: > Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if > the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is > the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the > UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair > was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have > been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what their "agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy invite. Does anybody here have any memory of what "bidding" was like before we knew what "standard" meant? Not only did we stumble, but we stumbled very slowly. I teach these players and see them in my club everyday and I ASSURE you that very few of them have a clue of what "advancing the preempt" means. Christian Chantigny also put it very well: > You still won't admit it, will you? > Everyone so far has pointed out to you that the 5Cl bid is absolutely > called-for. But you persist in seeing the 4Cl bid as a non-forcing one > rather that what is was intended for : an invitation to game. An invitation > that North clearly stated that he accepted because of his extra values. The > TD told you that, so did the the AC and most of the rest of the world! Over and out... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 18:23:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA26370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:23:29 +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 SAA26365 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:23:22 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ykP8T-0002fO-00; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:24:34 +0100 Message-ID: <6SL5m4AkgGg1EwKS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:28:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <000201bd957f$a41581a0$cd5abcc3@Vossnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Damian Hassan wrote: >Greetings all. I have been reading BLML for a few months (very >educational and enjoyable). Let's get the formalities out of the way >first - I share ownership of my house with five cats: Bast, Katie, Tepsi, >Lily and Baroo. Greetings [and to you too, Damian]. >(Given that my >partner is John Probst, you can tell that this is losing bridge :)). Somehow, I feel this sentence sums it up! -------- Robert Nordgren wrote: >The original hand is a "normal" 3cl preempt some people wouldn't open it >3cl because of Jxx in Sp others would open it 3cl. And once 3cl have been >the choice pass will be an alternative "allowed" in the system NS plays if >pd is bidding a non forcing call. 4cl was non forcing and when facing a >non forcing bid I would ALWAYS concider pass being a LA, the hesitation >suggest this alternative is not the winning one. after an in tempo 4cl odds >are say 50/50 about pass on it or go further after the long break the odds >are NOT 50/50 anymore more like 99/1 in favour of not passing the non >forcing call. As I have tried to explain rather more extensively on RGB, there is no reason to presume that progressing is suggested by the hesitation. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 21:31:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:31:30 +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 VAA27078 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:31:23 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ykS4D-0006MX-00; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:32:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:12:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980611070023.006bf390@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >The situation I presented which opened this discussion: South opens 1C, >West bids 2C, North asks, and East replies 'no agreement'. > >Definition of convention: A call that, *by partnership agreement*..... > >When East replies with a bald 'No agreement', then he is effectively saying >that the 2C bid is not conventional. By definition, it cannot be >conventional because there is no partnership agreement. That is wrong! If I sat down opposite you to make up because there was a half table, and our agreements were "Strong no-trump and Blackwood, partner?" "Yes, and four-card majors", and on the first board I open 1NT and you bid 2C then we have *no agreement* on this sequence. General bridge knowledge, not partnership agreement, tells both players that assuming it is Stayman is likely to be a successful guess, but it is not by agreement. On the next board, the bidding goes 1C from me, 1H from LHO, 2H from you. What is this? A slam try in clubs? Looking for 3NT? Just showing strength? I don't know, and we have *no agreement*, but general bridge knowledge tells me that it is conventional. We have *no agreement* that it is conventional, but unless we are morons it is reasonable to make such a bid in this sort of circumstance, relying on general bridge knowledge to tell partner that the bid is conventional. > This may seem a >circular sort of argument, but there are some generally accepted >conventional meanings to the 2C bid (Michaels etc), and East is effectively >saying that it is not one of these. So you say that if the bidding goes 1C 1H 2H round the table, and if asked I say "no agreement" because we have only played two boards, then you have the right to exclude the possibility of a conventional bid? This is not only crazy, but Bridge Lawyering at its very worst. The opponents know, just as well as I do, that 2H will be conventional. They do not know what it means, because it could be any of a number of things, but they know it is not going to be natural, unless you are a novice. > If it turns out that the bid was >Michaels, for example, then don't NS have a case for misinformation if they >have been damaged? I believe that they do, and have little sympathy for EW >if East has used a bid which can have many different meanings, conventional >or otherwise, with no attempt to establish prior partnership agreement. No attempt to establish a prior partnership agreement? You are ruling against people because you do not like their approach to the game of bridge? Not everyone likes long conversations about conventions and their meanings. Not everyone has a good enough memory to be able to assimilate a Meckwell level of conventional agreement, so most players leave gaps in their agreements. Many players leave big gaps, because of their inability at the game, or lack of experience, or lack of experience as a partnership, or whatever. The fact that a pair has no agreement in a particular sequence does not mean that they have made no prior attempt to establish a partnership [I did ask about the no-trump and Blackwood, remember: that was my attempt to establish the partnership] nor does it mean that they should. People make mistakes, you know, especially in the area of partnership agreement, and whatever we rule, we should rule *with sympathy* for the players. >OTOH, EW may have an explicit agreement which East has forgotten, or West >may believe that they have an implicit agreement based on their common >experience, not necessarily partnership experience. So I see the TD as >entitled to ask East to leave the table so that West can explain any >agreement, explicit or implicit, but not of course to reveal his own card >holding. If West confirms that there is no agreement, then NS are I believe >entitled to treat this as a natural bid becaus it can't be conventional, >and claim damage if necessary. Absolutely not, and Bridge Lawyering if they *know* it is conventional. >In most of these situations, whilst there may not be a specific agreement, >there is usually what one might call a 'default' agreement based on the >common experience of both players. Thus a pair may not have discussed what >they do over interference over Blackwood, but it is likely in my area that >DOPI would be the default agreement. If asked, I would explain that, whilst >we have not specifically agreed on this, the most likely implicit agreement >is that it was DOPI. Amongst the club players here the default situation is 'undiscussed'. >As I see it, 'No agreement' is rarely an adequate explanation. A fair >explanation would be 'No explicit agreement, but partner may be assuming an >implicit agreement, which would probably be.....'. In the rare instance of >a scratch partnership where 'No agreement' is the only correct answer, then >I believe that the opponents are entitled to treat the bid as >non-conventional and are entitled to an adjusted score if damaged by >misinformation. Of course, there may be some situations where the default strongly suggests a natural bid, and then an attempt to use a convention may be surprising. Each case must be taken on its merits. But we do not want a rule such as "no agreement" means natural, which is patently false, and like other rules designed to protect BLs, is harmful to the game. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 21:31:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:31:36 +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 VAA27079 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:31:26 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ykS4D-0006MW-00; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:32:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:48:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <357F1A23.4167@lightspeed.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >I don't know if the AC made the right decision or not. Certainly, at a >higher level, the offenders would see a score adjustment and a nasty PP. >But these may be such rookies that 4C is invitational and the hesitation >doesn't show anything. > > I'd like to see the TD rule for the NO's in a case like this. It does not do much for the game of bridge if a pair of rookies are ruled against *because* one of them hesitated when they are not in the wrong. That is what ruling for the NOs means. Don't forget that what "offenders" means in bridge is not the pair in the wrong, not the offending pair. "Offenders" in bridge means the pair that created the position that brought the TD to the table. If a player makes UI available to his partner, and his partner makes no use of it whatever, but the opponents call the TD because they are not sure of this, then the player who made UI available is defined as an "offender". Now there is a principle, as we all know, of ruling in favour of the NOs. One of the main reasons for this is to avoid the Os having to appeal. In a British appeal, where both sides are treated equally, with courtesy and fairness, it is not entirely clear why this should be such an issue. When I said something about conduct of appeals recently, I received two emails from people who read this list who say that at NAmerican appeals the appellants often subject their opponents to a very heavy bout of questioning. I cannot really believe this. The Appeals Committee should be seeking the facts, not the appellants, and they should treat everyone with equal courtesy. Still, it is not just a question of who has to appeal. When you rule against a side in Flt A or the European Championship or whatever, that side is easily able to protect themselves by taking it to appeal, and it makes no difference whatever whether they are the NOs or not. But when you are ruling at a table containing a pair of rookies, then you may be certain they are not going to appeal. Yes, I know there may be exceptions, dependent on their upbringing, teaching, approach to the game, bigheadedness and so on, but at least nine out of ten pairs of rookies will never appeal. Given that, if you rule against them because of some formula ["rule against the NOs and let them appeal"] that ruling will be final in a vast majority of cases, and the rookies will be ruled against whether they are right or wrong. The original problem was not Flt A, and involved a rookie pair. This is the time when the TD's ruling should be *correct*, not just for the NOs. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 12 22:13:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 22:13:43 +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 WAA27367 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 22:13:37 +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 MAA14824 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:14:24 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612081559.006f821c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:15:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980608192220.3ab7c2ae@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:38 AM 6/9/98 +1000, Claire wrote: > >Hi folks > >The following occured during a sectional tournament in ACBL-land not long ago > >Dealer: North >vul: NS > > North > J43 > void > Q64 > AQT9643 > > West East > 7 K862 > AJ964 8532 > J98753 AT2 > 7 J2 > South > AQT95 > KQT7 > K > K85 > >North East South West >3Cl p 4Cl(1) p >5Cl all pass > >Result contract made 7 when East missed the A of Di lead > >1) 4Cl is bidded after an agreed 45 second break in tempo > >And Director is called to the table when North bids 5cl > >Directors ruling is Result stands with motivation 5cl is NOT suggested with >the very long hesitation. > >EW appeals the ruling and to the AC North,West and East are present > >Norths "defense" to bid 5cl is I have a lot unshowed with the void in Hearts > >EW are saying pass is a LA on 4cl and that the result should be ruled back >to 4cl making 7 for 190. > >AC's decision is result stands 5cl making 7 > >I personally thinks this case is the easiest break in tempo case I have >seen in a longtime and can't beleive both the director and AC gets it wrong, > >but the motivation both of them had could have something with it too do NS >where concidered being a weak pair in the feild but not novices, and that >the hesitation wasn't suggesting 5cl would be more successful than pass. > >If this isn't blatant use of UI, nothing is in my opinion. > >Are ACBL more concerned to get the weak players to play in tournaments >instead of learning them what is correct ethical behaviour regarding UI. >Here we told them huddle for a minute to show good cards, bid direct to >show a bad hand that just wants to raise the preempt > >NS CC had Sound preempts checked on the CC. just to make that clear. I can't see a case for a simple adjustment on this hand. If (as it appears) South was inviting a game (even then it looks like an underbid), North's accept is clear. Even with sound preempts indicated on the CC (at least if that means what it does around here), North still has about as good a hand as he could possibly have -- change SJ to SQ and the hand would be worth 1C -- so pass isn't an LA. And one could further argue that accepting wasn't indicated, as the huddle would suggest only a marginal invitation, either close to a pass or close to an immediate 5C bid. And if, on the other hand, South's 4C isn't invitational in the N-S methods (i.e. is defined as furthering the preempt), then North has no business bidding at all. To then say that North's 5C was based on South's huddle would be to say that N-S were cheating outright -- playing a fast 4C as blocking and a slow 4C as invitational -- which would, of course, warrant a much more severe action than a mere score adjustment. 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 Jun 12 22:35:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 22:35:36 +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 WAA27489 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 22:35:30 +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 MAA15167 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:36:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612083754.00697c34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:37:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L72B1 and corrected revokes In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 PM 6/9/98 +0100, John wrote: > >There is a thread on rgb at the moment re use of L72B1. It prompts me to >poll blml as follows: > >The situation: > >A defender revokes, declarer plays and before the revoke becomes >established defender says "Oops", the cops get called in, the penalties >are all sorted out (defender gets penalty card, declarer gets to change >card etcetcetc) and at this point, declarer having become totally >confused, adopts a line which self-evidently would not have been taken >but for the revoke, and drops a trick. > >Can I now apply L72B1 on the basis that, whilst the revoke was >accidental, nonetheless when it occured the defender "could have known >..." etc. IMO I can, and restore the dropped trick. > >Your views please. Cheers John Since L72B1 calls for a pure judgment call by the TD, I suppose this would be technically legal, but it strikes me as totally absurd. It's really stretching the law pretty far to say that a defender "could have known" that an irregularity through which he could not otherwise gain might work to his advantage by distracting or confusing an opponent, and I don't believe that that's the intent at all. L72B1 exists for cases like those in which a player commits an infraction that bars his partner from the bidding, which then leads to a good result that couldn't otherwise have been achieved. Suppose a defender with a sudden attack of food poisoning throws up at the table, and declarer is so disconcerted that he drops a few tricks for a bottom board. We could stipulate that declarer would otherwise have played the hand normally, and that the defender "could have known" that declarer would be distracted. John's case is much closer to this scenario than to the usual L72B1 one. The only way I could accept an adjustment here would be if the TD actually suspected that the defender's action was a deliberate attempt to disconcert. 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 Jun 12 23:59:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 23:59:14 +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 XAA28081 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 23:59:08 +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 NAA17111 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:59:55 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612100131.006fe2ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:01:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club In-Reply-To: <357F1FFD.9AB4DB2A@idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:08 PM 6/10/98 -0700, Irwin wrote: >IrvA hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other night. I wonder what the group will make of it. > > North The Bidding > S void S W N E > H Axx P P > D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P > C QJx 3H P 3S** P > 3N all pass >West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) >S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle >H xx H QJxxx >D Kx D QJ >C KTx C xxx > > South > S AQ9x > H Kxx > D Ax > C Axxx > >The Dramatis Personae: > >South is a genuinely nice lady, well-known in the local bridge community, who though quite experienced, is not a skillful player, and has no awareness of the niceties of Logical Alternatives or Unauthorized Information. > >North is a competent player, in his early twenties, the regular (though perhaps a bit inexperienced) director of the game, who is playing to complete the movement. That is, he has never played with South before. > >West is a quite decent player, with a somewhat irascible personality that makes him something less than universally popular. > >East was a non-participant in the discussions. > >Inasmuch as I am the local Unit President, both parties have talked to me about this incident, and I have become a sort of de facto committee of one! > >When the dummy appeared, West immediately announced that he wished to protest the board. I don't know exactly what was said at this point, but the hand was played out. The opening lead was a club to the Queen, followed by a low diamond to the jack, small(!), small. A spade from East to the Queen(!) and King, and a spade back, which South won with the ace (I am running out of exclamation points!). South now cashed the Diamond ace and took eleven tricks, at which point West announced that he DEFINITELY wanted to protest the board. Various things were said, the exact content of which is no longer clear, but West felt that he had been damaged, and North thought that he had been called a cheater, though when pressed, admitted the C-word had not actually been used. North now decided, without further discussion, to throw the board out, removed the cards from the tray and re-dealt the cards. This further incensed West, who felt he should at least be consulted. > >West maintains that North should play South for a five-card heart suit, a position that seems impossible to me; this particular south has NEVER opened 1NT with a five card major. Another school of thought believes that South should be cue-bidding with a big diamond fit, an equally improbably bid from this particular South. She just doesn't know from cue-bids-in-advance. My own feeling is, had she NOT announced the bid as a transfer, North would have figured it out anyway! > >So the question has several facets. What should North, who is expected to know the rules, do in the face of the UI about the 3H bid? What should we expect from South after the long huddle before the 3S bid? How should North, now donning his director hat, have dealt with the situation? South did nothing wrong. North, as a playing TD, should understand that he can't just handle himself in these situations as though he was simply a player, then "don his director hat" and rule on his own actions. Strict interpretation of the laws notwithstanding, a playing TD has an obligation to his players to "bend over backwards" to a far greater extent than he would if he were merely playing and someone else were making the rulings -- "ignore the UI and let the TD sort it out later" just doesn't cut it when you're the TD. IMO, North's pass of 3NT was suggested by the UI. He knew (from the UI alone) that he was in the middle of a misunderstanding, and it looks like he was just trying to get out before he got in deeper. What he SHOULD have done was bid 4H (as a second cue bid) over 3NT and taken his lumps. Having failed to do so, the only thing he could reasonably do after "donning his director hat" was to refuse to rule, convene a committee, and let someone else sort things out. Ruling that the board should be redealt and replayed was, under the circumstances, egregious to the point of offensiveness, in effect making a blatant ruling in his own favor in a questionable situation. >From Irv's description, perhaps North (as TD) should have penalized West under L74/L90 -- we can't tell, we weren't there -- but, since he was personally involved, only if West's behavior was clearly out of line. And this is a side issue completely separate from the rest. 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 Jun 13 00:51:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 00:51:27 +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 AAA00779 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 00:51:20 +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 OAA18603 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:52:02 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612105339.0068a3f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:53:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <357F1A23.4167@lightspeed.net> References: <002c01bd9589$8c216960$6a75fdcf@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:43 PM 6/10/98 -0700, John wrote: >Earlier, christian chantiguy wrote that 3C-P-4C as invitational is "the >kind of bridge we all teach in beginner's class" and asked "Are you >serious?" to the contention that 4C was extending the preempt. > >These comments, taken together, appear to indicate the belief that this >is an invitational sequence. If this sequence occurred in any tournament >game I was in, I would have the director over in a heartbeat, and appeal >any adverse ruling. I can accept what John is saying only if "any tournament game [he] was in" included only games in his local area, and if playing this sequence blocking was near-unanimous in his local area. In the rest of the universe, this is just as likely (I'd say more so) to be an invitational sequence. Certainly that's how any novice, or anyone playing "old-fashioned standard" would be expected to take it around here absent agreement to the contrary. >In the Flight A games, I would estimate that fewer than 1 in 100 play >this sequence as invitational. (Some might play P-3C-P-4C as >invitational, but I've never seen 3C-P-4C as invitational. This would be >alertable in ACBL play since it is abnormal.) 4C extends the preempt. >That's what I teach my students; a balanced Yarborough calls for a >friendly, helpful 4C bid to jam the auction. And others, from other areas, might be just as convinced that 4C blocking would require an alert. In a Flight A game, IMO, neither invitational nor blocking would be considered "unusual or unexpected" and neither would require an alert (besides, doesn't the ACBL now say that bids over 3NT shouldn't be alerted immediately in any case?). "Common agreement" is not a synonym for "what me and my friends play" nor for "what I teach my students". Nor is it necessarily applicable to only one agreement about a particular action. 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 Jun 13 01:07:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:07:41 +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 BAA00871 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:07:34 +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 PAA19126 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:08:22 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612110959.006895b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:09:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980611070023.006bf390@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:00 AM 6/11/98 +1000, Reg wrote: >The situation I presented which opened this discussion: South opens 1C, >West bids 2C, North asks, and East replies 'no agreement'. > >Definition of convention: A call that, *by partnership agreement*..... > >When East replies with a bald 'No agreement', then he is effectively saying >that the 2C bid is not conventional. By definition, it cannot be >conventional because there is no partnership agreement. This may seem a >circular sort of argument, but there are some generally accepted >conventional meanings to the 2C bid (Michaels etc), and East is effectively >saying that it is not one of these. If it turns out that the bid was >Michaels, for example, then don't NS have a case for misinformation if they >have been damaged? I believe that they do, and have little sympathy for EW >if East has used a bid which can have many different meanings, conventional >or otherwise, with no attempt to establish prior partnership agreement. >OTOH, EW may have an explicit agreement which East has forgotten, or West >may believe that they have an implicit agreement based on their common >experience, not necessarily partnership experience. So I see the TD as >entitled to ask East to leave the table so that West can explain any >agreement, explicit or implicit, but not of course to reveal his own card >holding. If West confirms that there is no agreement, then NS are I believe >entitled to treat this as a natural bid becaus it can't be conventional, >and claim damage if necessary. I -- and I suspect most of us -- have heard partner bid 4NT on a complex auction where it was obviously unclear whether it was intended as natural or Blackwood. So my opponents, naturally, ask "do you have an agreement about this particular auction?" I can't believe that "no" in this case is synonymous with "it's natural", which is what Reg seems to be telling us. Or we've agreed to play Michaels, and have so indicated on our CC, and then the bidding goes 2S-3S. Hearts and a minor, or demanding 3NT with a spade stop? Should "no agreement" really give the opponents the right to claim damage when it turns out that 3S wasn't natural?! 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 Jun 13 01:22:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:22:41 +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 BAA00920 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:22:35 +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 PAA19539 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:23:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612112501.00689690@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:25:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980611214235.0076ba1c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <000201bd957f$a41581a0$cd5abcc3@Vossnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:42 PM 6/11/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >To me, a fundamental principle of preemption is that the preemptive hand >can take no further action unless forced by partner. It is true that this >principle is sometimes honored in the breach (e.g., David Stevenson's 6-5 >2S bid), but the general idea is a sound one, I believe, and frequently >re-emphasized in the literature. The fundamental principle of preemption is that the preempting hand should take no further action unless *invited* to do so by partner. >The corollary is that there is no such thing as an "invitational" raise >after a preempt. I'd say that this disproves Michael's "fundamental principle" by demonstrating that it leads to an absurd corollary. 99% of U.S. players, for example, would assume that 2S-P-2NT-P-3C-P-3S was an invitational raise. A much smaller number -- those who play "old-fashioned standard" -- would treat 2S-P-3S as an invitational raise; that's unusual enough to be alertable, but hardly qualifies for "no such thing". Or (common expert practice in my area) 3C-3H-4C "suggesting the save". 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 Jun 13 01:58:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:58:04 +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 BAA01051 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 01:57:57 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA26797 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:55:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806121555.KAA26797@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:55:32 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David S. has already posted an excellent reply to this, and I am in complete agreement with it. But to approach things from a different angle... > The situation I presented which opened this discussion: South opens 1C, > West bids 2C, North asks, and East replies 'no agreement'. > > Definition of convention: A call that, *by partnership agreement*..... > > When East replies with a bald 'No agreement', then he is effectively saying > that the 2C bid is not conventional. By definition, it cannot be Okay, lets agree for the sake of argument that _given that definition of convention_, the bid cannot be conventional. > conventional because there is no partnership agreement. This may seem a > circular sort of argument, but there are some generally accepted > conventional meanings to the 2C bid (Michaels etc), and East is effectively > saying that it is not one of these. If it turns out that the bid was But here I disagree. If we are relying on this very literal reading of the definition, all that this proves is that if West bids 2C as Michaels in this situation, then _Michaels isn't conventional for this partnership in this sequence_! Think about it: if a bid must be a partnership agreement to be a convention, then since they have no partnership agreement to play Michaels then Michaels isn't a convention. > Michaels, for example, then don't NS have a case for misinformation if they > have been damaged? I believe that they do, and have little sympathy for EW No. They have been told, by your logic, that the bid is not conventional. They haven't been told it isn't Michaels, or indeed anything else. > if East has used a bid which can have many different meanings, conventional > or otherwise, with no attempt to establish prior partnership agreement. I find this appalling. Are you really saying that people should have such complete agreements that they are never in the position where they will have to make a bid that _might_ be conventional without an established agreement? My club would have to close down if we set that standard. > OTOH, EW may have an explicit agreement which East has forgotten, or West > may believe that they have an implicit agreement based on their common > experience, not necessarily partnership experience. So I see the TD as > entitled to ask East to leave the table so that West can explain any > agreement, explicit or implicit, but not of course to reveal his own card > holding. If West confirms that there is no agreement, then NS are I believe > entitled to treat this as a natural bid becaus it can't be conventional, But you are interpreting the def. of "convention" in such a way that "non-conventional" is not synonymous with "natural". > In most of these situations, whilst there may not be a specific agreement, > there is usually what one might call a 'default' agreement based on the > common experience of both players. Thus a pair may not have discussed what > they do over interference over Blackwood, but it is likely in my area that > DOPI would be the default agreement. If asked, I would explain that, whilst > we have not specifically agreed on this, the most likely implicit agreement > is that it was DOPI. I have no problem with giving such information if it is available. > Reg. > Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 02:02:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:02:45 +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 CAA01242 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:02:39 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA27436 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:00:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199806121600.LAA27436@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: no agreement To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:00:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 1) I would not like to explain to the opponents that partner and I both > guessed the same thing, but that they were not entitled to the information. > I'd rather give them the information up front even if this means being at > a technical disadvantage. (But, we're only at a disadvantage if one of us > guesses wrong, in which case we're probably headed for trouble, anyway.) > > 1a) I would feel even worse trying to explain to a committee that the > opponents were not entitled to the information. I don't care if the Laws > are on my side. I would feel like I was trying to get away with one. I wouldn't feel bad at all saying "We never discussed this sequence, partner correctly said we had no agreement, and he was right". > 2) A reasoned guess may be an agreement. The opponents are entitled to the > reasoning part of the guess as long as this reasoning is not based upon > general bridge knowledge (or the cards in your hand). When the auction > starts 1C-2C, is it general bridge knowledge that lots of people play this > as a major two-suiter? Is it general bridge knowledge that some people > play this as a strong takeout? I think it is, yes. Both of those. But I would be happy to tell the opponents "Some people play this as a major two-suiter, and some play it as strong takeout, but I don't have the faintest idea what he plays it as". > 3) In the case of UI, the Laws do not require evidence that a player acted > upon the information, only that the information was available, before an > adjustment might be made. When a player's call is changed because > partner's break in tempo caused UI to be available, there is no accusation > of wrong doing. No one is saying the player took advantage of the > information, only that he could have. I think of the use of a convention > is sort of the same light. When a player chooses to make use of a > conventional call it is reasonable to think that he expects his partner to > understand. This expectation is enough evidence for me to think that the > opponents should be told what the intended meaning of the call is. I'm not > saying there is an agreement, nor am I saying the call will be understood. > But, because there is a possibility that there is an agreement, or a > possibility that the call will be understood, I think there should be > disclosure. I think the possibility that there is an agreement is a completely different thing from the possibility that the call will be understood. I would bend over backwards to explain the former--the latter is a matter of good luck. > Tim Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 02:05:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:05:03 +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 CAA01279 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:04:54 +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 MAA22389; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:05:44 -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-1998Jun13.115200.1189.220686; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:55:23 -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: <1998Jun13.115200.1189.220686@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: GN Nettest (Boston), Inc. Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:55:23 -0600 Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 11:36 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? >99% of U.S. players, for example, would assume that 2S-P-2NT-P-3C-P-3S was >an invitational raise. A much smaller number -- those who play >"old-fashioned standard" -- would treat 2S-P-3S as an invitational raise; >that's unusual enough to be alertable, but hardly qualifies for "no such >thing". Excuse me? Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would treat 2S - 2N 3C - 3S as anything other than signoff. 2N is commonly used as some sort of game try (Shortness ask, Ogust, maybe feature) 3C provided information 3S sets the final contract Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 02:24:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:24:39 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01352 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:24:32 +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 MAA10923 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA03939; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:25:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:25:59 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806121625.MAA03939@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: no agreement X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Reg Busch > Definition of convention: A call that, *by partnership agreement*..... > > When East replies with a bald 'No agreement', then he is effectively saying > that the 2C bid is not conventional. By definition, it cannot be > conventional because there is no partnership agreement. Yes. > there are some generally accepted > conventional meanings to the 2C bid (Michaels etc), and East is effectively > saying that it is not one of these. Others have very effectively addressed the bridge logic mistake here, and I agree. If I sit down as a fill-in for one hand, and partner doubles a 1H opening bid, does anyone think he means it for penalties? Yet we may not have said a single word to each other or seen each other before. How can there be an agreement? Getting the semantics straight explains where Reg went wrong. "Conventional" is not a synonym for "artificial." A call can be either, neither, or both. (Yes, I can give examples of artificial but not conventional; completing a transfer is one.) So if a player says a call is not conventional (because the partnership has no agreement), that is not the same as saying the call is not artificial. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 02:41:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:41:54 +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 CAA01387 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:41:49 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcisa.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.138]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04572 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612124130.007709c8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:41:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <9806111904.aa02490@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:04 PM 6/11/98 PDT, Adam wrote: > >Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if >the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is >the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the >UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair >was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have >been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. > I can't claim any special knowledge of the NS agreements in this case. If they are the rookies that they have been labelled (and in any case, their bidding is consistent with that, I think we would all agree), it's a good bet that they have no agreement about the meaning of this 4C bid. It is tempting to infer from N's actual hand that 4C was intended as a game try, but it would be equally sensible to read 4C as forcing, based on N's hand, since a merely invitational 4C is wholly inadequate opposite the agreed upon "sound preempts". Even if we agree that N intended a game try, his intentions alone hardly constitute an agreement. In practice, therefore, we are obliged to evaluate the LA's and suggested by's by some evaluation of what constitutes normal bidding practice. Several commentators have claimed that 4C invitational is the standard treatment, and if that is the consensus, then I would cheerfully go along with the "no adjustment" position. I can only say that if I sat down opposite an unfamiliar partner, I would never take 4C as invitational in this sequence. This problem bears more than a superficial resemblance to the hesitation issue discussed under the title "suggested over another." (Competitive high-level bid/pass/dbl decision after partner's slow pass). In both cases, the hesitation veritably screams out "Partner, I am unhappy with my choice but don't know what else to do. Bail me out if you have any excuse." Indeed, in the present case, it is obvious why N was unhappy with his decision: 4C is a pathetic call. If that call had been made in tempo, S might still have treated it as a game try and gone on, based on the excellent trick-taking potential. But it certainly was easier to find the winning action when partner was so evidently dissatisfied with 4C as a contract. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 03:06:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 03:06:00 +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 DAA01472 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 03:05:54 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcmge.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.14]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20424 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980612130625.00770eb4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:06:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980612112501.00689690@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980611214235.0076ba1c@pop.mindspring.com> <000201bd957f$a41581a0$cd5abcc3@Vossnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 AM 6/12/98 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 09:42 PM 6/11/98 -0400, Michael wrote: > >>To me, a fundamental principle of preemption is that the preemptive hand >>can take no further action unless forced by partner. It is true that this >>principle is sometimes honored in the breach (e.g., David Stevenson's 6-5 >>2S bid), but the general idea is a sound one, I believe, and frequently >>re-emphasized in the literature. > >The fundamental principle of preemption is that the preempting hand should >take no further action unless *invited* to do so by partner. > >>The corollary is that there is no such thing as an "invitational" raise >>after a preempt. > >I'd say that this disproves Michael's "fundamental principle" by >demonstrating that it leads to an absurd corollary. > >99% of U.S. players, for example, would assume that 2S-P-2NT-P-3C-P-3S was >an invitational raise. A much smaller number -- those who play >"old-fashioned standard" -- would treat 2S-P-3S as an invitational raise; >that's unusual enough to be alertable, but hardly qualifies for "no such >thing". > Eric, I hate bickering about bidding methods on BLML, but I just have to tell you, nobody I play with would ever treat either of these sequences as invitational, and I do play in your area. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 04:22:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 04:22:31 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01796 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 04:22:22 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA22245; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:22:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma022117; Fri Jun 12 13:21:53 1998 Received: by har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD960D.268DA440@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:19:46 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD960D.268DA440@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Michael S. Dennis'" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:19:44 -0400 Encoding: 57 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, I live less than two hours from Armory Place myself, and would expect the sequence to ALMOST ALWAYS be invitational with novices and 49ers and most older non-tournament oriented players as well as the overwhelming majority of party and non-money rubber bridge players. Please realise that the level of bridge sophistication in WBL territory and its environs is far above that of much of the rest of the nation and world. These folks were NOT good bidders...we have the auction to prove it as well as the narrative commentary. Craig ---------- From: Michael S. Dennis[SMTP:msd@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 1:06 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? At 11:25 AM 6/12/98 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 09:42 PM 6/11/98 -0400, Michael wrote: > >>To me, a fundamental principle of preemption is that the preemptive hand >>can take no further action unless forced by partner. It is true that this >>principle is sometimes honored in the breach (e.g., David Stevenson's 6-5 >>2S bid), but the general idea is a sound one, I believe, and frequently >>re-emphasized in the literature. > >The fundamental principle of preemption is that the preempting hand should >take no further action unless *invited* to do so by partner. > >>The corollary is that there is no such thing as an "invitational" raise >>after a preempt. > >I'd say that this disproves Michael's "fundamental principle" by >demonstrating that it leads to an absurd corollary. > >99% of U.S. players, for example, would assume that 2S-P-2NT-P-3C-P-3S was >an invitational raise. A much smaller number -- those who play >"old-fashioned standard" -- would treat 2S-P-3S as an invitational raise; >that's unusual enough to be alertable, but hardly qualifies for "no such >thing". > Eric, I hate bickering about bidding methods on BLML, but I just have to tell you, nobody I play with would ever treat either of these sequences as invitational, and I do play in your area. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 04:27:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 04:27:02 +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 EAA01812 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 04:26:56 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with UUCP id NAA29399 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:28:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0IVOI01D Fri, 12 Jun 98 13:26:21 Message-ID: <9806121326.0IVOI01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 98 13:26:21 Subject: BLATANT U To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk snip O>Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what O>their O>"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and O>therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy O>invite. I take it that the reason that it took 45 sec to bid 4C was because they obviously knew that 4C was forward going and 3S was not? O>Alan LeBendig Roger Pewick R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 05:45:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:45:20 +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 FAA02077 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 05:45:14 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3NMOa07259 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:45:54 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? 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 6/12/98 12:08:34 PM EST, msd@mindspring.com writes: Eric writes: > >99% of U.S. players, for example, would assume that 2S-P-2NT-P-3C-P-3S was > >an invitational raise. A much smaller number -- those who play > >"old-fashioned standard" -- would treat 2S-P-3S as an invitational raise; > >that's unusual enough to be alertable, but hardly qualifies for "no such > >thing". > > > Eric, I hate bickering about bidding methods on BLML, but I just have to > tell you, nobody I play with would ever treat either of these sequences as > invitational, and I do play in your area. Mike - to suggest that the raise after 2NT is not an invitational sequence is bizarre! It's fine to play it that way but what you are suggesting is that partner can bid 2NT with any hand and NEVER worry about the weak 2 bidder continuing on to game. If I sat down with a strange partner, I would always assume that I could now carry on to game. If you are playing it as a "bar bid" (which is what you're describing), then it clearly must be alerted (the delayed raise). Eric is correctly describing what is clearly a standard approach here. As to the direct raise, some do play that as invitational. Bailey players, for example. But if it is invitational, it is alertable as that is non- standard. But none of this is on point. We are clearly dealing with weak players who don't know as much as "we" do about bidding and the big hand made a poor bid which was clearly intended as invitational. None of us would consider that action, but that in no way changes the facts of what this player meant. And his partner took it that way. The speed of the bid is in no way relevant since it could be light or heavy. Think back to the days when we played 1S-2S-3S as invitational. Would anyone even suggest that a slow 3S bid was informative? And if you play in clubs today, this is still a common sequence and is frequently slow! And I really wonder if Robert (who started this thread) always calls the director for this sequence? Don't misunderstand me - I suspect I would have had the TD there. Until I saw the hands and realized what I was dealing with. But an AC? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 06:56:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 06:56:32 +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 GAA02302 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 06:56:24 +1000 Received: by flash.irvine.com id aa25744; 12 Jun 98 13:57 PDT Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa24964; 12 Jun 98 13:47 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:41:30 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19980612124130.007709c8@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:46:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806121347.aa24964@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > At 07:04 PM 6/11/98 PDT, Adam wrote: > > > > >Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if > >the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is > >the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the > >UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair > >was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have > >been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. > > I can't claim any special knowledge of the NS agreements in this case. If > they are the rookies that they have been labelled (and in any case, their > bidding is consistent with that, I think we would all agree), it's a good > bet that they have no agreement about the meaning of this 4C bid. It is > tempting to infer from N's actual hand that 4C was intended as a game try, > but it would be equally sensible to read 4C as forcing, based on N's hand, > since a merely invitational 4C is wholly inadequate opposite the agreed > upon "sound preempts". Even if we agree that N intended a game try, his > intentions alone hardly constitute an agreement. In the actual hand, South, not North, paused and then bid 4C. > In practice, therefore, we are obliged to evaluate the LA's and suggested > by's by some evaluation of what constitutes normal bidding practice. No, we're obliged to ask them questions to find out what they thought about the meaning of their bids. The Laws on UI require that if you receive UI, you must determine what your logical alternatives are, and, if there is more than one alternative, determine which ones are demonstrably suggested by the hesitation and avoid those. That's what the Laws say you must do. Now, what you're saying implies that the hesitator's partner (North) must make this determination based on "normal bidding practices" that the person has no clue about. How can we expect him to meet this requirement? > Several commentators have claimed that 4C invitational is the standard > treatment, and if that is the consensus, then I would cheerfully go along > with the "no adjustment" position. I can only say that if I sat down > opposite an unfamiliar partner, I would never take 4C as invitational in > this sequence. Nor would I. Remember, however, that the old ACBL standard (a similar standard is still used in parts of Europe) was that 70% (or 75%? I forget the actual number) of one's peers would make the same call if presented with the same situation without the UI. Neither you nor I can be considered peers of the players in question; nor, I think, can anyone on BLML. > This problem bears more than a superficial resemblance to the hesitation > issue discussed under the title "suggested over another." (Competitive > high-level bid/pass/dbl decision after partner's slow pass). In both cases, > the hesitation veritably screams out "Partner, I am unhappy with my choice > but don't know what else to do. Bail me out if you have any excuse." Oh, that's nonsense. I've made plenty of invitational bids that I wasn't happy with where I hoped partner would *pass* if the decision was close. Not "bail me out by going on to game." > Indeed, in the present case, it is obvious why N was unhappy with his > decision: 4C is a pathetic call. If that call had been made in tempo, S > might still have treated it as a game try and gone on, based on the > excellent trick-taking potential. But it certainly was easier to find the > winning action when partner was so evidently dissatisfied with 4C as a > contract. Well, since 3NT, 4S, and 6C all score better than 5C, I'd call bidding 5C a "slightly less losing action" rather than a "winning action". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 10:24:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 10:24:50 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03317 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 10:24:42 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yke8k-00065a-00; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 00:25:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 23:46:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <1998Jun13.115200.1189.220686@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >Excuse me? > >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >treat > >2S - 2N >3C - 3S > >as anything other than signoff. Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement, I play that 2NT is at least an attempt at game. Therefore I reserve the right to go on over 3S if I consider the hand suitable. >2N is commonly used as some sort of game try (Shortness ask, Ogust, maybe >feature) >3C provided information >3S sets the final contract No, it doesn't. It says that in view of the information provided by opener then responder does not have a hand suitable to go to game. However, responder has tried for game, so opener could progress. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 11:41:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:41:03 +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 LAA03814 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:40:58 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port8.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.58]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA15212 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:41:04 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:41:04 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199806130141.LAA15212@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:19 AM 12/06/1998 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 6/11/98 9:17:11 PM EST, Adam writes: > >> Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if >> the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is >> the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the >> UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair >> was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have >> been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. and then from AlLeBendig: >Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what their >"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and >therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy >invite. Does anybody here have any memory of what "bidding" was like before >we knew what "standard" meant? Not only did we stumble, but we stumbled very >slowly. I teach these players and see them in my club everyday and I ASSURE >you that very few of them have a clue of what "advancing the preempt" means. I have remarked previously on a slight quirk which exists for Australian Directors. The National Authority has directed Appeals Committees that "if 75% of players of the appropriate standard would have made the bid without the unauthorised information, then there is no logical alternative to the bid." The directive continues " the expression 'players of appropriate standard' is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the event (i.e. experts for national Championships, experienced club players for club events and so on). The calibre of the individual player concerned is not to be the criterion". Taken at face value, this could be taken to mean that the experience and bidding methods of the pair in question may be largely irrelevant in the determination of what might constitute an LA for them. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 13 21:14:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 21:14:34 +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 VAA06080 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 21:14:29 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA12210 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 21:15:46 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 21:15:46 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso Reply-To: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <199806130141.LAA15212@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 12:19 AM 12/06/1998 EDT, you wrote: > >In a message dated 6/11/98 9:17:11 PM EST, Adam writes: > > > >> Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if > >> the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is > >> the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the > >> UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair > >> was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have > >> been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. > > and then from AlLeBendig: > > >Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what their > >"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and > >therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy > >invite. Does anybody here have any memory of what "bidding" was like before > >we knew what "standard" meant? Not only did we stumble, but we stumbled very > >slowly. I teach these players and see them in my club everyday and I ASSURE > >you that very few of them have a clue of what "advancing the preempt" means. > > I have remarked previously on a slight quirk which exists for Australian > Directors. The National Authority has directed Appeals Committees that "if > 75% of players of the appropriate standard would have made the bid without > the unauthorised information, then there is no logical alternative to the bid." > > The directive continues " the expression 'players of appropriate standard' > is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the event (i.e. experts > for national Championships, experienced club players for club events and so > on). The calibre of the individual player concerned is not to be the > criterion". Being Australian, I am quite familiar with the directive. > Taken at face value, this could be taken to mean that the experience and > bidding methods of the pair in question may be largely irrelevant in the > determination of what might constitute an LA for them. This of course is not what it means (at face value or otherwise). What it does try to define is a guideline for determining what is a LA. The actual approach is much closer to European than American practice. Any decision must always be in line with the actual facts as they exist for any case. The chosen bidding system and partnership agreements are immutable facts that should be established by any competent director before a decision is rendered. For the situation in question the pair's systemic agreement means that the tempo break does not favour one LA over another. Everything else is irrelevant. The directive (I don't like it either) tries to lay down some guidelines to try to determine the abilities, standard, or experience of any pair in a given field. It has nothing to do with trying to normalize a particular bidding sequence or set of occurences, infractions or anything else. Every case should (and is) treated on its individual merits. For the National Authority to encourage anything else would be very misguided. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 14 02:44:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 02:44:31 +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 CAA10005 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 02:44:08 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcjq1.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.65]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA25453 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 12:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980613124434.0077735c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 12:44:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <9806121347.aa24964@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:46 PM 6/12/98 PDT, Adam wrote: >The Laws on UI require that if you receive UI, you must determine what >your logical alternatives are, and, if there is more than one >alternative, determine which ones are demonstrably suggested by the >hesitation and avoid those. That's what the Laws say you must do. >Now, what you're saying implies that the hesitator's partner (North) >must make this determination based on "normal bidding practices" that >the person has no clue about. How can we expect him to meet this >requirement? > Despite what has been said, I believe we agree on rather more with respect to this particular problem than we disagree. To clarify: 1. We certainly agree that if it can be established that NS have an agreement to treat this 4C bid as invitational, no adjustment is required. 2. We more or less agree that in pursuit of a determination as to the forgoing, it is appropriate for the TD/AC to question NS as to their understandings and the reasons for their actions (including, presumably, the long hesitation). I have somewhat less confidence than you seem to have that this discussion will yield any dispositive findings, but I'm willing to give it a try. 3. We agree that for reasonably good players, the usual treatment of this 4C bid would be competitive, and I think we agree that for players using that treatment, a score adjustment would be in order. Where we part company is in how to evaulate the situation in the absence of any well-defined agreement on the part of relatively inexperienced NS players. It is certainly true that some players (probably including some good players) would have an agreement to treat 4C as a game try. I strongly dispute the prevalent view that this agreement is virtually universal in the general class of weak or inexperienced players. Rather, most weak players actually have no agreement whatsoever concerning most sequences beyond the first round. They may not even be clear on the conceptual distinctions among "forcing", "invitational", and "competitive". Their confusion about these issues is one of the things that defines them as weak. Case in point: the 4C bidder in the present instance. Obviously, he hoped and/or expected that partner would read him for a substantially stronger hand than what you or I would have for that bid. But both the bid itself (an underbid if meant as merely a game try), and the protracted hesitation suggest serious confusion and doubt about what 4C should mean. I don't know what would have occurred had the 4C bid been made in tempo. I suspect the result would have been the same, but I also think there is a reasonable probability that opener would have passed. Perhaps he had heard or read somewhere something about the importance of discipline after preempts. But 45 seconds is a long time--too long a time I think to suggest that responder is light. And it is easy to see how the perceived risk of missing a game might increase with every tick of the clock... It is against that "reasonable probability" that the Laws are written to protect the NOS. Would _some_ players at this level treat an in-tempo 4C as competitive in the absence of a particular understanding? I am convinced of it, other opinions notwithstanding. For such players, Pass would be a LA, and the extra-long hesitation does increase the likely success of an undisciplined 5C bid. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 14 03:46:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 03:46:55 +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 DAA10253 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 03:46:40 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-202.uunet.be [194.7.13.202]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA17595 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 1998 19:47:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35826E55.C91E6343@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 14:19:33 +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: <3.0.1.32.19980612110959.006895b0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 07:00 AM 6/11/98 +1000, Reg wrote: > > >The situation I presented which opened this discussion: South opens 1C, > >West bids 2C, North asks, and East replies 'no agreement'. > > > >Definition of convention: A call that, *by partnership agreement*..... > > > >When East replies with a bald 'No agreement', then he is effectively saying > >that the 2C bid is not conventional. By definition, it cannot be > >conventional because there is no partnership agreement. This may seem a > >circular sort of argument, but there are some generally accepted > >conventional meanings to the 2C bid (Michaels etc), and East is effectively > >saying that it is not one of these. If it turns out that the bid was > >Michaels, for example, then don't NS have a case for misinformation if they > >have been damaged? I believe that they do, and have little sympathy for EW > >if East has used a bid which can have many different meanings, conventional > >or otherwise, with no attempt to establish prior partnership agreement. > >OTOH, EW may have an explicit agreement which East has forgotten, or West > >may believe that they have an implicit agreement based on their common > >experience, not necessarily partnership experience. So I see the TD as > >entitled to ask East to leave the table so that West can explain any > >agreement, explicit or implicit, but not of course to reveal his own card > >holding. If West confirms that there is no agreement, then NS are I believe > >entitled to treat this as a natural bid becaus it can't be conventional, > >and claim damage if necessary. > > I -- and I suspect most of us -- have heard partner bid 4NT on a complex > auction where it was obviously unclear whether it was intended as natural > or Blackwood. So my opponents, naturally, ask "do you have an agreement > about this particular auction?" I can't believe that "no" in this case is > synonymous with "it's natural", which is what Reg seems to be telling us. > > Or we've agreed to play Michaels, and have so indicated on our CC, and then > the bidding goes 2S-3S. Hearts and a minor, or demanding 3NT with a spade > stop? Should "no agreement" really give the opponents the right to claim > damage when it turns out that 3S wasn't natural?! > Of course not. And in the examples you have given, the actual meaning will not influence the opponents very much. So the ruling might well turn out to be "misinformation - no damage". In cases where the meaning will not influence opponents during the bidding, I will allow a player to respond "I am not certain, we have no firm agreement, and I will not tell you what I think it is because this will be UI to my partner and I don't want to give him any". But if an opponent insists that he has a different bid over one or the other meaning, then I will ask the player to commit himself and face the consequences. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 15 08:16:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:16:43 +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 IAA15848 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:16:36 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylL5v-0006Q8-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:17:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 20:49:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <199806130141.LAA15212@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 12:19 AM 12/06/1998 EDT, you wrote: >>In a message dated 6/11/98 9:17:11 PM EST, Adam writes: >> >>> Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if >>> the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is >>> the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the >>> UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair >>> was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have >>> been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. > >and then from AlLeBendig: > >>Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what their >>"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and >>therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy >>invite. Does anybody here have any memory of what "bidding" was like before >>we knew what "standard" meant? Not only did we stumble, but we stumbled very >>slowly. I teach these players and see them in my club everyday and I ASSURE >>you that very few of them have a clue of what "advancing the preempt" means. > >I have remarked previously on a slight quirk which exists for Australian >Directors. The National Authority has directed Appeals Committees that "if >75% of players of the appropriate standard would have made the bid without >the unauthorised information, then there is no logical alternative to the bid." > >The directive continues " the expression 'players of appropriate standard' >is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the event (i.e. experts >for national Championships, experienced club players for club events and so >on). The calibre of the individual player concerned is not to be the >criterion". > >Taken at face value, this could be taken to mean that the experience and >bidding methods of the pair in question may be largely irrelevant in the >determination of what might constitute an LA for them. While I agree this is what it means, I feel the Australian authorities would do well to review this. It has generally been accepted on this list that an LA is defined with reference to players of similar ability playing the same system and style. It is not fair for a player to have an LA defined for him by reference to players of markedly dissimilar abilities and experience, whether greater or lesser. It is not unreasonable to use this rule for unknown players where there is no other evidence. However, TDs and ACs are often able to judge a player's abilities from a few sentences of conversation, and it seems reasonable that they use this in the determination of LAs. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 15 11:29:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:29:06 +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 LAA16291 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:28:59 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylO66-0004br-00; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:30:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:45:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law25 and others In-Reply-To: <20885.9806091403@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: >I would allow South all her options under L25B. For the moment I ignore >the comments from North, East and West. > >There are a number of cases: > (1) South does not bid 1S, 2D remains and is NF. Result: NS 2D+4 ? Of course. When you read L25B you see partner is barred for a round. > (2) South does not bid 2S, 2D remains and is F (IMSR?). Result: NS 6D=. I don't know where 2S comes into it. 2D may be forcing but since partner has to pass for a round [read L25B2B1] I think 2D+4 is a more likely outcome! > (3) South does bid 1S but then lets 2D remain under L25B2b1. > North must pass. Result: NS 2D+4 ? I don't see how this differs from (1). > (4) South does bid 1S (I assume not accepted under L25B1). > South bids 1S (or any other bid) under L25B2b2. > Auction continues to NS 6D=, NS -3IMPs. Perhaps. >North's instruction to South is UI, and suggests letting 2D stay rather >than bid 1S (or anything else). It did not sound like that to me. It suggests not playing for 40%, which is not the same thing. After all, when it is realised that 2D now will force partner to pass, scoring presumably less than -3 imps, ... >The UI available to South suggested not "correcting" her 2D bid: correcting >to 1S under L25B2b2 is a LA, so I adjust the NS score to -3IMPs. This does not make much sense to me. Why not see what happens first? ----------- Steve Willner wrote: >The interesting question here is how to apply L10C2, which uses >the strongest word "must." Hence the PP. (I'd suggest reading >L10C2 verbatim and explaining the significance of "must.") I don't see much we can do except a issue a PP/fine and use UI rules. In the past we have tended to say that the right to penalise was lost after consultation. This is based on EBL 10.4 but it does not seem to be supported by the Laws. I would like to hear from a certain person on his return from Canada on this! >The first option seems to be under L25B1, which lets LHO condone the >1S bid but NOT the original 2D bid. There is no reason the NOS >should lose any options. Assuming LHO declines this.... > >One possibility is to let North have his way under L25B2b1. The 2D bid >stands, and North is barred for one round. If EW are sensible and >pass, 2D becomes the final contract, and the result is 2D making six. >Thus EW win a slam swing. The PP is subtracted as well. > >Another possibility is to give South her options under L25B2b. South >will presumably choose 1S, and the auction will proceed normally except >that North "may not base calls on information" from 2D. Assuming NS >reach 6D and this condition is satisfied, the score will be NS -3 IMPs, >EW 0 IMPs. Again the PP is subtracted. > >Contrary to another correspondent, there is no reason to adjust the >score immediately. South will take some action, and the result will be >what it turns out, and you will apply the -3 IMP ceiling if needed. >Only if there is some later infraction will the score need to be >adjusted. This is my view. We do not have the right to stop someone from taking any one of the options. Consider a normal UI position: we come to the table and establish UI. We do not tell a player that he must pass now [or whatever]: we tell them to recall us at the end of the board. So I believe we tell them about UI and let them decide what option to take. >So, David, what do you think? General comments on how L10C2 should >work will be most welcome. It is interesting that TDs have always agreed that breach of L10C2 removes options from players: I think not: I think you issue a PP/fine or PP/warning [PPf or PPw, perhaps?] and treat it as UI. -------- Robin Barker wrote: >1) Allow the player with the choice to make his choice, even if this > goes on with partner's suggestion (it may be a bad score anyway) > >2) If the player has followed partner's suggestion and consequently > got a good score and another choice (a LA?) would be give a worse > score apply L16A2 and L12C2. > >3) If the player did not follow partner's suggestion, then do not > adjust. > >4) In any case a PP(at least a warning) may be appropriate. Yes, this looks right. In the actual case, I only consider the PP/fine to be automatic because it was an international match: in lesser games I would give a PP/warning. -------- Anne Jones wrote: >South had corrected to 1S. The 2D bid was back in the box and the 1S bid >was on the table. Interesting here was the fact that the SO regulations >pertaining were that a bid is considered made when removed from the box >with apparent intent.(unlike the EBU regs that it must be on the table) >I ruled that the 2D bid was made and that the 1S bid was substituted. >Then, on reflection, I consider I made my mistakes. > >In order not to allow N/S to benefit from the UI from North. I read Law >10c2 and withdrew the right of E/W to accept the 1S bid as this could >only benefit N/S..I informed the players of the fact that a withdrawn >call would be UI to North but would be AI to E/W under Law 16. (I am >sure that UI to N is right, but is this particular bid AI to E/W?) Everything is AI to the NOs! As you will see elsewhere I do not think you have the right to bar one of the options. >S confirmed her choice to bid 1S and the auction proceeded. 1D-1S-1NT-6D > The contract and the result was the same in the other room. Score E/W >0: N/S-3. And yes I did give a stern! warning but I did not impose a >PP. This was an international match and I believe a PP/fine should be automatic. >Interesting point: Does partner blurting out guidance(which is what >happened) constitute "consultation" under Law 10. Surely "consultation" >is a 2 way thing. Perhaps. But I think we should just act under UI rules, so it does not matter. That merely means that we fine for breach of a different Law, L73A1 for example. -------- Steve Willner wrote: >I hope I didn't write that badly. I meant to say that South should >have her options explained, but I expected, once that was done, she >would choose 1S. (Choosing the original 2D bid would be pretty silly >in this case.) How about choosing 2S? L25B allows for a third choice! >Robin's explanation of L10C2 makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks. >Presumably one tells the player how the law will be applied before he >chooses his option. Of course: you warn her about the effects of the UI. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 15 11:28:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:28:59 +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 LAA16284 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:28:50 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylO5z-0004bq-00; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 02:30:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:08:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law25 and others In-Reply-To: <01bd933e$3fa6e6c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >5 nations Ladies Home Internationals > > K76 > K92 > A854 > KT3 > >T52 J93 >J8765 T3 >void T763 >J8764 AQ92 > AQ84 > AQ4 > KQJ92 > 5 > >Dlr W >N/S Game > >N E S W > P >1D P 2D*(1S) TD?? > >S expressed the wish to change her 2D bid to 1S. She said she had not >made a mechanical error but wished to change her bid to 1S. > >During the reading of Law 25B, as soon as the mention of 40% score was >made North interupted with instructions to S that the side should not >choose an option that would give them an automatic penalty. While this >was going on E/W appeared to consult on whether or not it was right >that they could not accept the 2D bid. > >At this point I made a ruling. > >The result on the board was exactly the same in both rooms. 6D=. The >method of scoring was imps converted to VPs. > >How would you have ruled. We have an attempt to change a call under Law 25B. We have an attempt by one player to communicate to her partner in defiance of L73A1 and various other Laws. I think I would deal with the illegal communication first. Since this is an international match I believe that a PP/fine of at least 2VPs is in order, plus a strong warning as to her future conduct, and an explanation to her captain that you do not expect players at international level to take this type of action. I then explain to South that the comments by North are UI, and I read L73C to her. I also read L10C2 to her. I do not think that consultation between partners as to whether the Law is correct is nearly as bad. Of course, it should not be permitted, and I explain in a much gentler way that they should stop discussing, and issue a PP/warning. I tell them they are at liberty to look in my Law book if they like, and I do not mind them asking me for further clarification of a Law, but that they *must* *not* talk to each other, and tell them I shall fine them next time. Having got that out of the way, I now get down to the meat of the affair. Time to re-read L25B! >LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL > >B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction > Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not > apply: This gives the player the _right_ to change the 2D bid. > 1. Substitute Call Condoned > The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at > the option of offender's LHO ++; then, the second call stands > and the auction proceeds without penalty. So West is given the chance to accept South's 1S correction. If she does, then the auction continues without penalty. Note that I do not give her the chance until *all* the options have been read out and explained. > If offender's LHO has called before attention is drawn to the > infraction, and the Director determines that LHO intended his > call to apply over the offender's original call at that turn, > offender's substituted call stands without penalty, and LHO may > withdraw his call without penalty (but see Law 16C2). This did not happen, so may be safely ignored. In fact I would *not* read this bit out. > 2. Not Condoned > If the substituted call is not accepted, it is cancelled; So we cancel the 1S bid. > and: > (a) First Call Illegal > If the first call was illegal, the offender is subject > to the applicable Law (and the lead penalties of Law 26 may > apply to the second call). 2D was legal, so this bit is irrelevant. Once again, I would not read this out. > (b) First Call Legal > If the first call was legal, the offender must either, > (1) Let First Call Stand > Allow his first call to stand, in which case > (penalty) his partner must pass when next it is his turn to call > (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side), or, So South can now decide to call 2D: North is silenced for one round. I never read out references to L23 but I just keep them in mind. In this case L23 is clearly irrelevant: South has no reason to suppose that forcing the contract to die in 2D damages the opponents: quite the reverse! > (2) Substitute Another Call > Make any other legal call, in which case (penalty) > the auction proceeds normally (but offender's partner may not > base calls on information from withdrawn calls); the offending > side ** may receive no score greater than average-minus (see Law > 12C1). Now South can decide to call anything she likes that is legal apart from 2D [ie anything except 1C, 1D, Dbl or Rdl]. If she does, then the original 2D is UI: the first replacement 1S is UI. However, the auction continues from this call normally, but whatever happens, North-South are limited to a maximum of -3 imps on the board. If they score +5, for instance, they will get -3: if they score -5, they will keep it. Note that South does not need to bid 1S now: she [in effect] gets a third choice. > (c) Lead Penalties > In either case (b) (1) or (b) (2) above, the offender's > partner will be subject to a lead penalty (see Law 26) if he > becomes a defender. So if South decides to revert to 2D, L26 applies to 1S: if South decides to bid 1S, L26 applies to 2D: if South decides [for example] to bid 2H, L26 applies to both 1S and 2D. >++ When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27 Irrelevant, and not read out. >** The non-offending side receives the score achieved at the table. So while North-South are fighting for a maximum of -3 imps, East-West will get whatever they get! > What score would have been entered.?? Whatever score was achieved after the ruling, subject to a further look at the end to see if they have used UI, and an adjustment is suitable if so. And, let us not forget the 2VPs PP/fine! >In view of the fact that this was a 5 way competition playing the same >boards, do you think it is right that one head to head match could >attract more or less than 20VPs for one particular team beacause of a >ruling of this order?. (or of any order?) Yes. Perfectly normal. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 15 12:00:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:00:31 +1000 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16364 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:00:27 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p47.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.199]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA16627; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:01:34 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980615084932.006bca5c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:49:32 +1000 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980611070023.006bf390@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:12 12/06/98 +0100, you wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >>The situation I presented which opened this discussion: South opens 1C, >>West bids 2C, North asks, and East replies 'no agreement'. >> >>Definition of convention: A call that, *by partnership agreement*..... >> >>When East replies with a bald 'No agreement', then he is effectively saying >>that the 2C bid is not conventional. By definition, it cannot be >>conventional because there is no partnership agreement. > > That is wrong! If I sat down opposite you to make up because there >was a half table, and our agreements were "Strong no-trump and >Blackwood, partner?" "Yes, and four-card majors", and on the first board >I open 1NT and you bid 2C then we have *no agreement* on this sequence. >General bridge knowledge, not partnership agreement, tells both players >that assuming it is Stayman is likely to be a successful guess, but it >is not by agreement. > > On the next board, the bidding goes 1C from me, 1H from LHO, 2H from >you. What is this? A slam try in clubs? Looking for 3NT? Just >showing strength? I don't know, and we have *no agreement*, but general >bridge knowledge tells me that it is conventional. We have *no >agreement* that it is conventional, but unless we are morons it is >reasonable to make such a bid in this sort of circumstance, relying on >general bridge knowledge to tell partner that the bid is conventional. > >> This may seem a >>circular sort of argument, but there are some generally accepted >>conventional meanings to the 2C bid (Michaels etc), and East is effectively >>saying that it is not one of these. > > So you say that if the bidding goes 1C 1H 2H round the table, and if >asked I say "no agreement" because we have only played two boards, then >you have the right to exclude the possibility of a conventional bid? >This is not only crazy, but Bridge Lawyering at its very worst. The >opponents know, just as well as I do, that 2H will be conventional. >They do not know what it means, because it could be any of a number of >things, but they know it is not going to be natural, unless you are a >novice. > >> If it turns out that the bid was >>Michaels, for example, then don't NS have a case for misinformation if they >>have been damaged? I believe that they do, and have little sympathy for EW >>if East has used a bid which can have many different meanings, conventional >>or otherwise, with no attempt to establish prior partnership agreement. > > No attempt to establish a prior partnership agreement? You are ruling >against people because you do not like their approach to the game of >bridge? Not everyone likes long conversations about conventions and >their meanings. Not everyone has a good enough memory to be able to >assimilate a Meckwell level of conventional agreement, so most players >leave gaps in their agreements. Many players leave big gaps, because of >their inability at the game, or lack of experience, or lack of >experience as a partnership, or whatever. The fact that a pair has no >agreement in a particular sequence does not mean that they have made no >prior attempt to establish a partnership [I did ask about the no-trump >and Blackwood, remember: that was my attempt to establish the >partnership] nor does it mean that they should. > > People make mistakes, you know, especially in the area of partnership >agreement, and whatever we rule, we should rule *with sympathy* for the >players. > >>OTOH, EW may have an explicit agreement which East has forgotten, or West >>may believe that they have an implicit agreement based on their common >>experience, not necessarily partnership experience. So I see the TD as >>entitled to ask East to leave the table so that West can explain any >>agreement, explicit or implicit, but not of course to reveal his own card >>holding. If West confirms that there is no agreement, then NS are I believe >>entitled to treat this as a natural bid becaus it can't be conventional, >>and claim damage if necessary. > > Absolutely not, and Bridge Lawyering if they *know* it is >conventional. > >>In most of these situations, whilst there may not be a specific agreement, >>there is usually what one might call a 'default' agreement based on the >>common experience of both players. Thus a pair may not have discussed what >>they do over interference over Blackwood, but it is likely in my area that >>DOPI would be the default agreement. If asked, I would explain that, whilst >>we have not specifically agreed on this, the most likely implicit agreement >>is that it was DOPI. > > Amongst the club players here the default situation is 'undiscussed'. > >>As I see it, 'No agreement' is rarely an adequate explanation. A fair >>explanation would be 'No explicit agreement, but partner may be assuming an >>implicit agreement, which would probably be.....'. In the rare instance of >>a scratch partnership where 'No agreement' is the only correct answer, then >>I believe that the opponents are entitled to treat the bid as >>non-conventional and are entitled to an adjusted score if damaged by >>misinformation. > > Of course, there may be some situations where the default strongly >suggests a natural bid, and then an attempt to use a convention may be >surprising. Each case must be taken on its merits. But we do not want >a rule such as "no agreement" means natural, which is patently false, >and like other rules designed to protect BLs, is harmful to the game. > > >-- >David Stevenson > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm > Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle > Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section > OK, I'm suitably chastened. But bridge lawyer? No,not unless reading a definition and trying to apply it to real life is bridge lawyering. In the situations you and others have mentioned, 'no agreement' or 'undiscussed' may be technically correct, but there is an implicit agreement based on experience and bridge knowledge. So the bid could still fit the definition of a convention.When I make a bid, I do so (unless I'm playing ducks and drakes) with the reasonable expectation that partner will understand it, whether we have an explicit agreement or some implicit agreement based on our individual experience. In the 1C (1H) 2H sequence, whilst we may not have a specific agreement as to the meaning of 2H, we have an implicit agreement that the 2H is some sort of forcing bid. I have never suggested that the 2H bid must be accepted as'natural'.It still comes within the definition of a convention, even though partner may not be able to explain it fully. There is a least some vestige of an agreement, and opponents are able to make a reasonable guess at what it might mean. Your partner opens 1H, and I double. You ask and my scratch partner says 'Undiscussed' (perfectly true). You: 'So it's 50-50 that the double could be for takeout or penalties?' Partner: 'Well, no. almost certainly for takeout.' So we *do* have an agreement, albeit an implicit one. So there is no argument that my double can fit the definition of 'convention'. Contrast this with the 1C-(2C)-? situation (particularly over short or artificial 1C openings). You ask, and this time get the reply ' No agreement. I have not the remotest idea of what it means.' Clearly no agreement, explicit or implicit. And, in contrast with the other situations you mention, opponents have no way of taking even an intelligent stab at what it might mean. So this hand has become a lottery, not a bridge hand. I have never suggested that partnerships must sit down armed with an agreement on every conceivable sequence. But in most situations where 'undiscussed' arises, opponents have some chance of making their own assessment and continuing to play intelligent bridge. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 15 18:22:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 18:22:11 +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 SAA17044 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 18:22:03 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylUXu-0007Tg-00; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:23:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 03:41:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: no agreement In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980615084932.006bca5c@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >OK, I'm suitably chastened. But bridge lawyer? No,not unless reading a >definition and trying to apply it to real life is bridge lawyering. In the >situations you and others have mentioned, 'no agreement' or 'undiscussed' >may be technically correct, but there is an implicit agreement based on >experience and bridge knowledge. It is not an agreement. You have not agreed anything! >Your partner opens 1H, and I double. You ask and my scratch partner says >'Undiscussed' (perfectly true). You: 'So it's 50-50 that the double could >be for takeout or penalties?' Partner: 'Well, no. almost certainly for >takeout.' So we *do* have an agreement, albeit an implicit one. It is not an agre... I've said this before! You are mixing up an agreement and general bridge knowledge. They are not the same, and you are *not* required to tell your opponents about general bridge knowledge. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 15 20:38:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:38:29 +1000 Received: from sxhaa.compuserve.net (sxhaa.compuserve.net [149.174.177.78]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA17270 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:38:24 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from aamta.compuserve.net ([149.174.177.83]) by sxhaa.compuserve.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA24024.; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 06:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 85256624.0039C339 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 06:30:55 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:43:04 +0200 Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other > night. I wonder what the group will make of it. > > North The Bidding > S void S W N E > H Axx P P > D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P > C QJx 3H P 3S** P > 3N all pass > West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) > S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle > H xx H QJxxx > D Kx D QJ > C KTx C xxx > > South > S AQ9x > H Kxx > D Ax > C Axxx I sense that North tried to abide by the rules during the bidding. 3H is probably impossible on this sequence, since he's looking at the HA, even without the UI.<< Why sould 3H be impossible? I would take it as a try towards 3NT, showing a heart-stopper. In this context, the 3S-bid seems to be influenced by by UI. I think that there are good reasons for North to bid 5D (because of the working honours), but I cannot see any reason to bid 3NT. Since I cannot determine the further flow of the auction with sufficient confidence, I rule A-/A+. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 15 22:23:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:23:06 +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 WAA17545 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:22:58 +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 IAA18986 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980615082421.0069926c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:24:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <199806130141.LAA15212@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 AM 6/13/98 +1000, Tony wrote: >I have remarked previously on a slight quirk which exists for Australian >Directors. The National Authority has directed Appeals Committees that "if >75% of players of the appropriate standard would have made the bid without >the unauthorised information, then there is no logical alternative to the bid." > >The directive continues " the expression 'players of appropriate standard' >is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the event (i.e. experts >for national Championships, experienced club players for club events and so >on). The calibre of the individual player concerned is not to be the >criterion". > >Taken at face value, this could be taken to mean that the experience and >bidding methods of the pair in question may be largely irrelevant in the >determination of what might constitute an LA for them. This clearly states that experience is irrelevant, but, as I read it, doesn't address bidding methods. I don't see how it reasonably could. If an action that would be taken by 25+% of the field would mean something completely different and thus be totally inappropriate in a particular pair's methods, it can hardly be an LA for them. This raises an interesting question as to how one ought to determine a pair's "peers" (subject for a new thread?). Practice in most of the world makes this a subjective decision on the part of the adjudicators. The Australian practice is, apparently, to let each pair implicitly select its own peers by the events it chooses to enter, thus freeing TDs and ACs from the burden of having to base their rulings on their personal judgment (for which they may have little or no basis in their own experience, or even -- perish the thought -- lack the required objectivity) of the level of bridge skill of the pair(s) involved. One could easily make the case that the Australian approach is, in practice, both simpler and fairer. Perhaps we should encourage our SOs to learn something from our friends down under. The argument against the practice is that if we don't allow our TDs and ACs to make special allowances in adjudication situations for weak pairs who choose to play "over their heads" in "big time" events, we'll discourage them from doing so, when it's in the long-term best interest of the game to find ways to encourage them to do 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 Tue Jun 16 02:25:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 02:25:35 +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 CAA20687 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 02:25:28 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA26299 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:25:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.82) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026256; Mon Jun 15 11:25:31 1998 Received: by har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD9858.5E1943E0@har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:23:13 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD9858.5E1943E0@har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:23:06 -0400 Encoding: 58 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 6:46 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Richard Willey wrote: >Excuse me? > >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >treat > >2S - 2N >3C - 3S > >as anything other than signoff. Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement ##### Please elaborate. What "illegal ACBL method" do you have in mind? The ACBL is so psych averse it borders on the paranoid##### , I play that 2NT is at least an attempt at game. ##### As do most, unless the pass card is missing from the box.##### Therefore I reserve the right to go on over 3S if I consider the hand suitable. ##### This could be harmful to partnership harmony or violate the transfer of captaincy implied by the opening preempt. But it certainly is not illegal, nor should it be. ##### >2N is commonly used as some sort of game try (Shortness ask, Ogust, maybe >feature) >3C provided information >3S sets the final contract No, it doesn't. It says that in view of the information provided by opener then responder does not have a hand suitable to go to game. However, responder has tried for game, so opener could progress. ##### Even when we quibble, I end up agreeing with you. This is well put. Craig##### -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 03:10:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:10:34 +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 DAA20849 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:10:28 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylcnC-00008e-00; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 17:11:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 16:59:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >> A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other >> night. I wonder what the group will make of it. >> >> North The Bidding >> S void S W N E >> H Axx P P >> D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P >> C QJx 3H P 3S** P >> 3N all pass >> West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) >> S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle >> H xx H QJxxx >> D Kx D QJ >> C KTx C xxx >> >> South >> S AQ9x >> H Kxx >> D Ax >> C Axxx >I sense that North tried to abide by the rules during the bidding. 3H is >probably impossible on this sequence, since he's looking at the HA, even >without the UI.<< > >Why sould 3H be impossible? I would take it as a try towards 3NT, showing a >heart-stopper. In this context, the 3S-bid seems to be influenced by by UI. >I think that there are good reasons for North to bid 5D (because of the >working honours), but I cannot see any reason to bid 3NT. Since I cannot >determine the further flow of the auction with sufficient confidence, I >rule A-/A+. Such a ruling is illegal and unnecessary. You don't need confidence to determine the future flow of the auction: that is not the way such rulings are given. You just work out every auction that is reasonably credible, then give the NOs the benefit of the best one. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 03:46:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:46:59 +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 DAA20991 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:46:52 +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 NAA05212; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:48:06 -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-1998Jun15.133651.1189.221356; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:37:43 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rts48u@ix.netcom.com (Craig Senior) Message-ID: <1998Jun15.133651.1189.221356@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: GN Nettest (Boston), Inc. Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:37:43 -0600 Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Craig Senior[SMTP:rts48u@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 12:29 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 6:46 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? >>>Richard Willey wrote: >>> >>>Excuse me? >>> >>>Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >>>treat >>> >>>2S - 2N >>>3C - 3S >>> >>>as anything other than signoff. David Stevenson replied >> Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal >>ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement And then Craig asked >##### Please elaborate. What "illegal ACBL method" do you have in mind? The >ACBL is so psych averse it borders on the paranoid##### David's comment is referring to an earlier thread on this mailing list. Some player's define a 2N response to a weak 2 bid as a game invitational bid. One of the time honored psyches has always been to make this bid with a minimum hand in order to scare the opponent's away from competing. David would appear to be suggesting that by having the explicit agreement that partner may not bid over a three major signoff, that the partnership is in actuality using something akin to a psychic control. I have seen many long discussions arise about whether the 2N bid should be described as a game invitation or an asking bid or what not. On to the meat of David's post. I play a 2N response to a weak 2S opening as a shortness ask. I play 2S over a weak 2H in just the same way. I expect partner to be smart enough not to go on to game once I find out his stiff is in the wrong suit. In a similar fashion, if we go through an Exclusion-Blackwood auction and I discover that we're off two aces, I'm probably going to sign-off in 5M. I get peeved when partner decides what the hell, bid six anyway. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 03:53:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:53:46 +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 DAA21021 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:53:40 +1000 From: bills@cshore.com Received: from [130.132.145.68] ([130.132.145.68]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.06/64) id 4339200 ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:36:30 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:36:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Message-Id: <199806151836.4339200@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >>treat >> >>2S - 2N >>3C - 3S >> >>as anything other than signoff. [snip] > No, it doesn't. It says that in view of the information provided by >opener then responder does not have a hand suitable to go to game. >However, responder has tried for game, so opener could progress. Fwiw, it is my impression that Richard's assessment of what's "standard" is right on the money. It is also fairly standard in my experience, even in ACBL-land, for the 2NT bid to be a "psych" on the way to 3. I have even heard it argued that knowing this might be a psych is "general bridge knowledge". However, I disagree with whether it *should* be a bar bid. Imo, it's even more clear that if pard is not allowed to bypass three of his suit or bid on with an appropriate hand, the opps are entitled to know it. About a month ago, pard and I had this exact sequence, and I went to game with my maximum weak 2. Expert pard and expert opps were all shocked that I would go on over what they all called a drop dead bid, though pard quickly conceded when faced with an argument that was nearly word for word what David has written above. The 4th edition of the Encyclopedia (I don't have ready access to the 5th) hits the bar bid/psych issue fairly nicely, but there has been remarkably little written about this sequence in various books on bidding, primarily because most of the prolific writers use some sort of Ogust variation. It may seem strange, but the reality is that a large proportion of the pairs using 2NT as a feature ask, even some near expert pairs, really haven't thought much about how they invite. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 04:16:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 04:16:35 +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 EAA21136 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 04:16:21 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yldoz-0002Bn-00; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:17:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 19:00:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <01BD9858.5E1943E0@har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] >>Excuse me? >> >>Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >>treat >> >>2S - 2N >>3C - 3S >> >>as anything other than signoff. > > Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal >ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement > >##### Please elaborate. What "illegal ACBL method" do you have in mind? The >ACBL is so psych averse it borders on the paranoid##### I have read in RGB that some players play 2NT over 2S as a hand that wishes to enquire but does not say anything, so it may be on a zero- count. It is not a game try: it is an attempt to confuse poor opponents by failing to inform them as to your methods. For such players, 3S is a complete signoff, saying that either you have not shown the hand to go to game or that the 2NT was a psyche. Of course, you could also play this and announce it [via CC, explanations, etc] but that is not nearly so successful against weak opponents. *spit* I believe this use of 2NT may now be illegal in the ACBL. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 04:48:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 04:48:06 +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 EAA21242 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 04:47:54 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA25946 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 13:48:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.70) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025925; Mon Jun 15 13:48:21 1998 Received: by har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD986C.554F6B40@har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:46:09 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD986C.554F6B40@har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:46:07 -0400 Encoding: 81 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for the clarification. Your tendency to be miffed by a partner who ignores your judgement is a fine reason for going on very seldom. It is good partnership discipline...not a psychic control, not an illegal bid. I would think bidding on in such a circumstance might best mean "oops I found another Ace stuck to one of my cards." :-) I play the sequence with various partners as either Ogust of asking for a feature. I would consider it "game exploratory" but not necessarily invitational. It does NOT transfer captaincy back to the preemptor; it is simply an asking bid after which responded should normally place the contract OR ask more while forcing a minimum of game (as by initiating a cue bidding sequence). ---- Craig ---------- From: Richard Willey[SMTP:REW@azure-tech.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 3:37 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Craig Senior Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? ---------- From: Craig Senior[SMTP:rts48u@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 12:29 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 6:46 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? >>>Richard Willey wrote: >>> >>>Excuse me? >>> >>>Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >>>treat >>> >>>2S - 2N >>>3C - 3S >>> >>>as anything other than signoff. David Stevenson replied >> Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal >>ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement And then Craig asked >##### Please elaborate. What "illegal ACBL method" do you have in mind? The >ACBL is so psych averse it borders on the paranoid##### David's comment is referring to an earlier thread on this mailing list. Some player's define a 2N response to a weak 2 bid as a game invitational bid. One of the time honored psyches has always been to make this bid with a minimum hand in order to scare the opponent's away from competing. David would appear to be suggesting that by having the explicit agreement that partner may not bid over a three major signoff, that the partnership is in actuality using something akin to a psychic control. I have seen many long discussions arise about whether the 2N bid should be described as a game invitation or an asking bid or what not. On to the meat of David's post. I play a 2N response to a weak 2S opening as a shortness ask. I play 2S over a weak 2H in just the same way. I expect partner to be smart enough not to go on to game once I find out his stiff is in the wrong suit. In a similar fashion, if we go through an Exclusion-Blackwood auction and I discover that we're off two aces, I'm probably going to sign-off in 5M. I get peeved when partner decides what the hell, bid six anyway. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 06:52:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 06:52:44 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21569 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 06:52:37 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199806152052.GAA21569@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:53:54 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA021074031; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:53:52 +0200 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <01BD9858.5E1943E0@har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com> from Craig Senior at "Jun 15, 98 12:23:06 pm" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 22:53:51 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 660 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would > >treat > > > >2S - 2N > >3C - 3S > > > >as anything other than signoff. > > Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal > ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement Sorry, but how can you possibly psych an asking bid? [agreement: 2NT does not show anything, it just asks about some features of openers hand.] Does this mean that in a competitive situation I sometimes have to bid slam after partner's signoff to my Blackwood response? He might have psyched slam interest... > , I play that 2NT is > at least an attempt at game. YMMV. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 07:45:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:45:39 +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 HAA21719 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:45:29 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-139.access.net.il [192.116.204.139]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA23561; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:45:14 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <358596CF.73342D7E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:49:03 +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: blatant use of UI?? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David and Richard Without any commentary about ACBL allowed or not bidding methods I think that the logic told by Richard is the right one. The responder , considering his hand good/strong enough for game trial - when the 2X opener's range is 3-10 points - asks for the opener's second description ( Points , singleton/shortness suit strength , feature etc....) and he decides what to play . If the responder's 2NT is something which allows the opener to decide - this is the case where IMO are more possibilities for "monkey business"... And now , to make it more interesting , what if after 3S by responder , the opener bids 6 Sp ????? Did he forget the partnership plays weak two , or he pulled out 2Sp instead of 1Sp ,and didn't understand it until 3Sp was a "non-existing bid" in their system ??? What now ?? Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > Richard Willey wrote: > > >Excuse me? > > > >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would > >treat > > > >2S - 2N > >3C - 3S > > > >as anything other than signoff. > > Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal > ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement, I play that 2NT is > at least an attempt at game. Therefore I reserve the right to go on > over 3S if I consider the hand suitable. > > >2N is commonly used as some sort of game try (Shortness ask, Ogust, maybe > >feature) > >3C provided information > >3S sets the final contract > > No, it doesn't. It says that in view of the information provided by > opener then responder does not have a hand suitable to go to game. > However, responder has tried for game, so opener could progress. > > -- > David Stevenson > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm > Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle > Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 07:45:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:45:41 +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 HAA21720 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:45:30 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-139.access.net.il [192.116.204.139]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA23500; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:45:00 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <358596C4.4665DD6A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:48:52 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Damian Hassan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? References: <000201bd957f$a41581a0$cd5abcc3@Vossnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Welcome to the club Damian You are now the member of the most important club in the world The Cats' laws worldwide committee . I hope David will update that fabulous list Dany Damian Hassan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 11 June 1998 20:47 > Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? > > Greetings all. I have been reading BLML for a few months (very > educational and enjoyable). Let's get the formalities out of the way > first - I share ownership of my house with five cats: Bast, Katie, Tepsi, > Lily and Baroo. > > >The original hand is a "normal" 3cl preempt some people wouldn't > >3cl have been the choice pass will be an alternative "allowed" in the > >system NS plays if pd is bidding a non forcing call. 4cl was non > >forcing and when facing a non forcing bid I would ALWAYS concider > >pass being a LA, *the hesitation suggest this alternative is not the > >winning one*. > > Why is this so? Thinking about my own occasional breaks in tempo > before making an invitational bid, they are divided fairly evenly > between hands where I probably should pass but decide to give one > more push, and hands where I probably should bid game but decide > to give partner a chance to make the final mistake. (Given that my > partner is John Probst, you can tell that this is losing bridge :)). I can't > speak for everyone, but I've seen other players make both types of > slow game try too. > > > So a longtank and a raise shows good > >hand. a direct raise shows a much weaker hand. > > > > > >Robert > > > > Are you suggesting here that this is your past experience of such > bids, or are you imputing that this pair were cheating in this way? > > I agree that UI is available in this case, namely that partner may have > had doubts about the 4C bid, and that the LAs include Pass and 5C, > but I am not convinced that either is demonstrably suggested by the > hesitation. > > >after an in tempo 4cl odds are say 50/50 about pass on it or go > >further after the long break the odds are NOT 50/50 anymore more > >like 99/1 in favour of not passing the non forcing call. > > The assertion that this hesitation suggested bidding on seems to be > the sort of post facto analysis that condemns any decision after a > hesitation. If you bid on and it works then it is said that the hesitation > could have suggested bidding on, so oppos claim a foul; and if you > pass and that works, the opposite is asserted. > > I must admit that I also get annoyed when this type of auction happens > against me at the table, but John usually shrugs his shoulders and > says "next hand". > > Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 07:45:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:45:41 +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 HAA21721 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:45:31 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-139.access.net.il [192.116.204.139]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA23619; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:45:35 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <358596DB.7314428D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:49:15 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Musgrove CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? References: <199806130141.LAA15212@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Tony I am very confused - you told that the Australian NA has directed ACs to consider "the field's supposed level" in order to judge logical Alternatives for calls ??? If it isn't too difficult for you , please try to send me a copy of this regulation, because I want to try to understand them as a complete comprehensive "legislation". At a glance - it can be understood that if a weak player plays in a higher rank contest , he must bid better , otherwise he can be punished BECAUSE HE SHOULD BID BETTER , at his first irregularity ??? Or ..."don't let weak players play in a high rank contest ???...." My general approach to solve the TDs' dilemmas as that told by Claire (or Robert) is to let players finish the board and then to gather all the relevant data : N-S bidding system and CC , the specific meaning of the 4Cl bid and what should describe other relevant bids ... My ruling: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If the responder hesitated or thought a long while , but he bid , the opener must go on ONLY with his own hand reevaluation ! ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' For this specific case I think that the opener's hand is at the highest value for the defined "box" i.e. the H void and A&Q trump. No doubt North has one more move ! If I analyze South's "falling in trance" , as an AC member , I understand that he had to choose between 3NT and a mild slam try bid !!! Now I should apply the information about the players' level NOT the field's supposed level !!!!!!! : a) if N-S are high level players I should award PP , because they used UI in order to stop before slam ; and you should understand the remark of someone who said ..."if they should make 5 only I should adjust to 6Cl - 1 ...."... it is not an offending remark , by my approach. b) if they are not a good (or better) pair , no doubt 5 Cl is a reasonable bid , especially if on their CC 3Z bid is a sound weak opening bid........ Dany Tony Musgrove wrote: > > At 12:19 AM 12/06/1998 EDT, you wrote: > >In a message dated 6/11/98 9:17:11 PM EST, Adam writes: > > > >> Our agreement about the standard meaning is completely irrelevant, if > >> the members of the partnership in question have no clue that this is > >> the standard meaning. And I believe that's the case here. What the > >> UI suggests has to determined in the context of what system the pair > >> was playing or thought they were playing, not what they *should* have > >> been playing had anyone bothered to teach them correctly. > > and then from AlLeBendig: > > >Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what their > >"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and > >therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy > >invite. Does anybody here have any memory of what "bidding" was like before > >we knew what "standard" meant? Not only did we stumble, but we stumbled very > >slowly. I teach these players and see them in my club everyday and I ASSURE > >you that very few of them have a clue of what "advancing the preempt" means. > > I have remarked previously on a slight quirk which exists for Australian > Directors. The National Authority has directed Appeals Committees that "if > 75% of players of the appropriate standard would have made the bid without > the unauthorised information, then there is no logical alternative to the bid." > > The directive continues " the expression 'players of appropriate standard' > is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the event (i.e. experts > for national Championships, experienced club players for club events and so > on). The calibre of the individual player concerned is not to be the > criterion". > > Taken at face value, this could be taken to mean that the experience and > bidding methods of the pair in question may be largely irrelevant in the > determination of what might constitute an LA for them. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 11:48:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:48:34 +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 LAA22174 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:48:21 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylksL-00076i-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 02:49:32 +0100 Message-ID: <8He0F4Aazbh1EwzK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 01:31:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <199806152052.GAA21569@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: >> >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >> >treat >> > >> >2S - 2N >> >3C - 3S >> > >> >as anything other than signoff. >> >> Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal >> ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement > >Sorry, but how can you possibly psych an >asking bid? [agreement: 2NT does not show anything, it just >asks about some features of openers hand.] And do the people who play this tell their opponents they play it this way? Look, it is not true that 2NT does not show anything. Are you honestly trying to tell me that if you open 2S and your partner bids 2NT that he can have *any* hand? Of course not! >> , I play that 2NT is >> at least an attempt at game. > >YMMV. I don't mind people playing it as some other type of bid, but the failure to let the opponents know is the problem. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 13:27:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:27:30 +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 NAA22328 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:27:23 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcirl.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.117]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA32570 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:28:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980615232759.00778520@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:27:59 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <8He0F4Aazbh1EwzK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <199806152052.GAA21569@octavia.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:31 AM 6/16/98 +0100, David wrote: >Thomas wrote: >>> >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would >>> >treat >>> > >>> >2S - 2N >>> >3C - 3S >>> > >>> >as anything other than signoff. >>> >>> Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal >>> ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement >> >>Sorry, but how can you possibly psych an >>asking bid? [agreement: 2NT does not show anything, it just >>asks about some features of openers hand.] > > And do the people who play this tell their opponents they play it this >way? > > Look, it is not true that 2NT does not show anything. Are you >honestly trying to tell me that if you open 2S and your partner bids 2NT >that he can have *any* hand? Of course not! > With most of my partners, 2NT is Ogust. If my opponents ask what 2NT means, I will truthfully and completely fulfill my obligation to inform by stating that it does not _show_ anything at all, it merely requests a further description of my hand. I do not do this to protect against a silly and elementary psych, but because it is a complete description of our agreements, which is what the opponents are entitled to under law. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 13:45:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:45:52 +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 NAA22439 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:45:42 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29374; 15 Jun 98 20:46 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:46:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806152046.aa29374@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Richard Willey wrote: > > >Excuse me? > > > >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would > >treat > > > >2S - 2N > >3C - 3S > > > >as anything other than signoff. > > Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal > ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement, I play that 2NT is > at least an attempt at game. Therefore I reserve the right to go on > over 3S if I consider the hand suitable. > > >2N is commonly used as some sort of game try (Shortness ask, Ogust, maybe > >feature) > >3C provided information > >3S sets the final contract > > No, it doesn't. It says that in view of the information provided by > opener then responder does not have a hand suitable to go to game. > However, responder has tried for game, so opener could progress. I'm not disagreeing with David's main point, but I think if 2NT is Ogust, it would be irrational to go on over 3S. Using this convention, 3C shows a bad hand and a bad spade suit, 3S shows a good hand and a good spade suit, 3D and 3H show the other two combinations. Even if you assume that 2NT shows interest in game, once responder chooses not to go to game, I can't imagine how opener could overrule him. Responder could, after all, have been planning to go to game only if opener showed a good hand *and* a good suit; so responder may have felt that a good hand and a bad suit, or a bad hand and a good suit, are not enough for game. Under these circumstances, I can't imagine how a hand that bids 3C, showing a bad hand and a bad suit, could possibly be good enough to carry on over 3S. A hand that good should not have bid 3C. (Unless, of course, you have rigid agreements that a hand must have a certain number of HCP to be considered "good", and a suit must have a certain number of honors or something like that to be considered "good". With that sort of agreement, it seems possible to construct a GOOD weak 2, good enough to carry on over 3S, that would bid 3C mechanistically. It would be a very unusual hand, but it would be possible. I don't have a high opinion of rigid agreements such as that, though.) This only applies to Ogust. If playing a shortness or feature ask, then I agree with David, although a hand that would overrule responder would be quite unusual. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 15:16:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:16:16 +1000 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA28899 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:16:10 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p02.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.18]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA19161 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:17:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980615121814.006d11c4@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:18:14 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Simultaneous plays Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East (holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's trump lead. Where to from here? I can't see any alternative but to apply Law 57, though obviously it was not intended to cover this situation. But East's play of the C2 was legally after South's trump lead, but before West's heart play, so becomes a defender's play out of turn at trick 3. If we give South his option to require West to play his highest heart (the ten), then West's original heart (the six) becomes a penalty card, East must follow suit and replace the C2 with a heart, with the C2 becoming a penalty card. It seems rather nonsensical to apply Law 57 to a situation it wasn't intended for, but what is the alternative? Any opinions? Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 16:46:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA29072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:46:37 +1000 Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA29067 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:46:31 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3OXPa06640 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 02:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <28215d1b.358614f6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 02:47:16 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? 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 6/15/98 8:54:01 PM EST, David writes: > Thomas wrote: > >> >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament players who would > >> >treat > >> > > >> >2S - 2N > >> >3C - 3S > >> > > >> >as anything other than signoff. > >> David wrote: > >> Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in playing illegal > >> ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement > > > >Sorry, but how can you possibly psych an > >asking bid? [agreement: 2NT does not show anything, it just > >asks about some features of openers hand.] > > And do the people who play this tell their opponents they play it this > way? > > Look, it is not true that 2NT does not show anything. Are you > honestly trying to tell me that if you open 2S and your partner bids 2NT > that he can have *any* hand? Of course not! > > >> , I play that 2NT is > >> at least an attempt at game. > > > >YMMV. > > I don't mind people playing it as some other type of bid, but the > failure to let the opponents know is the problem. We are discussing two different issues here. Many of you are "slamming" David for even suggesting that he might bid on in this sequence. And that is an issue of partnership trust and bidding logic. What David is bothered by is that many of you are saying that partner is no longer allowed to look at his hand or even give any consideration to another bid even if his answer to your 2NT may contain more than he has been able to show. And THAT is an illegal agreement and David has done a good job of trying to point that out! After the 2NT bid and "signoff", the signoff has become an illegal agreement (i.e., a controlled psyche) if partner is no longer permitted to bid. Why is this hard to understand? If I sat down with a new partner and opened 2S with: KQJTxx x KT9x xx and partner bid 2NT (feature) I would respond 3D. If partner now bid 3S I would expect him to lose all confidence in me if I did not carry on to game. Some of you are suggesting and have argued that it is irrational to carry on to game as partner has "decided" that your bid was wrong for his hand. The strength of your hand has not been fully disclosed yet by showing your feature and, like David, I take the 2NT bid to have been made for a reason other than to screw the opponents. I fully understand that some of you may take the position that you will never overrule partner in such a situation. But that position has nothing to do with the legalities of this situation which is what David is doing a good job of addressing. One method that was gaining popularity a while ago was that after a 3rd chair preempt the partner was never allowed to bid no matter what they held. Another popular agreement for a short while was that after a 10-12 NT and a signoff in 2M, the NT bidder could no longer participate in the auction no matter what the hand was. One of these came to light when the NT bidder held something like KTx QTxxx Ax QJT. They opened 1NT (I agree, I wouldn't have) and partner bid 2H (to play). LHO balanced with 3D which was passed out at favorable vulnerability. Would that bother you just a little when partner held a 4-1-4-4 2 count with a stiff H? "I had described my hand and partner had no interest in competing any further." EXCUSE ME??? Controlled psyches are illegal in the ACBL. I'm not sure what the standard is in Europe. Most of the time such an agreement will never be noticed. But when it does come to light, I'm ready to hang. Some have suggested this is ACBL paranoia. I still see it as a morality issue. I just wish we wouldn't try to disguise it as "bidding logic" as if all these decisions are black and white. That is only the case when one has been "forbidden" from proceeding. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 17:16:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:16:41 +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 RAA29151 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:16:35 +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 DAA14342.; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 85256625.00277642 ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 03:11:01 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 08:53:02 +0200 Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >Why sould 3H be impossible? I would take it as a try towards 3NT, showing a >heart-stopper. In this context, the 3S-bid seems to be influenced by by UI. >I think that there are good reasons for North to bid 5D (because of the >working honours), but I cannot see any reason to bid 3NT. Since I cannot >determine the further flow of the auction with sufficient confidence, I >rule A-/A+. Such a ruling is illegal and unnecessary. You don't need confidence to determine the future flow of the auction: that is not the way such rulings are given. You just work out every auction that is reasonably credible, then give the NOs the benefit of the best one. << I doubt your evaluation of the ruling. I think it is wrong to make up a score like 4H minus umpteen just to punish the offenders. It is the duty of the TD to restore equity and therefore I have to have a certain degree of confidence, otherwise I would assign results "at random", making up some absurde auctions (and reasoning) and violating 12C. Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 19:10:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:10:02 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29381 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:09:55 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199806160909.TAA29381@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:11:07 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA104638266; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:11:06 +0200 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <28215d1b.358614f6@aol.com> from "AlLeBendig@aol.com" at "Jun 16, 98 02:47:16 am" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:11:05 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1899 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to AlLeBendig@aol.com: > In a message dated 6/15/98 8:54:01 PM EST, David writes: > > We are discussing two different issues here. Many of you are "slamming" David > for even suggesting that he might bid on in this sequence. Not exactly. I disagree with his claim that he would frequently want to bid on in such a situation (which is the basis for his argument that playing 3S as a definitive sign off is an illegal psychic control). > And that is an > issue of partnership trust and bidding logic. What David is bothered by is > that many of you are saying that partner is no longer allowed to look at his > hand or even give any consideration to another bid even if his answer to your > 2NT may contain more than he has been able to show. And THAT is an illegal > agreement and David has done a good job of trying to point that out! After > the 2NT bid and "signoff", the signoff has become an illegal agreement (i.e., > a controlled psyche) if partner is no longer permitted to bid. Why is this > hard to understand? If I sat down with a new partner and opened 2S with: > KQJTxx x KT9x xx and partner bid 2NT (feature) I would respond 3D. You are playing a different kind of system. Your answers aren't descriptive enough. Let me give you a glimse on my response structure: 2S - 2NT - 3C: Maximum. Now 3S isn't signoff, it is a distributional inquiry. 3D and 3H are asking bids, too. 2S - 2NT - 3H: Minimum, H singleton. Now 3S is a signoff, which opener has to pass regardless of his hand. You never want to play in 4S with a minimum weak two and the probable Hx opposite KJxx or worse. Considering the case where partner psyched the 2NT bid, he With this structre, partner might be in a lot of trouble opposite a maximum weak-two, but opposite a minimum he can be 99.99% sure that opener will pass the sign off. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 20:40:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:40:39 +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 UAA29602 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:40:29 +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 LAA08076 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:41:40 +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 LAA25990 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:41:39 +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 LAA03190 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:41:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 98 11:41:21 BST Message-Id: <22264.9806161041@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: christian.farwig@ac.com > > I doubt your evaluation of the ruling. I think it is wrong to make up a > score like 4H minus umpteen just to punish the offenders. It is the duty of > the TD to restore equity and therefore I have to have a certain degree of No. It is the TD duty to assign a score under L16A2 and L12C2. The only places where a director restores equity are L43C(Dummy's limitations), L64C(Established revoke), and L84D(Ruling on agreed facts). The first two apply in specific circumstances, the last one applies when there is a choice between a penalty and awarding an adjusted score. > confidence, otherwise I would assign results "at random", making up some > absurde auctions (and reasoning) and violating 12C. A result was obtained, so L12C2 applies. Only Appeals Committees "do" equity. Robin P.S. OK so I've done equity occasionally, I can cope. Sometimes a few of us get together to consult and do a little equity. But I'm only a simple TD, its not as if I'm an AC member or anything. :-) -- 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 Jun 16 21:09:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:09:26 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA29677 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:09:19 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA08035 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:10:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199806161110.NAA08035@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:13:50 +0000 Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980615121814.006d11c4@ozemail.com.au> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: > South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East > (holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the > H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It > is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's > club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. > > Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's > trump lead. Where to from here? I can't see any alternative but to apply > Law 57, though obviously it was not intended to cover this situation. But > East's play of the C2 was legally after South's trump lead, but before > West's heart play, so becomes a defender's play out of turn at trick 3. If > we give South his option to require West to play his highest heart (the > ten), then West's original heart (the six) becomes a penalty card, East > must follow suit and replace the C2 with a heart, with the C2 becoming a > penalty card. > > It seems rather nonsensical to apply Law 57 to a situation it wasn't > intended for, but what is the alternative? Any opinions? > > Reg. Mmmm, apparently we are dealing here with a revoke out of turn (ROOT). But what about L53C? Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. (Law 16C2 applies to a defender.) So, considering the C2 to be played in error to declarer's heart lead, it may be withdrawn without penalty, but it is UI to West. L57 does not apply IMO. FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 email j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 21:16:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:16:49 +1000 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA29725 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:16:44 +1000 Received: from tripack (p7-max2.akl.ihug.co.nz [202.49.255.69]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA00121 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:17:33 +1200 Message-Id: <199806161117.XAA00121@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:11:08 +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 Hi all, Was having a discussion last night about meanings of actions after an insufficient bid. This then developed later into a discussion as to whether this is permissible or not. It has never crossed my mind that explicit agreements with partner as to meanings of bids in this situation would not be allowed, given that over any period of time, all partnerships must have implicit agreements. Apparently the situation has arisen somewhere in the world, where a partnership was playing take out doubles at a low level, but after an insufficient bid, a double was now penalties if the bid was accepted. This was ruled illegal. If it is considered illegal, I would also be interested to found out what Law applies here as well. Julie Atkinson New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 21:50:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:50:22 +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 VAA29830 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:50:14 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yluGr-0002oZ-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:51:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:47:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian wrote: >>> >>Why sould 3H be impossible? I would take it as a try towards 3NT, showing >a >>heart-stopper. In this context, the 3S-bid seems to be influenced by by >UI. >>I think that there are good reasons for North to bid 5D (because of the >>working honours), but I cannot see any reason to bid 3NT. Since I cannot >>determine the further flow of the auction with sufficient confidence, I >>rule A-/A+. > Such a ruling is illegal and unnecessary. You don't need confidence >to determine the future flow of the auction: that is not the way such >rulings are given. You just work out every auction that is reasonably >credible, then give the NOs the benefit of the best one. ><< > >I doubt your evaluation of the ruling. I think it is wrong to make up a >score like 4H minus umpteen just to punish the offenders. It is the duty of >the TD to restore equity and therefore I have to have a certain degree of >confidence, otherwise I would assign results "at random", making up some >absurde auctions (and reasoning) and violating 12C. Making up A+/A- at random is illegal [not permitted by L12C2] and often incorrect. I do not see how ruling against the Laws of the game is going to give *any* player confidence. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 21:50:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:50:24 +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 VAA29829 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:50:14 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yluGr-0002oa-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:51:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:01:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980615121814.006d11c4@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East >(holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the >H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It >is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's >club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. > >Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's >trump lead. Where to from here? I can't see any alternative but to apply >Law 57, though obviously it was not intended to cover this situation. But >East's play of the C2 was legally after South's trump lead, but before >West's heart play, so becomes a defender's play out of turn at trick 3. If >we give South his option to require West to play his highest heart (the >ten), then West's original heart (the six) becomes a penalty card, East >must follow suit and replace the C2 with a heart, with the C2 becoming a >penalty card. > >It seems rather nonsensical to apply Law 57 to a situation it wasn't >intended for, but what is the alternative? Any opinions? When this was discussed at an EBU Panel TD weekend it was agreed that the letter of the Law is fairly clear, and there is no reason to do otherwise than apply it. I am not certain we can be sure whether the Law-makers provided L57 for this situation but they do not seem to have provided any other Law. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 21:50:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:50:31 +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 VAA29831 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:50:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yluGr-0002oY-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:51:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:45:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980615232759.00778520@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >With most of my partners, 2NT is Ogust. If my opponents ask what 2NT means, >I will truthfully and completely fulfill my obligation to inform by stating >that it does not _show_ anything at all, it merely requests a further >description of my hand. I do not do this to protect against a silly and >elementary psych, but because it is a complete description of our >agreements, which is what the opponents are entitled to under law. Agreements are both explicit and implicit. If your partner only uses Ogust on certain hands then you have some idea of those hands either by your discussions or by your experience with him. Opponents have a _right_ to know this. You *have* to tell them what hands he is likely to have when you know: that is *required* by the Laws. --------- To answer a couple of other articles without bothering to quote them: Why I am being quoted as saying that everyone is likely to go on after the given sequence I have no idea: I merely objected to the statement that no-one would. The reason that *some* people play 2S - 2NT - 3D - 3S as a complete signoff is because they know that partner is likely to use 2NT on a hand with a fit and insufficient points for game. Full disclosure means people have a *right* to know this, and yet many people do not tell their opponents, gaining [especially against weak opponents] from a lack of disclosure. The illegality that I am worrying about is lack of adequate disclosure. Al refers to a psychic control. If you are not allowed to progress [and a more interesting sequence is a competitive one, like 2S NB 2NT 4H ?: are you allowed to bid 4S or double? I am] then that is not a psychic control if you have an agreement, implicit or explicit, that 2NT may be on a weak hand. That is a disclosure problem, unless the SO outlaws this use of 2NT: then they are playing an illegal convention. If a pair plays 2NT as game try or better *but* does not allow progression at any time after 2NT then I believe they are playing a psychic control, illegal in the ACBL and the EBU/WBU. I am unimpressed by people who compare this sequence with Blackwood. Sure, you could be psyching Blackwood, which is understood to be a Slam Check rather than a tactical bid, but it is probably pretty rare and in a position where it matters little. Playing a 2NT response as pre- emptive against players who will understand it to be a game try is not the way ethical players wish to win at Bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 23:02:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:02:31 +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 XAA00279 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:02:21 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylvOP-00009L-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:03:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 12:58:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays In-Reply-To: <199806161110.NAA08035@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >> South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East >> (holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the >> H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It >> is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's >> club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. >> >> Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's >> trump lead. Where to from here? [s] >Mmmm, apparently we are dealing here with a revoke out of turn >(ROOT). Hehe. >But what about L53C? > >Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead They were simultaneous, so the proper lead is deemed to have come *first* not subsequently, per L58A. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 16 23:49:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:49:23 +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 XAA00425 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:49:16 +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 AA091805032; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:50:33 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA145115030; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:50:30 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:50:15 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Simultaneous plays 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 As I understand Law 57, it applies only when somebody plays to the current trick before his partner (whos it was turn) or lead to the next trick before partner plays the the current trick. The key words are " before partner have played to current trick ". =20 Here, it is an other case. Partner has already play to current trick. IMHO it is only an Out out turn lead by a defender and, after applying Law 58, you could use Laws 53 and 56. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City Objet: Simultaneous plays =20 South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East (holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. =20 Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's trump lead. Where to from here? I can't see any alternative but to apply Law 57, though obviously it was not intended to cover this situation. But East's play of the C2 was legally after South's trump lead, but before West's heart play, so becomes a defender's play out of turn at trick 3. If we give South his option to require West to play his highest heart (the ten), then West's original heart (the six) becomes a penalty card, East must follow suit and replace the C2 with a heart, with the C2 becoming a penalty card. =20 It seems rather nonsensical to apply Law 57 to a situation it wasn't intended for, but what is the alternative? Any opinions? =20 Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 00:13:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:13:29 +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 AAA01786 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:13:11 +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 KAA07762; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:14:25 -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-1998Jun17.100000.1189.221699; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:04:03 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: AlLeBendig@aol.com (AlLeBendig), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws) Message-ID: <1998Jun17.100000.1189.221699@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: GN Nettest (Boston), Inc. Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:04:03 -0600 Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: AlLeBendig[SMTP:AlLeBendig@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 3:02 AM To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? >What David is bothered by is that many of you are saying that partner is no longer >allowed to look at his hand or even give any consideration to another bid even if >his answer to your 2NT may contain more than he has been able to show. Lets consider a somewhat ridiculous argument that I hope will illustrate a point. I decide to play overly-disciplined weak 2 bids A weak two bid in spades promises precisely AKJTxx in spades Three small hearts and either 3-1 or 1-3 in the minors with no honors. A 2N response is used as a game try or better asking for partner's singleton. I would argue that since opener's hand is so precisely defined, that opener could NEVER hold a hand that justifies continuing over a 3M bid by partner. In this case, treating 3M as a bar bid certainly can not be considered a psychic control even if it might act as one. To try to relate this back to the real world, the precise definition of the bidding sequence - 2S - 2N 3x - 3S must bear some relation to the specific nature of the 2S opening bid. As a two spade opening bid becomes progressively more disciplined, responder's 3S call becomes less invitational. The rub is the following: This does not lead to a uniform standard regarding whether this 3S is a psychic control. The nature of the bid depends on the preempting style of the partnership as well as the "accuracy" of the partnership's response sequences over the 2N asking bid. Partnerships playing a complex relay sequence might have better justification for treating 3S as drop dead than those using a simple shortness ask or feature showing response structure. David has openly stated that he considers treating 3S as a bar bid is equivalent to a psychic control. >If a pair plays 2NT as game try or better *but* does not allow >progression at any time after 2NT then I believe they are playing a >psychic control, illegal in the ACBL and the EBU/WBU. I think that this standard is unenforceable. Simply put, I don't expect that a committee would ever be in a position where they would have enough information available to be able to make an informed decision. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 00:17:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:17:14 +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 AAA02842 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:17:04 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-41-155.s155.tnt10.brd.erols.com [207.172.41.155]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA01218 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806161418.KAA01218@smtp3.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:18:04 -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 In-Reply-To: <28215d1b.358614f6@aol.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 > AlLeBendig@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 2:47 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? > > > In a message dated 6/15/98 8:54:01 PM EST, David writes: > > > Thomas wrote: > > >> >Off the top of my head, I don't know any tournament > players who would > > >> >treat > > >> > > > >> >2S - 2N > > >> >3C - 3S > > >> > > > >> >as anything other than signoff. > > >> > > David wrote: > > > >> Allow me to introduce myself. Not being involved in > playing illegal > > >> ACBL methods, whereby one psyches 2NT by agreement > > > > > >Sorry, but how can you possibly psych an > > >asking bid? [agreement: 2NT does not show anything, it just > > >asks about some features of openers hand.] > > > > And do the people who play this tell their opponents they > play it this > > way? > > > > Look, it is not true that 2NT does not show anything. Are you > > honestly trying to tell me that if you open 2S and your > partner bids 2NT > > that he can have *any* hand? Of course not! > > > > >> , I play that 2NT is > > >> at least an attempt at game. > > > > > >YMMV. > > > > I don't mind people playing it as some other type of bid, but the > > failure to let the opponents know is the problem. > > We are discussing two different issues here. Many of you are > "slamming" David > for even suggesting that he might bid on in this sequence. And that is an > issue of partnership trust and bidding logic. What David is > bothered by is > that many of you are saying that partner is no longer allowed to > look at his > hand or even give any consideration to another bid even if his > answer to your > 2NT may contain more than he has been able to show. And THAT is > an illegal > agreement and David has done a good job of trying to point that > out! After > the 2NT bid and "signoff", the signoff has become an illegal > agreement (i.e., > a controlled psyche) if partner is no longer permitted to bid. > Why is this > hard to understand? As I understand it, a psych occurs if the bid misdecribes a hand's values and/or distribution. If a bid is an asking bid, and by agreement does not provide description of the hand, how can it be psyched? A bid that does not describe *cannot* misdescribe. The GCC allows artificial responses to weak twos, provided the weak 2 does not have a range greater than 7 HCP and a suit of less than 5 cards. An agreement that 2NT can be made on a hand that is anywhere from valueless to slam-going is legal, provided that it is properly alerted and described. Please correct me if I am making an error in reading the GCC. The agreement that partner should not bid after the signoff cannot be a psychic control *because there was no psych*. If the partnership has an agreement that 2NT promises some sort of values, (i.e. at least game invitational), but still makes this call, then you are correct. If opener cannot advance over a sign-off with what appears to be extras, then this is a controlled psych. [snip] > > One method that was gaining popularity a while ago was that after > a 3rd chair > preempt the partner was never allowed to bid no matter what they held. If the preempter might not have length in his suit, then this agreement is indeed illegal. However, if the partnership opened up the range of it's preempts in 3rd seat, but still showed the suit in question, I can see nothing illegal about this, as long as the agreement about the nature of the preempt is disclosed. > Another popular agreement for a short while was that after a > 10-12 NT and a > signoff in 2M, the NT bidder could no longer participate in the auction no > matter what the hand was. One of these came to light when the NT > bidder held > something like KTx QTxxx Ax QJT. They opened 1NT (I agree, I wouldn't > have) and partner bid 2H (to play). LHO balanced with 3D which > was passed out > at favorable vulnerability. Would that bother you just a little > when partner > held a 4-1-4-4 2 count with a stiff H? "I had described my hand > and partner > had no interest in competing any further." EXCUSE ME??? > Depends on the partnership's agreement. If the 2H bid is alerted and explained as drop dead, usually showing hearts but may be made with heart shortness, then there is no problem. The GCC appears to allow this agreement. If properly described, there is no psych, so the argument about psychic controls again falls apart. I'm not arguing that some pairs are not using these drop dead calls as psychic controls. I will argue that they are *not* psychic controls if the real agreement is legal under the ACBL convention charts, and has been properly alerted and described. What it being called a psychic control could just as easily be called a failure to describe the real partnership agreement. Are we to be barred from using "drop-dead" bids in the ACBL, because they might be psychic controls? > Controlled psyches are illegal in the ACBL. I'm not sure what > the standard is > in Europe. Most of the time such an agreement will never be noticed. But > when it does come to light, I'm ready to hang. Some have > suggested this is > ACBL paranoia. I still see it as a morality issue. I just wish > we wouldn't > try to disguise it as "bidding logic" as if all these decisions > are black and > white. That is only the case when one has been "forbidden" from > proceeding. > > Alan LeBendig > We have to be careful that we are in fact hanging a pair for using psychic controls, rather than failure to describe their actual agreements. Of course, I'd hang them for that too... Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 00:45:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:45:23 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03003 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:45:17 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA16721 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:46:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199806161446.QAA16721@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:49:50 +0000 Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199806161110.NAA08035@hera.frw.uva.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Jan Peter Pals wrote: > >Reg Busch wrote: > > >> South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East > >> (holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the > >> H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It > >> is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's > >> club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. > >> > >> Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's > >> trump lead. Where to from here? > > [s] > >But what about L53C? > > > >Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead > > They were simultaneous, so the proper lead is deemed to have come > *first* not subsequently, per L58A. > Oops, you got me there.... It was too nice to be true... :( JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 00:48:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:48:36 +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 AAA03027 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:48:29 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from aamta.compuserve.net ([149.174.177.83]) by sxhab.compuserve.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA13010.; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:45:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 85256625.0050D5EA ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:42:56 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 16:35:29 +0200 Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin, >>A result was obtained, so L12C2 applies. << But I cannot let the result stand - it was obviously influenced by the UI. I is just impossible for me to judge which course the auction would take - the most likely result would be 5D, for sure a good score for N/S. Anything else, including 4H, is a wild guess and any scores created by these guesses are less just than and A-/A+ >>Only Appeals Committees "do" equity.<< It was a club tournament, so probably no appeals committee existed. In a club tournament, the TD is responsible for equity (at least in the real life). Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 01:12:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 01:12:26 +1000 Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03099 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 01:12:16 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3JDEa04365 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:12:23 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? 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 6/16/98 4:12:46 AM EST, af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de writes: > Not exactly. I disagree with his claim that he would frequently > want to bid on in such a situation (which is the basis for > his argument that playing 3S as a definitive sign off is > an illegal psychic control). I saw no posting that even suggested he would "frequently" want to bid. I thought we were only discussing his "right" to do so. [s] > > If I sat down with a new partner and opened 2S with: > > KQJTxx x KT9x xx and partner bid 2NT (feature) I would respond 3D. > > You are playing a different kind of system. > Your answers aren't descriptive enough. That may well be the case! But it is still a method that many play and one I would certainly use with a new partner. Is it a crime to play an imperfect method? > Let me give you a glimse on my response structure: > 2S - 2NT - 3C: Maximum. Now 3S isn't signoff, it is a distributional > inquiry. 3D and 3H are asking bids, too. > 2S - 2NT - 3H: Minimum, H singleton. Now 3S is a signoff, which > opener has to pass regardless of his hand. You > never want to play in 4S with a minimum weak > two and the probable Hx opposite KJxx > or worse. > > Considering the case where partner psyched the 2NT bid, he > With this structre, partner > might be in a lot of trouble opposite a maximum weak-two, > but opposite a minimum he can be 99.99% sure that opener > will pass the sign off. And that is usually the case. This psyche will leave one in a safe position most of the time. Just so there is some risk (as there is in your methods) I would never have a problem with the psyche. Your's could never be defined as "controlled". Yet many here are saying that the auction has just ended NO MATTER WHAT the weak 2 bidder holds. And therein lies my problem with this issue. David writes: > The illegality that I am worrying about is lack of adequate > disclosure. Al refers to a psychic control. If you are not allowed to > progress [and a more interesting sequence is a competitive one, like 2S > NB 2NT 4H ?: are you allowed to bid 4S or double? I am] then that is > not a psychic control if you have an agreement, implicit or explicit, > that 2NT may be on a weak hand. That is a disclosure problem, unless > the SO outlaws this use of 2NT: then they are playing an illegal > convention. I totally agree, David. I was not suggesting that it is tantamount to a psychic control to bid 2NT with a weak hand. Only to have an agreement that partner may ONLY respond to queries but may never take further action beyond that. And you're clearly right that this has become a disclosure problem if 2NT may be a very weak hand with no interest in anything. We did outlaw 2NT for a brief period if the hand had no interest in game no matter what. This was quickly changed by the BOD when it was made clear that such a prohibition was illegal. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 01:31:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 01:31:15 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f237.hotmail.com [207.82.251.128]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03188 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 01:31:10 +1000 Received: (qmail 2651 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 1998 15:31:58 -0000 Message-ID: <19980616153158.2650.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.132 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 08:31:58 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.132] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 08:31:58 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >We have to be careful that we are in fact hanging a pair for using >psychic controls, rather than failure to describe their actual >agreements. Of course, I'd hang them for that too... > >Hirsch While I agree that getting the ruling right is necessary from a consistency and trust standpoint, and to aid in players' understanding (oh, and trying to avoid, if I can, the unfortunately charged word "psych"), I can't see, practically, what difference it makes. The problem is that people who play these methods regularly explain the 2NT call as "asking for a feature", with no further explanation (or 2H/1NT as "to play", again with no further explanation - and they don't alert it). If that is their agreement, and their further agreement is that opener has no options after the signoff, then they have a controlled psych situation - if they choose to psych the call, they cannot be hanged by partner. If their agreement is that the calls can be made with a signoff/short trump hand, then the agreement cannot control a psych - there is no psych - but they are not completely informing their opponents as to their agreements - and in such a way that they "could have known" "would be likely to" decieve the opponents at the time. Practically, the result is the same - and I hope, when I catch them, I hope I have the hard-bound edition of the FLB to throw at them. For those who do explain fully there is no problem if the agreement is legal. Though with the several discussions on BLML about pairs who explain their bids within the bounds of their SO's licence, but have "extra-legal" agreements in addition, which they "can't" explain because they would be illegal, I am going to investigate fully any such case I get involved with. To briefly tie in another thread - sometimes it's difficult to meet with the SO's guidelines (like agreements after an irregularity in the ACBL). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 09:39:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:39:57 +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 JAA05081 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:39:50 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ym5Lf-0005Ph-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:41:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:55:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian wrote: >Robin, > >>>A result was obtained, so L12C2 applies. << >But I cannot let the result stand - it was obviously influenced by the UI. >I is just impossible for me to judge which course the auction would take - >the most likely result would be 5D, for sure a good score for N/S. Anything >else, including 4H, is a wild guess and any scores created by these guesses >are less just than and A-/A+ > >>>Only Appeals Committees "do" equity.<< >It was a club tournament, so probably no appeals committee existed. In a >club tournament, the TD is responsible for equity (at least in the real >life). If players are not going to appeal, then it becomes more important still that the TD follows the Laws of the game rather than ignoring them. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 09:39:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:39:57 +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 JAA05079 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:39:49 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ym5Le-0005Pf-00; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:41:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:50:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <1998Jun17.100000.1189.221699@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >>If a pair plays 2NT as game try or better *but* does not allow >>progression at any time after 2NT then I believe they are playing a >>psychic control, illegal in the ACBL and the EBU/WBU. >I think that this standard is unenforceable. Simply put, I don't expect >that a committee would ever be in a position where they would have enough >information available to be able to make an informed decision. Why ever not? In the EBU/WBU we keep a record of psyches, and pattern is one of the reasons. If a pair plays a 2NT as a game try, psyches it, and partner's actions are not what one would expect, then you have a prima facie case of fielding. It may not be easy to control people whose ethics are awful, but that does not mean it is impossible. *But* at the moment the confusion over this whole business [seen in this thread alone] is my main worry: I am afraid that ethical players are getting it wrong. I believe that people are giving an unhelpful answer to questions when they have further agreements, and I am worried about educating them. Stopping the unethical players comes after that. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 13:14:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:14:21 +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 NAA05490 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:14:13 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcivo.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.248]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA30279 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980616231438.00779c5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:14:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Blatant Redux Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A technical issue was raised in the thread "Blatant Use of UI" which I think was important enough to merit its own thread. In evaluating LA's and such in complex and possibly ambiguous situations, we are supposed to do so in the context of agreed partnership methods. Often there is no clearcut way to determine what those methods are. To what extent should we rely on the hands held by the putative offenders as a guide to their methods? For example, in a Flt A pairs game, a solid but inexpert partnership are in a competitive auction in which the opponents have bid to 3H. Opener thinks a long time before offering a double. His partner removes the double which (no surprise) is the winning decision. Without getting into the particulars of the auction, the following facts are stipulated: 1. The situation is ambiguous. The "offenders" are emphatic in their claim that the double was card-showing, but you know that many other players would treat this double as purely penalty. Naturally, there is no documentation to back up the claim for the card-showing treatment. 2. Opener's hand certainly agrees with the card-showing treatment. (say, small doubleton hearts, 17 HCP, Qxx in responder's suit which could not be shown earlier). 3. Responder's hand is such that opposite a penalty double, he has an easy decision to leave the double in, while opposite a "card-showing" double, it is clear-cut to bid on (e.g., stiff in opponent's suit). Now the problem here is to determine whether the double is actually card-showing by agreement. Is the fact that this hand happens to agree with that treatment significant? My own judgement is that it is not. In fact, we should expect, more often than not, that this will be the case. If the recipient of the UI had "guessed wrong" about his partner's intended meaning, we probably would not be asked to adjudicate the matter. But a more seasoned and respected contributor seems to think otherwise. To quote from Alan LeBendig in the original thread: >Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what their >"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and >therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy >invite. My apologies to Alan for taking his ideas out of their original context. But he seems to be arguing that the fact that hesitator's hand agrees with a particularly convenient explanation about relevant partnership understandings should be treated as dispositive in our attempt to determine partnership methods. Applied to the present problem, it means that we should accept the explanation of "card-showing", since that's obviously the type of hand that opener held. For me, that result is unsatisfactory. Yes, opener's hand suggests that he expected partner to treat his double as card-showing. But by the same token, the hesitation suggests that he was unsure that partner would do so (if the hand "screams" for the agreed card-showing double, why the hesitation?). Barring external evidence supporting their claim (e.g., system notes, a convention card, something), I'm inclined toward the judgement that this pair had no clear agreement, and that since some players would read this double as penalty, that pass is a LA, made less attractive by partner's evident uncertainty. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 19:36:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:36:39 +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 TAA06223 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:36:33 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ymEf6-0001eq-00; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:37:51 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Simultaneous plays Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:03:21 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > As I understand Law 57, it applies only when somebody plays to the > current > trick before his partner (whos it was turn) or lead to the next trick > before partner > plays the the current trick. The key words are " before partner have > played to > current trick ". > > Here, it is an other case. Partner has already play to current trick. > > ######## No. As I read the posting, Declarer made his legal lead of > H5 simultaneously with his RHO's illegal lead of a low Club (the > posting mentions both C2 and C3!) and *then* Declarer's LHO followed > with the H6. Hence, I agree with DWS that RHO has made an illegal > premature play covered by Law 57 because Law 58A deems the low Club to > be played after the H5. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 19:36:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:36:48 +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 TAA06230 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:36:42 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ymEfG-0001eq-00; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:38:01 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Agreements after insufficient bid. Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:03:22 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Juliew wrote: > Hi all, > > Was having a discussion last night about meanings of actions after an > insufficient bid. > This then developed later into a discussion as to whether this is > permissible or not. > > It has never crossed my mind that explicit agreements with partner as > to > meanings of bids in this situation would not be allowed, given that > over > any period of time, all partnerships must have implicit agreements. > > Apparently the situation has arisen somewhere in the world, where a > partnership was playing take out doubles at a low level, but after an > insufficient bid, a double was now penalties if the bid was accepted. > This > was ruled illegal. > > If it is considered illegal, I would also be interested to found out > what > Law applies here as well. > > > ######## I can see no reason whatsoever why such agreements should be > illegal. I believe that they are completely legal in EBUland subject > to proper disclosure. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 20:55:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:55:09 +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 UAA06437 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:55:03 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-159.uunet.be [194.7.14.159]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA14725 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:56:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35879921.8F30157F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:23:29 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Blatant Redux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980616231438.00779c5c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > (snip) I have not been following this thread, so I was glad to have this synopsis. I agree with Mike, and his very powerful argument : If the hand does not conform to the explanation, then we don't hear about the problem. Opponents have a good result normally. That is why we must have some form of "external" proof. Funny that in the case of hesitation and UI, this is exactly the opposite from the case of misinformation. There, if the hand fits the explanation, we never hear about it. So the hand always differs from the explanation, but bidder is quite willing to tell us that his partner was correct and his bid mistaken. There too we want an external proof. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 17 21:38:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:38:11 +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 VAA06561 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:37:59 +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 MAA06120 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:38:44 +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 MAA03046 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:38:43 +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 MAA12864 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:38:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 12:38:40 BST Message-Id: <22388.9806171138@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Agreements after insufficient bid. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Martin > > ######## I can see no reason whatsoever why such agreements should be > > illegal. I believe that they are completely legal in EBUland subject > > to proper disclosure. ########## But, no conventions are explicitly licensed for use in these circumstances; although I am sure you may have agreements about natural calls (e.g. point range, suit length). So it is reasonably clear that you can play: 1H - 1C - X as penalties, 6-10 HCP; but not so clear that you can play: 1H - 1C - X as take-out/negative; and you probably can't play: 1H - 1C - X as 5 spades. 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 Jun 18 02:06:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:06:44 +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 CAA09904 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:06:34 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-166.access.net.il [192.116.204.166]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id TAA01757; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:06:42 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3587EA7C.E24F048E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 19:10:36 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Irwin J Kostal CC: BLML Subject: Re: Strong Feelings at the Local Bridge Club References: <357F1FFD.9AB4DB2A@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear fellows I read this thread and David's thread about Frederiksberg's case. If I exclude the possibility that North (in both cases) isn't a cheater - and I exclude it for this discussion , in both cases there was a misunderstanding . Does any one think anything else ? - please get up and tell it louder !!! Why do many of our honorable and affable colleagues here think that the poor pair should be punished , if one of them tried to minimize the damage in a legal way , while his partner could understand the real meaning of that trial ?? Where is UI or any illegal action - I don't remember any Law or procedure which forbids any player to act accordingly to his best understanding of the auction and/or play on the table , around the table or under the table !!!! (as long as there wasn't any irregularity or illegal action). As long as I told you all, I think I am a very tough TD (even pedant if you"ll excuse me for lack of modesty) but i don't like to be the main actor as TD. I don't like to find ALWAYS a reason to help a side who feels damaged , if there wasn't a real damage produced by an irregularity of the other pair (or "bad" behavior). Please tell me why North should be penalized , or e-w get a better score ?????? I think that David ruled exactly as it should ..... About the reshuffling the board - as told us bellow - it is a very non reasonable reaction IMO , done by an inexperienced TD who felt that there was an unpleasant situation. I think that he must be taught that no earthquake happened and should act as any other player in that situation - for sure not to cancel or reshuffle a board for those reasons. Thank you for your patience and waiting very THIRSTY for your remarks. Dany Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > I hope this file is easily accessible for everyone. If not, I > apologize, and will do whatever is necessary to correct the situation. > > Irv > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > A hand that caused a bit of discomfort at the local Swiss the other night. I wonder what the group will make of it. > > North The Bidding > S void S W N E > H Axx P P > D 987xxxx 1N 2S 3D* P > C QJx 3H P 3S** P > 3N all pass > West East * Announced by South as a transfer (!) > S KJTxxx S 8xx ** After a long huddle > H xx H QJxxx > D Kx D QJ > C KTx C xxx > > South > S AQ9x > H Kxx > D Ax > C Axxx > > The Dramatis Personae: > > South is a genuinely nice lady, well-known in the local bridge community, who though quite experienced, is not a skillful player, and has no awareness of the niceties of Logical Alternatives or Unauthorized Information. > > North is a competent player, in his early twenties, the regular (though perhaps a bit inexperienced) director of the game, who is playing to complete the movement. That is, he has never played with South before. > > West is a quite decent player, with a somewhat irascible personality that makes him something less than universally popular. > > East was a non-participant in the discussions. > > Inasmuch as I am the local Unit President, both parties have talked to me about this incident, and I have become a sort of de facto committee of one! > > When the dummy appeared, West immediately announced that he wished to protest the board. I don't know exactly what was said at this point, but the hand was played out. The opening lead was a club to the Queen, followed by a low diamond to the jack, small(!), small. A spade from East to the Queen(!) and King, and a spade back, which South won with the ace (I am running out of exclamation points!). South now cashed the Diamond ace and took eleven tricks, at which point West announced that he DEFINITELY wanted to protest the board. Various things were said, the exact content of which is no longer clear, but West felt that he had been damaged, and North thought that he had been called a cheater, though when pressed, admitted the C-word had not actually been used. North now decided, without further discussion, to throw the board out, removed the cards from the tray and re-dealt the cards. This further incensed West, who felt he should at least be consulted. > > West maintains that North should play South for a five-card heart suit, a position that seems impossible to me; this particular south has NEVER opened 1NT with a five card major. Another school of thought believes that South should be cue-bidding with a big diamond fit, an equally improbably bid from this particular South. She just doesn't know from cue-bids-in-advance. My own feeling is, had she NOT announced the bid as a transfer, North would have figured it out anyway! > > So the question has several facets. What should North, who is expected to know the rules, do in the face of the UI about the 3H bid? What should we expect from South after the long huddle before the 3S bid? How should North, now donning his director hat, have dealt with the situation? > > Several people will be interested in everyone's comments, which I have promised to relay to them. > > Irv Kostal From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 18 03:17:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 03:17:02 +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 DAA10128 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 03:16:53 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA18504; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:17:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma018441; Wed Jun 17 12:16:59 1998 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD99F1.E32283E0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:14:41 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD99F1.E32283E0@har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Michael S. Dennis'" Subject: RE: Blatant Redux Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:14:29 -0400 Encoding: 89 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While there is considerable merit to your argument, we must remember that the original 3C-..4C-5C case involved inexperienced, unsophisticated players. The hand did quack like a duck...the pair was most unlikely to be bidding in a fashion other than what Occam's razor would indicate. There was no reason other than BL'ing to think that they were "up to somrthing." The evidence of the cards, while not in itself sufficient to outweigh other factors surely may be used to confirm the obvious as in the original case. Craig Senior ---------- From: Michael S. Dennis[SMTP:msd@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 11:14 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Blatant Redux A technical issue was raised in the thread "Blatant Use of UI" which I think was important enough to merit its own thread. In evaluating LA's and such in complex and possibly ambiguous situations, we are supposed to do so in the context of agreed partnership methods. Often there is no clearcut way to determine what those methods are. To what extent should we rely on the hands held by the putative offenders as a guide to their methods? For example, in a Flt A pairs game, a solid but inexpert partnership are in a competitive auction in which the opponents have bid to 3H. Opener thinks a long time before offering a double. His partner removes the double which (no surprise) is the winning decision. Without getting into the particulars of the auction, the following facts are stipulated: 1. The situation is ambiguous. The "offenders" are emphatic in their claim that the double was card-showing, but you know that many other players would treat this double as purely penalty. Naturally, there is no documentation to back up the claim for the card-showing treatment. 2. Opener's hand certainly agrees with the card-showing treatment. (say, small doubleton hearts, 17 HCP, Qxx in responder's suit which could not be shown earlier). 3. Responder's hand is such that opposite a penalty double, he has an easy decision to leave the double in, while opposite a "card-showing" double, it is clear-cut to bid on (e.g., stiff in opponent's suit). Now the problem here is to determine whether the double is actually card-showing by agreement. Is the fact that this hand happens to agree with that treatment significant? My own judgement is that it is not. In fact, we should expect, more often than not, that this will be the case. If the recipient of the UI had "guessed wrong" about his partner's intended meaning, we probably would not be asked to adjudicate the matter. But a more seasoned and respected contributor seems to think otherwise. To quote from Alan LeBendig in the original thread: >Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what their >"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and >therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy >invite. My apologies to Alan for taking his ideas out of their original context. But he seems to be arguing that the fact that hesitator's hand agrees with a particularly convenient explanation about relevant partnership understandings should be treated as dispositive in our attempt to determine partnership methods. Applied to the present problem, it means that we should accept the explanation of "card-showing", since that's obviously the type of hand that opener held. For me, that result is unsatisfactory. Yes, opener's hand suggests that he expected partner to treat his double as card-showing. But by the same token, the hesitation suggests that he was unsure that partner would do so (if the hand "screams" for the agreed card-showing double, why the hesitation?). Barring external evidence supporting their claim (e.g., system notes, a convention card, something), I'm inclined toward the judgement that this pair had no clear agreement, and that since some players would read this double as penalty, that pass is a LA, made less attractive by partner's evident uncertainty. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 18 09:41:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:41:39 +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 JAA11478 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:41:33 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ymRqs-0003LA-00; Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:42:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:09:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Blatant Redux In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980616231438.00779c5c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >A technical issue was raised in the thread "Blatant Use of UI" which I >think was important enough to merit its own thread. In evaluating LA's and >such in complex and possibly ambiguous situations, we are supposed to do so >in the context of agreed partnership methods. Often there is no clearcut >way to determine what those methods are. To what extent should we rely on >the hands held by the putative offenders as a guide to their methods? > >For example, in a Flt A pairs game, a solid but inexpert partnership are in >a competitive auction in which the opponents have bid to 3H. Opener thinks >a long time before offering a double. His partner removes the double which >(no surprise) is the winning decision. Without getting into the particulars >of the auction, the following facts are stipulated: > >1. The situation is ambiguous. The "offenders" are emphatic in their claim >that the double was card-showing, but you know that many other players >would treat this double as purely penalty. Naturally, there is no >documentation to back up the claim for the card-showing treatment. The EBU makes quite clear the importance of defining doubles in the documentation. Thus, I have doubts about the "Naturally". As my regular readers will be aware [!] I dislike only using part of the available evidence. A TD should look at everything, nevertheless in this case I think the lack of anything in writing highly significant. Of course, under EBU/WBU regulations, my first question is "Was the double alerted?". If the answer is no, then it is penalties! [s] >For me, that result is unsatisfactory. Yes, opener's hand suggests that he >expected partner to treat his double as card-showing. But by the same >token, the hesitation suggests that he was unsure that partner would do so >(if the hand "screams" for the agreed card-showing double, why the >hesitation?). Barring external evidence supporting their claim (e.g., >system notes, a convention card, something), I'm inclined toward the >judgement that this pair had no clear agreement, and that since some >players would read this double as penalty, that pass is a LA, made less >attractive by partner's evident uncertainty. I agree. -- David Stevenson Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm Read about my trip to Denmark in 'Frederiksberg Alle Bridge Festival' in the Bridge Events section From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 18 18:35:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA12747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:35:52 +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 SAA12742 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:35:47 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p42-m1-ch7.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.179.42]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA28807 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:36:38 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <3589DE8B.4703@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:44:11 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: On the Liighter Side Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All Thought you might like an amusing story. I'm sure you've all had a similar experience and I seem to recall someone bringing it up recently. I was directing our junior night. EW arrived at table 7. East is souths husband. Playing Acol Bidding goes N E S W p 1S p 2NT p p p 3NT p p p Making 5 West has a minimum 1S and East has a 14 count. The rest of the room is in 3NT making 5. Universal score. As she is scoring south looks up and asks "how did you get into three" At this point she calls me and says "I'm not sure how he got into three" I look at the bidding, wave a finger at east and say "I'm sorry but you can't do that" He protests that his bid was condoned. I quote Law 39, change the contract to 2NT making 5 for a bottom board. "but it was condoned" protests east."Next board" says south. As east left the table I heard words such as "conjugal rights" and "Long walk Home". I did see them having a drink together later but am not sure how she got home. regards Bruce. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 19 06:24:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 06:24:30 +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 GAA17184 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 06:24:23 +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 QAA08554 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:33:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980618162617.006e3be4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:26:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980615232759.00778520@pop.mindspring.com> References: <8He0F4Aazbh1EwzK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <199806152052.GAA21569@octavia.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:27 PM 6/15/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >With most of my partners, 2NT is Ogust. If my opponents ask what 2NT means, >I will truthfully and completely fulfill my obligation to inform by stating >that it does not _show_ anything at all, it merely requests a further >description of my hand. I do not do this to protect against a silly and >elementary psych, but because it is a complete description of our >agreements, which is what the opponents are entitled to under law. That works if you've picked up a new partner and agreed to play Ogust during your pre-session discussion of methods. But in anything approximating a regular partnership, after Ogust has come up a few times, you can't help but develop some idea (a.k.a. "implicit agreement") of what sorts of hands your partner is likely to hold when he bids it. If you continue to describe your agreement as you would with a pick-up partner, you will fall far short of "truthfully and completely fulfill[ing your] obligation to inform". It is implicit in the concept of an "asking bid" that you use it only when you care about the answer, i.e. when your subsequent action may vary depending on the response. If your methods permit an asking bid on a hand which will always take the same action regardless of how partner responds, that is definitely a "special partnership agreement" which must be disclosed (and might well be considered an "unusual and uncommon" one, alertable in ACBL play). 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 Jun 19 06:59:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 06:59:27 +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 GAA17299 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 06:59:21 +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 RAA09527 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980618170116.006ed4dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:01:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. In-Reply-To: <199806161117.XAA00121@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:11 PM 6/16/98 +1200, Julie wrote: >Was having a discussion last night about meanings of actions after an >insufficient bid. >This then developed later into a discussion as to whether this is >permissible or not. > >It has never crossed my mind that explicit agreements with partner as to >meanings of bids in this situation would not be allowed, given that over >any period of time, all partnerships must have implicit agreements. > >Apparently the situation has arisen somewhere in the world, where a >partnership was playing take out doubles at a low level, but after an >insufficient bid, a double was now penalties if the bid was accepted. This >was ruled illegal. > >If it is considered illegal, I would also be interested to found out what >Law applies here as well. Sorry, Julie, it's too late. This happened to me many years ago (BLML regulars have heard this story before). A regular partner and I, over libations one night, started musing on the theoretical meanings of various actions over an insuffient bid (e.g. 1S-1C-1S vs 1S-1C-2S vs 1S-1C rejected, then 2S over the expected 2C correction) -- not looking for bidding agreements, just discussing theory. A few weeks later an opponent made an insufficient bid, my partner accepted it and did something, and I said "alert". Opponents asked, and I recounted the theoretical discussion we had had. They called the police, and we wound up in front of an AC. I explained to the AC that we had *had* this discussion and couldn't "un-have" it, so I felt that I knew something about my partner's intentions that the opponents couldn't know, and decided that it would be better to inform them than not to. The AC told us that any agreements, even implicit agreements, about actions over insufficient bids were illegal, that we had acted illegally, that they would let us "get away with it" this time, but that *we were never to do it again*! Nobody, then or since, however, was able to articulate just what it was that we were never to do again. So if you ever decide to play in the ACBL, you will need to either find a different partner or be prepared to be automatically penalized if your *opponents* make an insufficient bid! 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 Jun 19 07:03:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:03:13 +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 HAA17323 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:03:04 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa16531; 18 Jun 98 14:03 PDT To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:26:17 PDT." <3.0.1.32.19980618162617.006e3be4@pop.cais.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 14:03:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9806181403.aa16531@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > That works if you've picked up a new partner and agreed to play Ogust > during your pre-session discussion of methods. But in anything > approximating a regular partnership, after Ogust has come up a few times, > you can't help but develop some idea (a.k.a. "implicit agreement") of what > sorts of hands your partner is likely to hold when he bids it. If you > continue to describe your agreement as you would with a pick-up partner, > you will fall far short of "truthfully and completely fulfill[ing your] > obligation to inform". > > It is implicit in the concept of an "asking bid" that you use it only when > you care about the answer, i.e. when your subsequent action may vary > depending on the response. If your methods permit an asking bid on a hand > which will always take the same action regardless of how partner responds, > that is definitely a "special partnership agreement" which must be > disclosed (and might well be considered an "unusual and uncommon" one, > alertable in ACBL play). What does this do to "fake Blackwood", where you bid Blackwood with a void, intending to ignore partner's response, but trying to induce the opponents to play you for a different kind of hand than you have? An example of this (sort of) came up in _Bridge World_'s Master Solvers Club sometime within the last year. Several panelists chose 4NT for exactly this reason; moderator Rubens thought this was a mistake but gave a different example hand where he thought 4NT would be more justified. Nobody even hinted at the possibility that this would provide illegal misinformation to the opponents. It was just accepted that this kind of thing could be done. So does this mean that if you're playing with Jeff Rubens or another MSC panelist, you must alert every use of 4NT, since partner could be kidding? (Of course, in the ACBL and some other countries, you wouldn't alert 4NT until after the auction is over, if it's made at opener's second turn or later.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 19 07:33:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:33:10 +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 HAA17404 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:33:04 +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 RAA10401 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980618173459.006f308c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:34:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Blatant Redux In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980616231438.00779c5c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:14 PM 6/16/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >A technical issue was raised in the thread "Blatant Use of UI" which I >think was important enough to merit its own thread. In evaluating LA's and >such in complex and possibly ambiguous situations, we are supposed to do so >in the context of agreed partnership methods. Often there is no clearcut >way to determine what those methods are. To what extent should we rely on >the hands held by the putative offenders as a guide to their methods? > >For example, in a Flt A pairs game, a solid but inexpert partnership are in >a competitive auction in which the opponents have bid to 3H. Opener thinks >a long time before offering a double. His partner removes the double which >(no surprise) is the winning decision. Without getting into the particulars >of the auction, the following facts are stipulated: > >1. The situation is ambiguous. The "offenders" are emphatic in their claim >that the double was card-showing, but you know that many other players >would treat this double as purely penalty. Naturally, there is no >documentation to back up the claim for the card-showing treatment. > >2. Opener's hand certainly agrees with the card-showing treatment. (say, >small doubleton hearts, 17 HCP, Qxx in responder's suit which could not be >shown earlier). > >3. Responder's hand is such that opposite a penalty double, he has an easy >decision to leave the double in, while opposite a "card-showing" double, it >is clear-cut to bid on (e.g., stiff in opponent's suit). > >Now the problem here is to determine whether the double is actually >card-showing by agreement. Is the fact that this hand happens to agree >with that treatment significant? My own judgement is that it is not. In >fact, we should expect, more often than not, that this will be the case. If >the recipient of the UI had "guessed wrong" about his partner's intended >meaning, we probably would not be asked to adjudicate the matter. > >But a more seasoned and respected contributor seems to think otherwise. To >quote from Alan LeBendig in the original thread: > >>Excellent! Why is this hard to understand? His hand screams as to what >their >>"agreement" was. They obviously each knew what this bid meant to them and >>therefore there was no demonstrable suggestion of a light invite or a heavy >>invite. > >My apologies to Alan for taking his ideas out of their original context. >But he seems to be arguing that the fact that hesitator's hand agrees with >a particularly convenient explanation about relevant partnership >understandings should be treated as dispositive in our attempt to determine >partnership methods. Applied to the present problem, it means that we >should accept the explanation of "card-showing", since that's obviously the >type of hand that opener held. > >For me, that result is unsatisfactory. Yes, opener's hand suggests that he >expected partner to treat his double as card-showing. But by the same >token, the hesitation suggests that he was unsure that partner would do so >(if the hand "screams" for the agreed card-showing double, why the >hesitation?). Barring external evidence supporting their claim (e.g., >system notes, a convention card, something), I'm inclined toward the >judgement that this pair had no clear agreement, and that since some >players would read this double as penalty, that pass is a LA, made less >attractive by partner's evident uncertainty. This argument is precisely what forced the 1997 law writers, who never intended it to be correct, to reword L16A to clarify their position. The problem with it is that it applies just as readily to the case where doubler holds a penalty double and partner leaves it in for a good score. If we follow Michael's logic, we would adjust in either case, and the hesitation itself, not any subsequent infraction, will have precluded the OS from avoiding either a poor result or an adjustment no matter what they did. If you choose (and you may well) to ignore the OS's "self-serving" statements as to what their agreement is (presumably in the absense of any corroborating evidence), then you must determine what action(s) the hesitation "demonstrably suggests" in the absense of an agreement, and you cannot decide after the fact that it "suggested" the winning action regardless of what that 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 Jun 19 16:41:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:41:08 +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 QAA18290 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:41:03 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p28.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.44]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01093; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:41:59 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980619164326.006ffa50@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:43:26 +1000 To: Herman De Wael From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <358660AA.55707F10@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980615121814.006d11c4@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:10 16/06/98 +0200, you wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >> >> South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East >> (holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the >> H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It >> is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's >> club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. >> >> Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's >> trump lead. Where to from here? I can't see any alternative but to apply >> Law 57, though obviously it was not intended to cover this situation. But >> East's play of the C2 was legally after South's trump lead, but before >> West's heart play, so becomes a defender's play out of turn at trick 3. If >> we give South his option to require West to play his highest heart (the >> ten), then West's original heart (the six) becomes a penalty card, East >> must follow suit and replace the C2 with a heart, with the C2 becoming a >> penalty card. >> >> It seems rather nonsensical to apply Law 57 to a situation it wasn't >> intended for, but what is the alternative? Any opinions? >> >> Reg. > >L57 applies to two situations : lead to the next trick or play (to this >trick). I would rule that defender has done neither. Only L49 applies. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Thank you Herman. With due deference to the EBU tournament panel, this seems to me to be the best approach in terms of equity, commonsense and consistency with the Laws. > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 19 17:29:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:29:57 +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 RAA18413 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:29:52 +1000 Received: from tripack (p46-max36.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.76.151.174]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA08252 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:31:14 +1200 Message-Id: <199806190731.TAA08252@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:28:19 +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 ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. > Date: Friday, June 19, 1998 09:01 AM > > > > Sorry, Julie, it's too late. This happened to me many years ago (BLML > regulars have heard this story before). A regular partner and I, over > libations one night, started musing on the theoretical meanings of various > actions over an insuffient bid (e.g. 1S-1C-1S vs 1S-1C-2S vs 1S-1C > rejected, then 2S over the expected 2C correction) -- not looking for > bidding agreements, just discussing theory. A few weeks later an opponent > made an insufficient bid, my partner accepted it and did something, and I > said "alert". Opponents asked, and I recounted the theoretical discussion > we had had. They called the police, and we wound up in front of an AC. > > I explained to the AC that we had *had* this discussion and couldn't > "un-have" it, so I felt that I knew something about my partner's intentions > that the opponents couldn't know, and decided that it would be better to > inform them than not to. The AC told us that any agreements, even implicit > agreements, about actions over insufficient bids were illegal, that we had > acted illegally, that they would let us "get away with it" this time, but > that *we were never to do it again*! Nobody, then or since, however, was > able to articulate just what it was that we were never to do again. > > So if you ever decide to play in the ACBL, you will need to either find a > different partner or be prepared to be automatically penalized if your > *opponents* make an insufficient bid! > > >Thanks for your replies. I would be interested to know what law you would rule under? In lead out of turn the law specifically states that the partners cannot communicate. However in the case of insufficient bid the matter is not addressed. Any established partnership must surely come to implicit agreement over time, so it would seem unusual to make agreement illegal julie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 19 18:45:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:45:09 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA18556 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:45:02 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199806190845.SAA18556@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:46:23 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA103755978; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:46:19 +0200 Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. In-Reply-To: <199806190731.TAA08252@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> from Julie Atkinson at "Jun 19, 98 07:28:19 pm" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:46:18 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1028 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Julie Atkinson: > ---------- > > From: Eric Landau > > > > Sorry, Julie, it's too late. This happened to me many years ago (BLML > > regulars have heard this story before). A regular partner and I, over > > libations one night, started musing on the theoretical meanings of > various > > actions over an insuffient bid (e.g. 1S-1C-1S vs 1S-1C-2S vs 1S-1C > > rejected, then 2S over the expected 2C correction) -- not looking for > > bidding agreements, just discussing theory. A few weeks later an > opponent > > made an insufficient bid, my partner accepted it and did something, and I > > said "alert". Opponents asked, and I recounted the theoretical > discussion > > we had had. They called the police, and we wound up in front of an AC. [..] > Any established partnership must surely come to implicit agreement over > time, so it would seem unusual > to make agreement illegal It seems to me that Julie just proved that in ACBL-Land established partnerships are illegal ;-) Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 19 22:29:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 22:29:03 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA19089 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 22:28:56 +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 IAA17692 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980619083056.006e9438@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:30:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <9806181403.aa16531@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:03 PM 6/18/98 PDT, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> It is implicit in the concept of an "asking bid" that you use it only when >> you care about the answer, i.e. when your subsequent action may vary >> depending on the response. If your methods permit an asking bid on a hand >> which will always take the same action regardless of how partner responds, >> that is definitely a "special partnership agreement" which must be >> disclosed (and might well be considered an "unusual and uncommon" one, >> alertable in ACBL play). > >What does this do to "fake Blackwood", where you bid Blackwood with a >void, intending to ignore partner's response, but trying to induce the >opponents to play you for a different kind of hand than you have? Makes it a psych (or would have, at least, back in the old days, before the ACBL turned the P-word into an epithet unfit for the ears of children) -- and a perfectly legitimate one, assuming that partner and opponents are equally misled into believing that you'd have done something else opposite a different number of aces. >An example of this (sort of) came up in _Bridge World_'s Master >Solvers Club sometime within the last year. Several panelists chose >4NT for exactly this reason; moderator Rubens thought this was a >mistake but gave a different example hand where he thought 4NT would >be more justified. Nobody even hinted at the possibility that this >would provide illegal misinformation to the opponents. It was just >accepted that this kind of thing could be done. ACBL notwithstanding, (most) experts at the MSC level understand that psychs such as this are a legitimate part of the game, and don't hesitate (at least in TBW; at the table in ACBL play, where they can anticipate being hassled for it, may be a different story) to make them when they think it's tactically appropriate. Thank goodness TBW has never bought the ACBL/Don Oakie line on psychs. >So does this mean that if you're playing with Jeff Rubens or another >MSC panelist, you must alert every use of 4NT, since partner could be >kidding? (Of course, in the ACBL and some other countries, you >wouldn't alert 4NT until after the auction is over, if it's made at >opener's second turn or later.) Of course not. But if an opponent asked you "Could he be kidding?" it would be ethically appropriate to say, if your partner were one of those who chose the psych in MSC, something along the lines of "Well, he might be; he did it in a Bridge World article..." And, if you started playing with him on a regular basis, and he made this psy... er, tactical bid at the table a couple of times, then yes, you should volunteer that information without being asked. 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 Jun 19 22:50:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 22:50:55 +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 WAA19148 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 22:50:50 +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 IAA18152 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:59:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980619085252.006e5104@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:52:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. In-Reply-To: <199806190731.TAA08252@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:28 PM 6/19/98 +1200, Julie wrote: >Any established partnership must surely come to implicit agreement over >time, so it would seem unusual >to make agreement illegal I'd say "unusual" is putting it mildly; the term I'd have used is "absolute nonsense". Nevertheless, it is what the ACBL has done. 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 Jun 19 23:32:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:32:29 +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 XAA19234 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:32:21 +1000 Message-Id: <199806191332.XAA19234@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from garfield.isode.com by woozle.isode.com (local) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:32:25 +0100 Received: from isode.com (actually brian.isode.com) by garfield.isode.com with Internet with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:32:15 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Julie Atkinson cc: bridge-laws , i.reissmann@isode.com Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:28:19 +1200." <199806190731.TAA08252@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:36:27 +0100 From: Ian Reissmann Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Any established partnership must surely come to implicit agreement over > time, so it would seem unusual > to make agreement illegal > > As the auction 1S - 1C - (accept 1C) 2S is a legal auction, it is absurd to forbid an agreement as to its meaning. The SO might wish to insist that its meaning *must* be the same as 1S - 2C - 2S. Why do SO's insist that certain legal auctions may not have agreements ? It sounds like a misguided attempt to shackle bridge lawyers' attempts to take advantage of an opponent's infraction. > So if you ever decide to play in the ACBL, you will need to either find a > different partner or be prepared to be automatically penalized if your > *opponents* make an insufficient bid! > .. and this is the end result. 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 Fri Jun 19 23:45:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:45:14 +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 XAA19264 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:45:08 +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 AA120723989; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:46:29 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA089983987; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:46:27 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:46:12 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays 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 Reg Busch wrote: =20 South is declarer in 4H. West leads the SA, then a small spade. East (holding KQx) plays the SQ, which declarer ruffs. Declarer now plays the H5, but East, thinking she has won the second spade trick, plays the C3. It is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. =20 Law 58A tells us that East's C2 play must be deemed subsequent to South's trump lead. Where to from here? I can't see any alternative but to= apply Law 57, though obviously it was not intended to cover this situation. But East's play of the C2 was legally after South's trump lead, but before West's heart play, so becomes a defender's play out of turn at trick 3. If we give South his option to require West to play his highest heart= (the ten), then West's original heart (the six) becomes a penalty card,= East must follow suit and replace the C2 with a heart, with the C2 becoming a penalty card. =20 It seems rather nonsensical to apply Law 57 to a situation it wasn't intended for, but what is the alternative? Any opinions? =20 Reg. L57 applies to two situations : lead to the next trick or play (to this trick). I would rule that defender has done neither. Only L49 applies. =20 -- =20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html =20 Thx Herman, that's what I tried to tell in a previous message. IMHO Law 57 apllies only when you play prematurely to the current trick or lead prematurely to the next, but not when you make your own subsequent OOT lead (even if before partner played). In the above example, E did not played prematurely to trick led by S. He= made his own simultaneous (subsequent according to Law 58) lead OOT. Law 49 applies. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 20 00:10:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:10:33 +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 AAA19456 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:10:20 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA14294; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:11:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.41) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014282; Fri Jun 19 09:10:46 1998 Received: by har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD9B6A.300C6800@har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:08:21 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD9B6A.300C6800@har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:08:13 -0400 Encoding: 66 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Where do we draw the line here between bridge judgement and so-called implicit agreement? If your (semi)regular partner could be expected to make the 2N Ogust inquiry on the same hand types as the majority of players of like quality and you would have the same expectations as you would playing with a decent pickup partner, would this not just be bridge judgement and not subject to disclosure? It would seem that only when partner clearly demonstrates a tendency to use this bid in a fashion significantly different from most players that you have any disclosable agreement. Certainly you should respond honestly and fully if enquiry is made as to style (though that could be to say "we have no special agreement, we play it about like everyone else plays it", and explain further only if the questioner is unfamiliar with the way the convention is normally played), but to volunteer the information would appear to be blatant UI itself. When using common devices well understood by most good players in a normal fashion without any unusual treatment and with no special agreement it would be presumptuous and extraneous to volunteer information, and would be highly disruptive to the game unless we really want 3 boards in 55 minutes, continuous director calls, and appeals committee meetings until sunrise every session. Knowing how to play bridge is NOT black magic. Let's stop burning every opponent as a witch. Craig Senior ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 4:26 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? At 11:27 PM 6/15/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >With most of my partners, 2NT is Ogust. If my opponents ask what 2NT means, >I will truthfully and completely fulfill my obligation to inform by stating >that it does not _show_ anything at all, it merely requests a further >description of my hand. I do not do this to protect against a silly and >elementary psych, but because it is a complete description of our >agreements, which is what the opponents are entitled to under law. That works if you've picked up a new partner and agreed to play Ogust during your pre-session discussion of methods. But in anything approximating a regular partnership, after Ogust has come up a few times, you can't help but develop some idea (a.k.a. "implicit agreement") of what sorts of hands your partner is likely to hold when he bids it. If you continue to describe your agreement as you would with a pick-up partner, you will fall far short of "truthfully and completely fulfill[ing your] obligation to inform". It is implicit in the concept of an "asking bid" that you use it only when you care about the answer, i.e. when your subsequent action may vary depending on the response. If your methods permit an asking bid on a hand which will always take the same action regardless of how partner responds, that is definitely a "special partnership agreement" which must be disclosed (and might well be considered an "unusual and uncommon" one, alertable in ACBL play). 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 Jun 20 01:15:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:15:19 +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 BAA21726 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:15:13 +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 LAA22015 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980619111713.006eaf0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:17:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <01BD9B6A.300C6800@har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:08 AM 6/19/98 -0400, Craig wrote: > Where do we draw the line here between bridge judgement and so-called >implicit agreement? If your (semi)regular partner could be expected to make >the 2N Ogust inquiry on the same hand types as the majority of players of >like quality and you would have the same expectations as you would playing >with a decent pickup partner, would this not just be bridge judgement and >not subject to disclosure? It would seem that only when >partner clearly demonstrates a tendency to use this bid in a fashion >significantly different from most players that you have any disclosable >agreement. Certainly you should respond honestly and fully if enquiry is >made as to style (though that could be to say "we have no special >agreement, we play it about like everyone else plays it", and explain >further only if the questioner is unfamiliar with the way the convention is >normally played), but to volunteer the information would appear to be >blatant UI itself. When using common devices well understood by most good >players in a normal fashion without any unusual treatment and with no >special agreement it would be presumptuous and extraneous to volunteer >information, and would be highly disruptive to the game unless we really >want 3 boards in 55 minutes, continuous director calls, and appeals >committee meetings until sunrise every session. Knowing how to play bridge >is NOT black magic. Let's stop burning every opponent as a witch. I agree. My point was that if you either (a) have a specific agreement that responder's rebid of 3 of opener's suit is an absolute "drop dead" bid, with no invitational implications, or (b) have made it a partnership practice to bid 2NT "preemptively" on non-invitational hands, you've entered the realm of "special agreement", and shouldn't hide behind "general knowledge and experience". I would have said, however, that one shouldn't volunteer information "when using common devices well understood by most players". "Well understood by most *good* players" is something else entirely, and not an appropriate criterion. >---------- > >From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] > >It is implicit in the concept of an "asking bid" that you use it only when >you care about the answer, i.e. when your subsequent action may vary >depending on the response. If your methods permit an asking bid on a hand >which will always take the same action regardless of how partner responds, >that is definitely a "special partnership agreement" which must be >disclosed (and might well be considered an "unusual and uncommon" one, >alertable in ACBL play). When I wrote "might well be considered... alertable", I didn't mean to say that I thought it *should* be, only that I would expect that it might well be under current (perhaps misguided) ACBL regulations. P.S. to Craig (and a few others): PLEASE DO NOT send replies to both BLML AND to the author of the message to which you are replying; it just clutters up people's e-mail with duplicate messages. 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 Jun 20 02:42:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 02:42:54 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f224.hotmail.com [207.82.251.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22088 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 02:42:49 +1000 Received: (qmail 7643 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jun 1998 16:43:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19980619164341.7642.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.64 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:43:41 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.64] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 09:43:41 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian Reissman wrote: > >Julie Atkinson wrote: >> Any established partnership must surely come to implicit agreement >> over time, so it would seem unusual >> to make agreement illegal >> >> > >As the auction 1S - 1C - (accept 1C) 2S is a legal auction, it is absurd to >forbid an agreement as to its meaning. The SO might wish to insist that its >meaning *must* be the same as 1S - 2C - 2S. > >Why do SO's insist that certain legal auctions may not have agreements ? It >sounds like a misguided attempt to shackle bridge lawyers' attempts to take >advantage of an opponent's infraction. > > >> So if you ever decide to play in the ACBL, you will need to either find a >> different partner or be prepared to be automatically penalized if your >> *opponents* make an insufficient bid! >> > >.. and this is the end result. > >Ian I don't have any comment to make on this topic that someone already has made (I'll save my opinions for another time - I have too many "contrary" opinions for this part of the ACBL already). But I think it's time to pull out the FSOR (f* sponsoring Organization Regulation) for this. Quoting from http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm#Infractions (ACBL Regulations): Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. (end quote) OK, so I do have a comment (or a question, at least): So I can't have a convention over infractions. But is "choosing to accept" the infraction a convention? It isn't "a call" or "defender's play"...(yes, I know, I have to make a call afterward). Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 20 03:27:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:27:43 +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 DAA22184 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:27:31 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr9-dialup37.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM02SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27034) with SMTP id <0EUT00MK7778KP@PM02SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 17:28:22 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:22:04 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: RE: Agreements after insufficient bid. To: BLML Message-id: <00f601bd9ba6$c8ee9fc0$251537a6@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 They let me attend the meetings of the Competitions and Conventions Committee of the ACBL--I'm a few thousand masterpoints and a couple of national championships short of being listened to, but they let me attend. The subject was discussed in the meeting in Reno. Here is the exact quote from the minutes: A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they are otherwise permitted. This seems, to me, to permit agreements regarding accepting the insufficient bid and raising or requiring correction and then raising. It might even permit allowing a "natural" cuebid of an accepted insufficient bid (1H-1C-2C shows clubs? Why not?) Of course, trying to explain all this to a third level director in the Keokuck Blue Hair Sectional on Friday afternoon might be somewhat difficult........ Chris These are just my opinions. Who would let me make "official" statements? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 20 04:29:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 04:29:58 +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 EAA22422 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 04:29:51 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA06415 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:30:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.41) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006395; Fri Jun 19 13:30:05 1998 Received: by har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD9B8E.6A44D880@har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:27:40 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD9B8E.6A44D880@har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:27:38 -0400 Encoding: 92 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies for the duplicate...forgot to delete you. My mention of "good" players was unclear. I was referring to the situation where your opponents at the table are of that class and might be expected to be aware of what standard use of the convention means. Whether novices would understand is not the question in such a case. Playing AGAINST novices you may not assume such a degree of understanding, and if they have the desire to inquire you should perhaps include the standard inferences in a reply so as not to conceal or mislead. If they do NOT ask, there is a question of whether you would confuse more by explanation. At the outside, a "would you like more information" request might be offered. I would be happy to substitute the word "experienced" for "good" though. I fully agree with you on the subject of special agreements related to a convention. Craig ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 11:17 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? At 10:08 AM 6/19/98 -0400, Craig wrote: > Where do we draw the line here between bridge judgement and so-called >implicit agreement? If your (semi)regular partner could be expected to make >the 2N Ogust inquiry on the same hand types as the majority of players of >like quality and you would have the same expectations as you would playing >with a decent pickup partner, would this not just be bridge judgement and >not subject to disclosure? It would seem that only when >partner clearly demonstrates a tendency to use this bid in a fashion >significantly different from most players that you have any disclosable >agreement. Certainly you should respond honestly and fully if enquiry is >made as to style (though that could be to say "we have no special >agreement, we play it about like everyone else plays it", and explain >further only if the questioner is unfamiliar with the way the convention is >normally played), but to volunteer the information would appear to be >blatant UI itself. When using common devices well understood by most good >players in a normal fashion without any unusual treatment and with no >special agreement it would be presumptuous and extraneous to volunteer >information, and would be highly disruptive to the game unless we really >want 3 boards in 55 minutes, continuous director calls, and appeals >committee meetings until sunrise every session. Knowing how to play bridge >is NOT black magic. Let's stop burning every opponent as a witch. I agree. My point was that if you either (a) have a specific agreement that responder's rebid of 3 of opener's suit is an absolute "drop dead" bid, with no invitational implications, or (b) have made it a partnership practice to bid 2NT "preemptively" on non-invitational hands, you've entered the realm of "special agreement", and shouldn't hide behind "general knowledge and experience". I would have said, however, that one shouldn't volunteer information "when using common devices well understood by most players". "Well understood by most *good* players" is something else entirely, and not an appropriate criterion. >---------- > >From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] > >It is implicit in the concept of an "asking bid" that you use it only when >you care about the answer, i.e. when your subsequent action may vary >depending on the response. If your methods permit an asking bid on a hand >which will always take the same action regardless of how partner responds, >that is definitely a "special partnership agreement" which must be >disclosed (and might well be considered an "unusual and uncommon" one, >alertable in ACBL play). When I wrote "might well be considered... alertable", I didn't mean to say that I thought it *should* be, only that I would expect that it might well be under current (perhaps misguided) ACBL regulations. P.S. to Craig (and a few others): PLEASE DO NOT send replies to both BLML AND to the author of the message to which you are replying; it just clutters up people's e-mail with duplicate messages. 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 Jun 20 06:44:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 06:44:29 +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 GAA22839 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 06:44:22 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yn82X-0000cn-00; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 20:45:42 +0000 Message-ID: <74WZ8vBY0si1Ew4A@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 21:42:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <01BD9B6A.300C6800@har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Where do we draw the line here between bridge judgement and so- >called implicit agreement? If your (semi)regular partner could be >expected to make the 2N Ogust inquiry on the same hand types as the >majority of players of like quality and you would have the same >expectations as you would playing with a decent pickup partner, would >this not just be bridge judgement and not subject to disclosure? It >would seem that only when partner clearly demonstrates a tendency to >use this bid in a fashion significantly different from most players >that you have any disclosable agreement. Certainly you should respond >honestly and fully if enquiry is made as to style (though that could be >to say "we have no special agreement, we play it about like everyone >else plays it", and explain further only if the questioner is >unfamiliar with the way the convention is normally played), but to >volunteer the information would appear to be blatant UI itself. When >using common devices well understood by most good players in a normal ^^^^ >fashion without any unusual treatment and with no special agreement it >would be presumptuous and extraneous to volunteer information, and >would be highly disruptive to the game unless we really want 3 boards >in 55 minutes, continuous director calls, and appeals committee >meetings until sunrise every session. Knowing how to play bridge is NOT >black magic. Let's stop burning every opponent as a witch. I am not trying to stop players doing things: I am trying to be positive, and get people to play a total information game by total information rules. Now, tell me, how do you think poor players are going to be treated by your method of not telling them things that *good* players know? Let's get back to basics. If you are a poor, inexperienced player, and you learn weak twos, you will learn that 2NT is a method of trying for game opposite them. Maybe Ogust [which Bobby Goldman has just told me is American for Blue Club responses], maybe anything. A good player comes to your table, and opens 2S: great, you know what that is! His partner bids 2NT: great, you can understand that, and now it is dangerous for you to intervene on your flat 15 count. They subside in 3S, and everyone else makes 4H your way. Do you think the opponents were ethically correct to leave you in the ignorance of assuming that an asking bid is a game try _just because *good* opponents know better_? This has nothing to do with psyching Blackwood, or anything else. It is quite clear that some pairs use 2NT regularly on weak hands, with partner not allowed to go to game, and both members of the partnership know his. It is *not* sufficient to say that 2NT asks, without mentioning that it may be very weak. ------- On another matter, we read a lot of posts here. Most are easy to read, some are not. To make them easy to read, and keep your readers happy, please use text only, no file attachments, with a right margin at no more than 72 characters. When using diagrams please never include Tabs and please use proportional fonts. It is much better if you use software that puts a > in front of any text to which you are replying. -- 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 Jun 20 08:24:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 08:24:20 +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 IAA23190 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 08:24:14 +1000 Received: from cph20.ppp.dknet.dk (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA07320 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:25:33 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 00:25:32 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <358ce507.2096094@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <74WZ8vBY0si1Ew4A@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <74WZ8vBY0si1Ew4A@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 21:42:00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >When using diagrams please never include >Tabs and please use proportional fonts. Perhaps we use different terminologies - but I think you mean please do _not_ use proportional fonts; use fixed-pitch fonts. With proportional fonts some readers with similar fonts _may_ see a reasonable layout; with fixed-pitch fonts all readers who take the trouble to select a fixed-pitch font for viewing will see the diagram correctly. (A proportional-spacing font is, in the terminology I'm used to, one where the spacing between characters is proportional to the natural width of those characters; i.e., "iii" takes up much less space than "mmm". A fixed-pitch font is one where the character spacing is the same for all characters, so that, for instance, the 43rd character of a line is always just below the 43rd character of the previous line.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 20 19:17:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 19:17:51 +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 TAA24503 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 19:17:40 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ynJnT-0003Y8-00; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:18:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 02:19:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <358ce507.2096094@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 21:42:00 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >>When using diagrams please never include >>Tabs and please use proportional fonts. > >Perhaps we use different terminologies That's a very polite way of saying I've made a total mess of it again! > - but I think you mean >please do _not_ use proportional fonts; use fixed-pitch fonts. Correct - a 'not' slipped! -- 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 Jun 20 20:25:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20:25:28 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA24645 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20:25:20 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199806201025.UAA24645@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Sat, 20 Jun 1998 12:26:42 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA288378401; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 12:26:41 +0200 Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <74WZ8vBY0si1Ew4A@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from David Stevenson at "Jun 19, 98 09:42:00 pm" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 12:26:40 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1918 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Stevenson: > Let's get back to basics. If you are a poor, inexperienced player, > and you learn weak twos, you will learn that 2NT is a method of trying > for game opposite them. Maybe Ogust [which Bobby Goldman has just told > me is American for Blue Club responses], maybe anything. A good player > comes to your table, and opens 2S: great, you know what that is! His > partner bids 2NT: great, you can understand that, and now it is > dangerous for you to intervene on your flat 15 count. They subside in > 3S, and everyone else makes 4H your way. > > Do you think the opponents were ethically correct to leave you in the > ignorance of assuming that an asking bid is a game try _just because > *good* opponents know better_? Basically, yes. If I get to play against a poor, inexperienced player it means that s/he has voluntarily entered a high level tournament where I would expect expert opponents who are familiar with a variety of approaches to the game. And if then, furthermore, that player is so inexperienced not to understand that both our convention card and "2NT is a sophisticated artificial inquiry, usually he has either a spade fit or at least game invitational strength" probably imply that we don't play the same system as s/he does, it is her/his bad luck. I don't think that I am obliged to give bridge lessons at the table. What's next? Alert if my partner makes an obvious psyche (like, say 1NT X 2D X - - 2H X - - 2S; at this point I'm quite sure CHO does have spades, not D or H)? Furthermore, if I volunteer the information that partner might try to create some confusion by bidding 2NT with a weak hand, and then s/he overcalls 2NT (thinking that this time he has a weak hand with a spade fit) and the axe falls down because this isn't one of those rare occasions where partner has psyched, s/he will probably feel having been misinformed, too. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 21 02:12:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 02:12:28 +1000 Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA27720 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 02:12:20 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcjv8.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.232]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA12010 for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 12:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980620121251.00771328@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 12:12:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980618162617.006e3be4@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980615232759.00778520@pop.mindspring.com> <8He0F4Aazbh1EwzK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <199806152052.GAA21569@octavia.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:26 PM 6/18/98 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 11:27 PM 6/15/98 -0400, Michael wrote: > >>With most of my partners, 2NT is Ogust. If my opponents ask what 2NT means, >>I will truthfully and completely fulfill my obligation to inform by stating >>that it does not _show_ anything at all, it merely requests a further >>description of my hand. I do not do this to protect against a silly and >>elementary psych, but because it is a complete description of our >>agreements, which is what the opponents are entitled to under law. > >That works if you've picked up a new partner and agreed to play Ogust >during your pre-session discussion of methods. But in anything >approximating a regular partnership, after Ogust has come up a few times, >you can't help but develop some idea (a.k.a. "implicit agreement") of what >sorts of hands your partner is likely to hold when he bids it. If you >continue to describe your agreement as you would with a pick-up partner, >you will fall far short of "truthfully and completely fulfill[ing your] >obligation to inform". > Let us suppose that Ogust typically comes up once every 2nd or 3rd session, on average. Even after I've played 100 sessions with a particular partner (enough, I would say to define a fairly regular and experienced partnership), I've probably heard an Ogust 2NT from him only about 10-15 times. We will further assume that I've never seen partner make this bid with less than game interest, and that we've never discussed the 2NT bid, other than to clarify the normal rebid structure (i.e., which of the red suit rebids shows good hand/bad suit). We still have no agreement about what 2NT shows, either implicitly or explicitly. To see this, suppose partner bids 2NT over my weak 2 in our 101st session together, and following the recommendations of you and David, I alert and explain that "2NT asks for further description, and shows at least an interest in game, presumably an opening bid or better." I make my 3D rebid (bad hand, good suit), and partner subsides in 3 of my major. After 3 passes, partner dutifully informs the opponents that my explanation is in error, since we don't actually have any agreement at all about what 2NT _shows_, and then tables a 6-count. The opponents indignantly summon the law, which happens to be you. How do you rule, mis-information or misbid? Fortunately, that is an easy call. The Laws instruct you to rule MI in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Obviously we have no real evidence to back up any claim of misbid. Partner's remark is more evidence than you really need to rule MI. And you would be right! My explanation, extrapolating a handful of experiences with this partner's treatment of 2NT, is not an accurate description of our "agreements". It cannot be the case that the Laws require me to provide mis-information. If we have not discussed what 2NT should show, then we have no agreement about it, even after years of playing together. I could be persuaded that a more complete description of the 2NT bid could be appropriate, e.g., "2NT merely asks for a further description of my hand. It says nothing about his hand." But I am unconvinced that the second sentence adds much. >It is implicit in the concept of an "asking bid" that you use it only when >you care about the answer, i.e. when your subsequent action may vary >depending on the response. If your methods permit an asking bid on a hand >which will always take the same action regardless of how partner responds, >that is definitely a "special partnership agreement" which must be >disclosed (and might well be considered an "unusual and uncommon" one, >alertable in ACBL play). > That our methods intrisically permit such a bid is inherent in the concept of Ogust. I bid 2S, partner responds 2NT (alerted, "asks for further description"), then 3C from me (alerted "weak hand, bad suit"). If partner now bids 3S, I would never, even briefly, consider moving on. Not because partner might have a 6-count (my partners don't bid this way), but because I've told my story completely, and partnership discipline requires me to respect partner's evaluation at this point. So our methods logically do permit a psychic 2NT which intends to get out at 3M regardless of opener's rebid, even though I've never seen such a psych from partner. And, obviously, our methods are both alertable and alerted. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 21 08:17:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 08:17:22 +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 IAA28536 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 08:17:17 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p32-m1-ch7.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.179.32]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA20276 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:18:11 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <358D4226.33C0@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:25:58 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Alert of non forcing response Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Situation arose in recent tournament where a non jump suit response in a previously unpassed hand was questioned and the bidder told that it should be alerted. i.e. N E S W 1D* 1H 1S * precision diamond 11-15 could be short as three. The 1S is 5-7 with 5 card spade and is non forcing. OR 1H 1S 2C where the 2C is 5-7 with 5 card suit. Do these bids have to be alerted and if so why? Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. Regards Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 21 09:38:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:38:08 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA28632 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:38:03 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.68.9.125]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980620233856.ZMR25087@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 23:38:56 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 19:36:48 -0400 Message-ID: <01bd9ca4$4b079680$7d09440c@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 B A Small wrote: >Hi all > >Situation arose in recent tournament where a non jump suit response in a >previously unpassed hand was questioned and the bidder told that it >should be alerted. i.e. >N E S W >1D* 1H 1S * precision diamond 11-15 could be short as three. >The 1S is 5-7 with 5 card spade and is non forcing. >OR >1H 1S 2C where the 2C is 5-7 with 5 card suit. Do these bids have to >be alerted and if so why? Your comments and thoughts would be >appreciated. ****** Seems to me that both bids are alertable because of the limited point range. In standard, these bids are unlimited. It is their "limited" strength that makes them alertable. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 21 10:51:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:51:25 +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 KAA28765 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:51:18 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ynXjk-000227-00; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 00:12:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 00:10:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response In-Reply-To: <358D4226.33C0@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >Situation arose in recent tournament where a non jump suit response in a >previously unpassed hand was questioned and the bidder told that it >should be alerted. i.e. >N E S W >1D* 1H 1S * precision diamond 11-15 could be short as three. >The 1S is 5-7 with 5 card spade and is non forcing. >OR >1H 1S 2C where the 2C is 5-7 with 5 card suit. Do these bids have to >be alerted and if so why? Your comments and thoughts would be >appreciated. Alerting is a matter of regulation, and thus depends on where you are [please may I repeat my request for posters to give their country/state: city/town as well would be nice]. I am sorry to tell you that I have the alerting regulations for England/Wales: for NAmerica: for Australia: but nowhere else. I presume from your e-dress that you are in NZ, so the answer is that it depends on NZ alerting regulations. Note that this is the answer to 'Why?': it depends on the regulations. OK, Patrick, please tell us about your 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 Sun Jun 21 11:12:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 11:12:13 +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 LAA28803 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 11:12:08 +1000 Received: from tripack (p56-max9.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.76.150.56]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA01071 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 13:13:33 +1200 Message-Id: <199806210113.NAA01071@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 13:10:45 +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 ---------- > From: JApfelbaum > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response > Date: Sunday, June 21, 1998 11:36 AM > > B A Small wrote: > > > >Hi all > > > >Situation arose in recent tournament where a non jump suit response in a > >previously unpassed hand was questioned and the bidder told that it > >should be alerted. i.e. > >N E S W > >1D* 1H 1S * precision diamond 11-15 could be short as three. > >The 1S is 5-7 with 5 card spade and is non forcing. > >OR > >1H 1S 2C where the 2C is 5-7 with 5 card suit. Do these bids have to > >be alerted and if so why? Your comments and thoughts would be > >appreciated. > > ****** > > Seems to me that both bids are alertable because of the limited point range. > In standard, these bids are unlimited. It is their "limited" strength that > makes them alertable. > > Jay Apfelbaum > Pittsburgh, PA I would think that it is alertable because it is non-forcing. The law requires that any bid that has a meaning that the opponents cannot reasonably be expected to understand is alertable. Most opps would think that the bid is forcing. Julie From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 21 18:46:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 18:46:45 +1000 Received: from nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.64.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29526 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 18:46:38 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199806210846.SAA29526@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:48:02 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA238728880; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:48:01 +0200 Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response In-Reply-To: <358D4226.33C0@xtra.co.nz> from B A Small at "Jun 21, 98 10:25:58 am" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:48:00 +0200 (CES) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 825 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to B A Small: > Situation arose in recent tournament where a non jump suit response in a > previously unpassed hand was questioned and the bidder told that it > should be alerted. i.e. > N E S W > 1D* 1H 1S * precision diamond 11-15 could be short as three. > The 1S is 5-7 with 5 card spade and is non forcing. > OR > 1H 1S 2C where the 2C is 5-7 with 5 card suit. Do these bids have to > be alerted and if so why? Your comments and thoughts would be > appreciated. I expect that those bids are alertable under most regulations because their meaning differs in a very unexpected way from what the opponents usually would expect. 1D* 1H 1S 4+ spades, 6+HCP, forcing. 1H 1S 2C 4+ clubs, 9+ HCP, forcing, usually forcing up to 2NT or even up to game. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 22 06:04:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 06:04:38 +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 GAA03243 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 06:04:31 +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 QAA17775 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980621160651.006ea580@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:06:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <74WZ8vBY0si1Ew4A@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <01BD9B6A.300C6800@har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:42 PM 6/19/98 +0100, David wrote: > This has nothing to do with psyching Blackwood, or anything else. It >is quite clear that some pairs use 2NT regularly on weak hands, with >partner not allowed to go to game, and both members of the partnership >know his. It is *not* sufficient to say that 2NT asks, without >mentioning that it may be very weak. It's almost never sufficient to describe an agreement as a pure asking bid, as it almost always bears some implied message, at least, by either agreement or practice, of which partner is aware. This may be an area that the active-ethics folks should consider doing their thing on. I'm as fanatic as they come on disliking practices that make our games even slower than they are, but I don't see that it helps the pace all that much to describe a bid as "Roman key-card Blackwood" when the properly ethical response would be "Roman key-card Blackwood, presumably agreeing spades". There are exceptions at the extreme, of course; I am content to describe partner's opening 4NT bid as "asking for aces" without feeling the need to indicate what sort of hand type partner might hold. But these are exceptions. For instance, it is common and accepted practice in my area to (alert, then) describe a 2S response to 1NT, in a structure which I and several other locals use, but which is not commonly played or generally known, as "asking for size", and a subsequent 2NT rebid by opener as "showing a minimum". These descriptions are truthful, legal, and viewed as ethical (if perhaps not, by those who concern themselves with the niceties, "actively ethical"), but are, IMO, woefully inadequate. I describe 2S as "showing either an invitation in notrump with no interest in majors or a hand of any strength with long clubs", and 2NT as "saying that if I have a notrump invitation, he wants to play 2NT". I find this a particularly egregious example because the common explanation, it seems to me, could well leave the opponents unaware that 2NT can be passed. We can describe the original subject 2NT bid as either "asking for a feature" (or "further description", for Ogust), or, alternatively, as "showing invitational strength and asking for a feature" or "either invitational or purely competitive, asking for a feature" or whatever best describes it (even, at the risk of running afoul of another thread, as "probably invitational and asking for a feature, but we made no agreement about strength, so he might consider it systemic to use it with a weak hand", if that's the situation). I see no reason to believe that the former might be the preferable approach. 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 Jun 22 06:50:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 06:50:36 +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 GAA03299 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 06:50:29 +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 QAA18262 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980621165244.006f1e2c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:52:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980620121251.00771328@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980618162617.006e3be4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980615232759.00778520@pop.mindspring.com> <8He0F4Aazbh1EwzK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <199806152052.GAA21569@octavia.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:12 PM 6/20/98 -0400, Michael wrote: >Let us suppose that Ogust typically comes up once every 2nd or 3rd session, >on average. Even after I've played 100 sessions with a particular partner >(enough, I would say to define a fairly regular and experienced >partnership), I've probably heard an Ogust 2NT from him only about 10-15 >times. We will further assume that I've never seen partner make this bid >with less than game interest, and that we've never discussed the 2NT bid, >other than to clarify the normal rebid structure (i.e., which of the red >suit rebids shows good hand/bad suit). > >We still have no agreement about what 2NT shows, either implicitly or >explicitly. To see this, suppose partner bids 2NT over my weak 2 in our >101st session together, and following the recommendations of you and David, >I alert and explain that "2NT asks for further description, and shows at >least an interest in game, presumably an opening bid or better." I make my >3D rebid (bad hand, good suit), and partner subsides in 3 of my major. >After 3 passes, partner dutifully informs the opponents that my explanation >is in error, since we don't actually have any agreement at all about what >2NT _shows_, and then tables a 6-count. I might phrase it a bit more delicately, something like "2NT asks for further description, and our practice is to use it on hands with an interest in game", but, essentially, I have no quarrel with the description as written. >The opponents indignantly summon the law, which happens to be you. How do >you rule, mis-information or misbid? Fortunately, that is an easy call. The >Laws instruct you to rule MI in the absence of evidence to the contrary. >Obviously we have no real evidence to back up any claim of misbid. >Partner's remark is more evidence than you really need to rule MI. And you >would be right! My explanation, extrapolating a handful of experiences with >this partner's treatment of 2NT, is not an accurate description of our >"agreements". After the player has offered the same facts as those Mike provides above (and I have no reason to disbelieve him), I rule "psych, no problem". (Although these days I will probably have to add a mini-lecture on "psychs are perfectly legal".) Of course, if he does the same thing again at my game tomorrow, I will rule MI. >It cannot be the case that the Laws require me to provide mis-information. >If we have not discussed what 2NT should show, then we have no agreement >about it, even after years of playing together. I could be persuaded that a >more complete description of the 2NT bid could be appropriate, e.g., "2NT >merely asks for a further description of my hand. It says nothing about his >hand." But I am unconvinced that the second sentence adds much. The point of the concept of "implicit agreement" is that it is not mis-information (indeed, it is information properly subject to disclosure) to describe not only your explicit agreement, but also your history of partnership practice. It's of course appropriate to distinguish them in your explanation, but, as in the example above, failure to fully communicate that particular fine distinction doesn't necessarily demand a ruling of MI. If you have an agreement that 2NT says nothing about the bidder's hand, it certainly isn't MI, and can do no harm, to include that when stating your agreements; IMO this is what full disclosure requires, given that this is not, high-level expert practice notwithstanding, a particularly common agreement. That sentence will add no information for some opponents, not much for others, and a great deal for a few. Who can get hurt? >That our methods intrisically permit such a bid is inherent in the concept >of Ogust. I bid 2S, partner responds 2NT (alerted, "asks for further >description"), then 3C from me (alerted "weak hand, bad suit"). If partner >now bids 3S, I would never, even briefly, consider moving on. Not because >partner might have a 6-count (my partners don't bid this way), but because >I've told my story completely, and partnership discipline requires me to >respect partner's evaluation at this point. I'm sure that the logic of responding with Ogust is obviously inherent in the fundamental nature of Ogust, and is well understood by Mike and by anyone else who plays Ogust and has taken the time to work out those implications. Just how obvious is it, though, to a pair who doesn't play or understand Ogust, and who is likely to make the natural assumption that "asks for a further description" implies holding a hand that cares about a further description? We can deplore the fact that so many players these days are taught the mechanics of popular conventions without ever learning their intrinsic logic, we can even argue that that should be their lookout, thus we should require less in the way of full disclosure (we come to play, not to teach expert methods and practices to novice opponents). But whatever we choose to argue, we have rules requiring full disclosure, and those rules don't suggest leaving mutual partnership understandings as to the implications, subtle or otherwise, of the fundamental nature of our conventions unstated. >So our methods logically do permit a psychic 2NT which intends to get out >at 3M regardless of opener's rebid, even though I've never seen such a >psych from partner. And, obviously, our methods are both alertable and alerted. A final example: Throughout this entire discussion, it has been left unstated, presumably as implicit in the fundamental nature of the method Mike describes, the somewhat obvious fact that the range of hand types on which responder will bid 2NT is very different depending on whether the opening bid was 2H or 2S. I submit that few if any, even among devotees of Ogust, would consider that as common or usual practice, much less infer it from "asks for further description". 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 Jun 22 09:44:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:44:21 +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 JAA03554 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:44:15 +1000 Received: from client25cb.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.203] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yntnl-0003E6-00; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:45:38 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:36:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd9d6d$5c829620$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: Reg Busch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 6:54 AM Subject: Simultaneous plays > It is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not noticing East's >club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. I am interested to not the "It is agreed." Which players agreed? West cannot have agreed because it is said that he did not notice. Declarer and dummy are the two of import who are left to agree with the claim that it was simultaneous. It is advantageous for the declaring side to agree simultaneous or subsequent rather than previous to the correct lead which is of course only a LOOT. Otherwise as David suggests we have a ROOT assuming always that East did in fact have a trump. We have not been told, and at the point of ruling we do not have a need to know. I suspect that Dec looks left as soon as he has played towards dummy, so he is not really in a position to be sure. Dummy is the person most likely to notice the timing. So for the moment I will assume there is some doubt ( I know there was agreement). Law 57 is intended to protect Dec from UI by premature play by an opp whose turn it was not. Imagine the case where East was in fact devoid of trumps. It may cartainly be an advantage for West to know this before he plays to the trick. As Directors we are not surely intended examine the hands in order to make a ruling of Law enabling the play of the hand. We should understand that where a card is played either simultaneously, or subsequently to a legal lead we should apply Law 57/58A. I can see the reason for this. I can understand those who would prefer to apply Law 49 to this situation, but I cannot agree with them. I apply Law 57/58A and allow Dec the right to chose higher/lower etc. As a final thought, I can remember at least two occasions in 17 years that my pard has followed in an anti-clockwise direction to a trick. It is more likely to happen when Decs line of play is marked, e.g leading a trump towards dummy. I understand that in this example this is probably not a case of disorientated East. However without doubt I am going to rule Law 57/58A, and not Law 49. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 22 17:37:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:37:59 +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 RAA04338 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:37:49 +1000 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:06:26 +0200 Message-ID: <358E10B8.4C5F@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:07:20 +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 Discussion List Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. References: <3.0.1.32.19980619085252.006e5104@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 07:28 PM 6/19/98 +1200, Julie wrote: > > >Any established partnership must surely come to implicit agreement over > >time, so it would seem unusual > >to make agreement illegal > > I'd say "unusual" is putting it mildly; the term I'd have used is "absolute > nonsense". Nevertheless, it is what the ACBL has done. > By the way... In the European Bridge League there is the same "nonsense". At least Antonio Riccardi (one of the big TD at european events) told me so a few years ago. Is it still true? -- Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 22 23:53:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 23:53:26 +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 XAA05061 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 23:53:19 +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 AA239453678; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:54:39 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA184583670; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:54:30 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:54:21 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Alert of non forcing response 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 Objet: Alert of non forcing response =20 Hi all =20 Situation arose in recent tournament where a non jump suit response in a previously unpassed hand was questioned and the bidder told that it should be alerted. i.e. =20 N E S W =20 1D* 1H 1S * precision diamond 11-15 could be short as three. The 1S is 5-7 with 5 card spade and is non forcing. =20 OR 1H 1S 2C where the 2C is 5-7 with 5 card suit. Do these bids have to be alerted and if so why? Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. =20 Regards =20 Bruce =20 Depends where you play. Alerts are ruled by local authorities. =20 In ACBL land you should alert. First line of ACBL Alert Chart says you must alert natural bids if " unusual strength, shape or limitations ". In " standard " systems, these bids show more than 5-7 and are forcing. =20 Playing negative free bids with most partners, a new suit by responder, after an overcall, is also non forcing (between 2C to 3D). We always alert. =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 00:57:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:57:46 +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 AAA07510 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:57:38 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yo83e-0000PT-00; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:58:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:46:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Declarer plays from both hands MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from his hand onto the table. RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change his club king? -- 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 Jun 23 01:29:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:29:37 +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 BAA07600 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:29:30 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA25680 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:30:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025616; Mon Jun 22 10:29:46 1998 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD9DD0.B47EA900@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:27:14 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD9DD0.B47EA900@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:27:11 -0400 Encoding: 125 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 4:42 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? I am not trying to stop players doing things: I am trying to be positive, and get people to play a total information game by total information rules. Now, tell me, how do you think poor players are going to be treated by your method of not telling them things that *good* players know? ##### Have I made myself that unclear? Of course the weaker players must be informed of the methods in use even if you must bend a little over backwards to do so. But it should not be necessary to do so for the experienced players. And the sequence in question does a fine job of offering the information through the normal alert process in North America.##### Let's get back to basics. If you are a poor, inexperienced player, and you learn weak twos, you will learn that 2NT is a method of trying for game opposite them. ##### You will only learn this from a poor teacher. It is a method of obtaining more information, with proceeding toward game one option in many cases if you get the "right" information. Weak twos are now so standard that some new players are unfamiliar with the strong two bid. They should be taught correctly however; the 2N bid does not tell anything, it merely asks. And it maintains captaincy with the responder who makes the asking bid. :-)##### Maybe Ogust [which Bobby Goldman has just told me is American for Blue Club responses] ##### It requests information as to suit quality and hand strength within the range of the weak two bid. 3C generally show weak-weak and 3S strong-strong. There are two ways of playing the red suit responses, but the majority play 3D as weak hand good suit. Good suit is generally thought to be 6 cards with 2 of the top three or sometimes 3 of the five honours. Good hand would be in the upper half of the agreed point range. (Playing 5-10 weak 2's would be 8-10). Is this the same in Blue?##### , maybe anything. A good player comes to your table, and opens 2S: great, you know what that is! ##### Do you really? Then you have probably looked at the convention card or asked, since some play it promises 5-9 HCP and a five card or longer suit while others play it as 6-11 with a six card suit and 2 of three top honours, and still others play it as varying by position and vulnerability (potentially much weaker third seat at green aka white against red).##### His partner bids 2NT: great, you can understand that, and now it is dangerous for you to intervene on your flat 15 count. ##### Yes, you CAN understand that. It is an asking bid; you know you will get another chance to bid. If you are unclear on your action, you can wait, listen and learn more. You will be no worse off than if they had simply used a continuation of preempt if the hand is really yours, and you may avoid going for a silly number when you should be defending their stretchy game. ##### They subside in 3S, and everyone else makes 4H your way. ##### Then perhaps you AND partner are not paying attention. The 3C (or whatever) response will be alerted. If you do NOT understand its meaning, ASK. If partner has some values, he can double the artificial response or bid hearts directly. If he has none opposite you, you don't have such a clearcut 4H with that flat 15. ##### Do you think the opponents were ethically correct to leave you in the ignorance of assuming that an asking bid is a game try _just because *good* opponents know better_? ##### If they might have any reason to believe that you thought it was a game try, no. But why should they expect you to assume that? Playing Ogust, 2N is NOT a game try...it is solely a request for information. Perhaps it is an attempt to assess the defensive capacity against that 4H opponents are so certain to bid, and see if the sac is viable. Opener does not know what it means, so defenders have no greater right to know. Responder is the only one privy to the knowledge of what his hand contains; he need not convey that information to the opponents when he has not done so for his partner's benefit. ##### This has nothing to do with psyching Blackwood, or anything else. It is quite clear that some pairs use 2NT regularly on weak hands, with partner not allowed to go to game, and both members of the partnership know (t)his. It is *not* sufficient to say that 2NT asks, without mentioning that it may be very weak. ##### If partner is not allowed to go on to game to control against a neo-psychic 2N ask, I can see some merit to your argument. But partner is not barred for that reason in ordinary Ogust play...he is to keep his mouth closed because the asking bid places captaincy with responder. Respnder (the 2N asking bidder) is the one who has the putatively accurate information as to combined partnership assets, just as a Blackwood bidder is the one who knows the number of aces in the two hands combined. (I would be surprised to hear an auction of 2S-2N-3C-3S-4S just as much as an auction of 1S-3S-4S-4N-5C-5S-6S.)##### ##### In summary, to use an asking device with the sole intent of deceiving the unwary novices in the field would be reprehensible. To use a bidding system for a combination of preemptive and constructive auctions based upon clearly defined and generally understood agreements as to information exchange and hand captaincy is valid.It should not ne necessary customarily to volunteer information about this relatively standard approach in areas in which and among peers for whom this would be a standard. The disclosures of the convention card and the alert procedure appear to adequately address the goal of providing opponents with as much information concerning each bid as the partner's bidder may be expected to have from agreement. Volunteering additional information appears to have severe UI implications as well as burdening the game with excessive delay. While making extra effort to avoid confusing novices with the stamina to pay up is commendable, it is a rather Kiplingesque taking up of a burden, is it not? ##### ------- On another matter, we read a lot of posts here. Most are easy to read, some are not. To make them easy to read, and keep your readers happy, please use text only, no file attachments, with a right margin at no more than 72 characters. When using diagrams please never include Tabs and please#####do not##### use proportional fonts. It is much better if you use software that puts a > in front of any text to which you are replying. ##### Agreed. My newsreader software has that option. This email program lacks it, sadly. The next one I get will have it. I am using the number signs as others, including Grattan Endicott who also seem to have >deprived email programs have been doing, and hope it is some help.##### Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 02:01:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:01:35 +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 CAA07856 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:01:26 +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 RAA19786 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:02:40 +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 RAA18236 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:02:40 +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 RAA17502 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:02:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 98 17:02:37 BST Message-Id: <23181.9806221602@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David asks: > > A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from > his hand onto the table. RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change > his club king? > No. L45C2 applies. Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. The second sentence of L48A does not apply ("puts" is not "dropped") Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally. I hesitate to ask WTP (so I won't?) 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 Jun 23 02:24:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:24:08 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f24.hotmail.com [207.82.250.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA07899 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:24:02 +1000 Received: (qmail 25332 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jun 1998 16:24:56 -0000 Message-ID: <19980622162456.25331.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.128.163 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:24:56 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.128.163] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:24:56 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok, I'll try my hand at getting this common one wrong. This is one of my pet horrors, so if I come across a little agressive... >From: David Stevenson > A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >his hand onto the table. RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change >his club king? I have two thoughts about this. I would like to say he can't, as he has not accidentally dropped the king; but reading the FLB, the only thing I can see that talks about declarer playing from both hands is L57C. It does not say explicitly that "declarer playing from both hands" is allowable procedure, but neither does it explicitly disallow it. So, either: it is allowable procedure, declarer has played from both hands, and he cannot retract the play (L47E); or it is not allowable, I deem declarer to have exposed a card, and there is no penalty (48A). Declarer now plays to the trick in proper turn. My belief is that the card is not played (though I would like to be proved wrong), however; if I were RHO, I would wait for my partner to play (which he is allowed to do), then play my ace, for then the laws say explicitly that declarer has played. And if I were director, even if I allowed the change, I would read to declarer proper procedure (L44B) and the dreaded L72A1, L72B1-2, and L74A3, and warn declarer that continued failure to conform to proper procedure will be penalized. So, in how many ways am I wrong? Michael ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 02:38:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:38:31 +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 CAA07934 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:38:26 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr17-dialup50.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM02SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27034) with SMTP id <0EUY000KDOXFX3@PM02SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:39:18 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:32:48 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands To: BLML Message-id: <00af01bd9dfb$67be0360$321737a6@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 David wrote: >A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >his hand onto the table. RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change >his club king? No. If declarer hasn't the wit to wait for RHO to play, the laws don't give it to him. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 02:47:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:47:51 +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 CAA07963 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 02:46:30 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA17165 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:47:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017145; Mon Jun 22 11:47:11 1998 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD9DDB.8110C340@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:44:32 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD9DDB.8110C340@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:44:31 -0400 Encoding: 115 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Sunday, June 21, 1998 4:52 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? (snip) If you have an agreement that 2NT says nothing about the bidder's hand, it certainly isn't MI, and can do no harm, to include that when stating your agreements; IMO this is what full disclosure requires, given that this is not, high-level expert practice notwithstanding, a particularly common agreement. ##### Are you quite serious Eric? For the past 15 years or so this has been THE common agreement among experienced players I've encountered. And we are playing in the same general area. I don't know about you, but I am no high level expert. I would expect to find this agreement in a vast majority of B pairs. ##### That sentence will add no information for some opponents, not much for others, and a great deal for a few. Who can get hurt? ##### It's no more irritating or pointless than the just discontinued alert of 1C-1H that could bypass a 5 card diamond suit or the alert of Stayman in EBU. But is it really necessary or just another annoyance (like announcing transfer) that make the games less enjoyable for most. If you want to play up, learn what you are playing against or ask when you need to...don't expect to be babied. Besides, it is too easy to be patronising in providing information that most should know. ##### (Mike) >That our methods intrisically permit such a bid is inherent in the concept >of Ogust. I bid 2S, partner responds 2NT (alerted, "asks for further >description"), then 3C from me (alerted "weak hand, bad suit"). If partner >now bids 3S, I would never, even briefly, consider moving on. Not because >partner might have a 6-count (my partners don't bid this way), but because >I've told my story completely, and partnership discipline requires me to >respect partner's evaluation at this point. (Eric) I'm sure that the logic of responding with Ogust is obviously inherent in the fundamental nature of Ogust, and is well understood by Mike and by anyone else who plays Ogust and has taken the time to work out those implications. Just how obvious is it, though, to a pair who doesn't play or understand Ogust, ####(rara avis?)##### and who is likely to make the natural assumption that "asks for a further description" implies holding a hand that cares about a further description? ##### Making totally unwarranted assumptions about systems you do not understand is foolish. Am I entitled to a five minute lesson on negative inferences associated with each bid in a Blue canape auction? Whether or not I want or desire the lecture? Yet even if I don't ask I shouldn't make the same assumptions I would if two nice elderly ladies were playing strong-2 4 card major 1946 Goren. If they are playing Acol I do not assume 5 card majors and weak twos. If I do not know what is going on, I can ask. If it goes on frequently with my opponents I should learn some of it. If I don't want to develop my knowledge of the bidding process I should take up Old Maid or Go Fish.##### We can deplore the fact that so many players these days are taught the mechanics of popular conventions without ever learning their intrinsic logic, we can even argue that that should be their lookout, thus we should require less in the way of full disclosure (we come to play, not to teach expert methods and practices to novice opponents). But whatever we choose to argue, we have rules requiring full disclosure, and those rules don't suggest leaving mutual partnership understandings as to the implications, subtle or otherwise, of the fundamental nature of our conventions unstated. >So our methods logically do permit a psychic 2NT which intends to get out >at 3M regardless of opener's rebid, even though I've never seen such a >psych from partner. And, obviously, our methods are both alertable and alerted. A final example: Throughout this entire discussion, it has been left unstated, presumably as implicit in the fundamental nature of the method Mike describes, the somewhat obvious fact that the range of hand types on which responder will bid 2NT is very different depending on whether the opening bid was 2H or 2S. I submit that few if any, even among devotees of Ogust, would consider that as common or usual practice, much less infer it from "asks for further description". ##### Why not? You don't use Blackwood to ask for aces if your suit is clubs and you have just one ace. That's beginner level bridge. So is not using Ogust over 2H if you cannot commit to the 4 level over a 3S response. That is a normal, basic, inference from the information given.##### ##### Many developing players are deterred from serious involvement in bridge by the complexities of the alert and disclosure provisions. While the effort to protect against the "sharpie" who wants to win by using secret agreements is important, its impact on the game must be kept to a minimum, lest there be no one left to protect. If you want to play bridge with the big boys, you have some responsibility to learn the game...and that includes normal inferences from commonly used bidding systems. I am most shaky in my defence against Multi and no nothing about how to deal with Muiderberg (sp?) because of geography. Were I Nederlandisch rather than American, I would expect to have some knowledge of this if I wanted to keep playing. I would not expect to explain all the negative inferences of Standard American bidding to a visiting Acol player (though upon request I would gladly expalin those available from system rather that from the contents of my hand). I do not think a Precision pair must constantly explain the many inferences that derive from a limited opening. Constantly explaining that an asking bid does not promise anything more than what common sense would dictate is needless and an impediment to the game. If a bid is to be taken as having a meaning substantially different from what might otherwise be expected it should be alerted (or be self alerting if a cue or at high level). Superfluous volunteered information should be discouraged as a general practice, but courteous indications that "you might want to ask" to a less experienced pair should be the marked exception to this rule. Your ethics in trying to fully inform the opponents are excellent. But there can be such a thing as too much of a good thing. Saying more than is needful can even mislead and confuse, as others on this thread have already exemplified. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 03:32:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:32:01 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08029 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:31:54 +1000 Received: from bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.69]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA21914 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:33:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806221733.NAA06987@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01BD9DD0.B47EA900@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com> (message from Craig Senior on Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:27:11 -0400) Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior writes: > From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] [2S-2NT(on a bust)-3C-3S] >> They subside in 3S, and everyone else makes 4H your way. > ##### Then perhaps you AND partner are not paying attention. The 3C (or > whatever) response will be alerted. 3C is not alertable if it shows a club feature; it is natural in the context of the previous bidding. If it is Ogust, it is alertable. > If you do NOT understand its meaning, > ASK. If partner has some values, he can double the artificial response or > bid hearts directly. If he has none opposite you, you don't have such a > clearcut 4H with that flat 15. ##### I don't see how an explanation will help you much. Partner needs good hearts to bid 3H over 3C, whatever it means, because the opponents know more about the quality of their fit and will be in better position to decide whether to double. After an Ogust 3C (bad suit, bad hand), opener cannot reasonably go on to game after responder signs off in 3S. This doesn't create the psyching problem by itself, as long as opener can go on after bidding 3D or 3H. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 04:33:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 04:33:23 +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 EAA08202 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 04:33:15 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h32.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id WAA28182; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:34:26 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <358F3E52.431A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:34:10 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi David:) You are kidding, aren't you? of course - declarer cannot change - so by Law (L45C2) as by Legend. Even in case this card was played by Declarer prematurely - it was an ordinary bridge mistake (he planned to play this card in his mind) - and nobody is allowed to correct such mistakes:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 06:33:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:33:08 +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 GAA08398 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:33:00 +1000 Received: from default (cph33.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.33]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA22591 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:34:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199806222034.WAA22591@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:35:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson challenged us: > A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from > his hand onto the table. Let us assume that the TD has ruled this was not an accident. It is then a play of the club king, since L45C2 does not seem to exempt a play OOT. > RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change > his club king? No. L47F. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 06:34:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:34:49 +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 GAA08406 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:33:28 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA17762; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:34:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.54) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017690; Mon Jun 22 15:33:27 1998 Received: by har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD9DFB.1E861DE0@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:30:51 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD9DFB.1E861DE0@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'David Grabiner'" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:30:48 -0400 Encoding: 49 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Grabiner[SMTP:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 9:33 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blatant use of UI?? Craig Senior writes: > From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] [2S-2NT(on a bust)-3C-3S] >> They subside in 3S, and everyone else makes 4H your way. > ##### Then perhaps you AND partner are not paying attention. The 3C (or > whatever) response will be alerted. 3C is not alertable if it shows a club feature; it is natural in the context of the previous bidding. If it is Ogust, it is alertable. &&&&& The comment referred specifically to an Ogust auction. There is more danger of the bid meaning other than normal if 2N seeking feature can be on garbage. I could make an argument for the 2N bid being alertable in that case.&&&&& > If you do NOT understand its meaning, > ASK. If partner has some values, he can double the artificial response or > bid hearts directly. If he has none opposite you, you don't have such a > clearcut 4H with that flat 15. I don't see how an explanation will help you much. Partner needs good hearts to bid 3H over 3C, whatever it means, because the opponents know more about the quality of their fit and will be in better position to decide whether to double. &&&&& Quite true. But for 4 hearts to be laydown opposite a flat 15 partner would have to have prety good hearts, wouldn't he? &&&&& After an Ogust 3C (bad suit, bad hand), opener cannot reasonably go on to game after responder signs off in 3S. This doesn't create the psyching problem by itself, as long as opener can go on after bidding 3D or 3H. &&&&& It would be less unreasonable, but still a violation of partnership trust and hand captaincy. It would require a most unusual hand, one that responder could not have envisioned in signing off. Perhaps QJT9xx x Ax KJT9 for example could go on needing a swing. &&&&& Craig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 07:01:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 07:01:48 +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 HAA08527 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 07:01:42 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcjqt.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.93]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA18361 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980622170221.00775530@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:02:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: blatant use of UI?? In-Reply-To: <01BD9DD0.B47EA900@har-pa1-22.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:27 AM 6/22/98 -0400, Craig wrote: >##### In summary, to use an asking device with the sole intent of deceiving >the unwary novices in the field would be reprehensible. To use a bidding >system for a combination of preemptive and constructive auctions based upon >clearly defined and generally understood agreements as to information >exchange and hand captaincy is valid.It should not ne necessary customarily >to volunteer information about this relatively standard approach in areas >in which and among peers for whom this would be a standard. The >disclosures of the convention card and the alert procedure appear to >adequately address the goal of providing opponents with as much information >concerning each bid as the partner's bidder may be expected to have from >agreement. Volunteering additional information appears to have severe UI >implications as well as burdening the game with excessive delay. While >making extra effort to avoid confusing novices with the stamina to pay up >is commendable, it is a rather Kiplingesque taking up of a burden, is it >not? ##### > ------- Cool word! Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 09:51:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:51:45 +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 JAA09027 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:51:33 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoGOP-0002d1-00; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 23:52:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:50:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >his hand onto the table. RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change >his club king? > I'll stake my faith on L48a "... Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally." It was played a-purpose. L45C2 applies. Also 47F "Except as provided in A through E preceding, a card once played may not be withdrawn." I'd therefore rule he is required to play in this instance. However it is not as clear by any means as playing a card from dummy ahead of LHO. -- 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 Tue Jun 23 15:01:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:01:53 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA09831 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:01:46 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA10050; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:03:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:03:10 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Misunderstood director Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've been away for a week playing at the regional in Penticton, British Columbia. (Managed to win an event while I was there,too, but that's not today's story.) I am playing in the pairs game with a pickup partner. She's an average Flight B player, not particularly familiar with the laws. I hold as dealer something like S:Kx H:xxx D:Qxxxx C:Qx and am about to pass when partner opens 1NT out of turn. The director is duly summoned, and he explains to RHO what her options are. RHO does not accept the bid, so the director explains that 'the gentleman is barred for the remainder of the auction.' The 1NT card is picked up. The auction reverts to me. Director looks at me and reminds me I must pass. I do. The director goes away. The auction continues Pass, Pass, Pass. Normally partner would either bid 1NT or jump to 3NT on speculation in this situation. I ask her, why did you pass? "Because I had to!" she says. Seems she misunderstood the director. We summon him back. All agree that the director's explanation was correct and not misleading. HOWEVER... it seems that, when he reminded me that I must pass, he was standing behind partner and brushed against her shoulder as he said to me, "you must pass." She thought he was talking to her; to those of us who knew the laws and who could see the director's face, his intent was obvious. But not to her, apparently. Question: how should the director handle this? ***** I didn't exactly expect any redress for this. But the director in practice went away and consulted with his colleagues, told us he would find us later in the game, and called us aside two rounds later. He decided to adjust to NS+150/EW 0. (I don't know how he arrived at 150, but 3NT+3 was the most common field result on the recap sheet. I am curious whether he looked at the hand and decided on the normal, or perhaps the least favourable likely result, or whether he based his decision on the scores at other tables.) I don't know if his ruling was the correct one. It was a practical one, at least, in that everyone went away hapy and the NOs were protected. The cynics will be pleased to note that the director did not give an artifical score, despite the fact no table result was obtained. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 18:34:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:34:25 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10199 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:34:14 +1000 Received: from un.frw.uva.nl (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA06374 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:35:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199806230835.KAA06374@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:39:02 +0000 Subject: Inadvertent call Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear collegues, This may be old stuff, but nevertheless I would appreciate comments. 1) W N E S 1NT p 2D p p/oops... 2D is a transfer to hearts, not alertable in the NL. 2) W N E S 2C(A) p p p East has alerted and explained 2C as strong, artificial and forcing. After South's very quick final pass East reacts: 'oops....' 3) W N E S 1S dbl 2H(A) p p p West has alerted 2H as 7-9 HCP and exactly three spades. After North's final pass East says: 'Hey, you sure about that pass??' West: 'Of course not, I should have bid 2S!" NBB regulations concerning the use of bidding-boxes (mainly intended to cope with 'mechanical errors': bidding cards sticking together, etc.): 8e. For the application of Law 25, a call is deemed to have made if a player has touched a bidding card that does not correspond with his intent. Substitution of this not-intended call may take place until partner makes a call. Case 1: Is this a change of mind? It's certainly not a 'mechanical error'. But it is clearly an inadvertent call. Is West allowed to subsitute his pass under L25A? Case 2 is similar, but here is a BL who reacts quick as lightning.... Do you allow East to substitute his pass under L25A? Case 3 seems clear-cut, but I'm just curious.... JP FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 email j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 18:47:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:47:45 +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 SAA10226 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:47:38 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoOlB-0000jl-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:49:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:09:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: <199806222034.WAA22591@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 challenged us: > >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >> his hand onto the table. > >Let us assume that the TD has ruled this was not an accident. It is >then a play of the club king, since L45C2 does not seem to exempt a >play OOT. I am not trying for red herrings: the club king was definitely deliberate. >> RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change >> his club king? > >No. L47F. > > > -- 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 Jun 23 18:58:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:58:32 +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 SAA10252 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:58:21 +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 JAA06630; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:59:24 +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 JAA14583; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:59:23 +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 JAA22657; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:59:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 98 09:59:22 BST Message-Id: <23424.9806230859@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu Subject: Re: Misunderstood director Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] > > I must pass. I do. The director goes away. The auction continues Pass, > Pass, Pass. > > [snip] The cynics will be pleased to note that the director did not > give an artifical score, despite the fact no table result was obtained. > > Gordon Bower > The rest of the story if fine. But as a cynical opponent of artificial adjusted scores, I must point out that a result was obtained: passed out, NS/EW 0. -- 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 Jun 23 19:33:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:33:43 +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 TAA10311 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:33:36 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoPTf-00030P-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:35:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:07:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Inadvertent call In-Reply-To: <199806230835.KAA06374@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >Dear collegues, >This may be old stuff, but nevertheless I would appreciate comments. > >1) >W N E S >1NT p 2D p >p/oops... > >2D is a transfer to hearts, not alertable in the NL. > > >2) >W N E S >2C(A) p p p > >East has alerted and explained 2C as strong, artificial and forcing. >After South's very quick final pass East reacts: 'oops....' > > >3) >W N E S >1S dbl 2H(A) p >p p > >West has alerted 2H as 7-9 HCP and exactly three spades. >After North's final pass East says: 'Hey, you sure about that pass??' >West: 'Of course not, I should have bid 2S!" > > >NBB regulations concerning the use of bidding-boxes (mainly intended >to cope with 'mechanical errors': bidding cards sticking together, >etc.): > >8e. >For the application of Law 25, a call is deemed to have made if a >player has touched a bidding card that does not correspond with his >intent. Substitution of this not-intended call may take place until >partner makes a call. > > >Case 1: >Is this a change of mind? It's certainly not a 'mechanical error'. But >it is clearly an inadvertent call. Is West allowed to subsitute his >pass under L25A? I think that an inadvertent call *is* a mechanical error. so if it is not a mechanical error then it is *not* an inadvertent call. At the moment that West touched a bidding card, which bidding card did he intend to touch? I believe *at that moment* he meant to pass, so the pass was not inadvertent. If he *meant* to bid 2H and accidentally touched the pass card instead [*very* unlikely] then it is inadvertent. IMO he may not change this under L25A. Of course, he may change it under L25B. >Case 2 is similar, but here is a BL who reacts quick as lightning.... >Do you allow East to substitute his pass under L25A? No, and the opponent has made sure L25B is not an option. >Case 3 seems clear-cut, but I'm just curious.... This is out of time, despite your regulation which is inconsistent with the Laws of the game. I admit that your regulation appears to permit a change after pause for thought, but L80F does not allow regulations that conflict with the Laws. -- 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 Jun 23 21:40:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:40:20 +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 VAA10496 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:40:14 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-46.uunet.be [194.7.13.46]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07235 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:41:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <358F8971.AC60F671@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:54:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Inadvertent call 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: > > > > >Case 1: > >Is this a change of mind? It's certainly not a 'mechanical error'. But > >it is clearly an inadvertent call. Is West allowed to subsitute his > >pass under L25A? > > I think that an inadvertent call *is* a mechanical error. so if it is > not a mechanical error then it is *not* an inadvertent call. > > At the moment that West touched a bidding card, which bidding card did > he intend to touch? I believe *at that moment* he meant to pass, so the > pass was not inadvertent. If he *meant* to bid 2H and accidentally > touched the pass card instead [*very* unlikely] then it is inadvertent. > > IMO he may not change this under L25A. Of course, he may change it > under L25B. > (other answers along the same line) I disagree with David. (not for the first time) Maybe my English is not as good as his (no, surely not, I'll rephrase) Maybe my English is not good enough, but I do not read that inadvertent must mean mechanical. However, I have also always interpreted that with bidding boxes, L25A should only apply to mechanical errors. But I may yet be convinced otherwise. Quite often, a player thinks, "yes that's a good contract", and so he passes, forgetting that the contract has not been bid yet (when partner showed the hand by a transfer). The decision made by the player was to play in the contract partner suggested and he inadvertedly "bid" this by putting a green card on the table. I find the discussion worth while and I don't see why we should not allow the change under L25A. Of course that goes as well for the second case, and I believe even for the third (partner hasn't called, has he ?). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 21:40:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:40:39 +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 VAA10503 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:40:33 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-46.uunet.be [194.7.13.46]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07244 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:41:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <358F8A4C.AE3C337A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:58:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Misunderstood director X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: > > I've been away for a week playing at the regional in Penticton, British > Columbia. (Managed to win an event while I was there,too, but that's not > today's story.) > > I am playing in the pairs game with a pickup partner. She's an average > Flight B player, not particularly familiar with the laws. I hold as dealer > something like S:Kx H:xxx D:Qxxxx C:Qx and am about to pass when partner > opens 1NT out of turn. > > The director is duly summoned, and he explains to RHO what her options > are. RHO does not accept the bid, so the director explains that 'the > gentleman is barred for the remainder of the auction.' The 1NT card is > picked up. The auction reverts to me. Director looks at me and reminds me > I must pass. I do. The director goes away. The auction continues Pass, > Pass, Pass. > > Normally partner would either bid 1NT or jump to 3NT on speculation in > this situation. I ask her, why did you pass? "Because I had to!" she says. > Seems she misunderstood the director. We summon him back. > > All agree that the director's explanation was correct and not misleading. > HOWEVER... it seems that, when he reminded me that I must pass, he was > standing behind partner and brushed against her shoulder as he said to > me, "you must pass." She thought he was talking to her; to those of us who > knew the laws and who could see the director's face, his intent was > obvious. But not to her, apparently. > > Question: how should the director handle this? > > ***** > > I didn't exactly expect any redress for this. But the director in practice > went away and consulted with his colleagues, told us he would find us > later in the game, and called us aside two rounds later. He decided to > adjust to NS+150/EW 0. (I don't know how he arrived at 150, but 3NT+3 was > the most common field result on the recap sheet. I am curious whether he > looked at the hand and decided on the normal, or perhaps the least > favourable likely result, or whether he based his decision on the scores > at other tables.) I don't know if his ruling was the correct one. It was a > practical one, at least, in that everyone went away hapy and the NOs were > protected. The cynics will be pleased to note that the director did not > give an artifical score, despite the fact no table result was obtained. > > Gordon Bower Perfect application of L82C, in my opinion. We have often already stated that L82C does not refer to an ArtAS, but just to an AS, so the score at +150/0 is a good one, provided the TD admit to a mistake (and why not) and that these are good scores for non-offenders. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 22:33:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:33:21 +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 WAA10710 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:33:12 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoSHQ-0007T2-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:34:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:45:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: <199806222034.WAA22591@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 challenged us: > >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >> his hand onto the table. > >Let us assume that the TD has ruled this was not an accident. It is >then a play of the club king, since L45C2 does not seem to exempt a >play OOT. > >> RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change >> his club king? > >No. L47F. OK, let us take this a step further. >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >> his hand onto the table. Is the play of the club king legal? -- 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 Jun 23 22:43:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:43:32 +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 WAA10764 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:43:26 +1000 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6 [134.117.136.26]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id IAA09723 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id IAA03097; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 08:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806231244.IAA03097@freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misunderstood director Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Perfect application of L82C, in my opinion. > >We have often already stated that L82C does not refer to an ArtAS, but >just to an AS, so the score at +150/0 is a good one, provided the TD >admit to a mistake (and why not) and that these are good scores for >non-offenders. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html The director thinks he made a mistake. He corrected his mistake, fair enough. However, on the facts presented, I don't think he did make a mistake; the director gave the correct ruling, 3 of the 4 players understood, and the fourth player misunderstood. I see no basis for an adjustment. Yes, all four players will be happy, and who wouldn't be happy if the director only assigned good news results all day? However, the director is there to enforce the Laws and regulations, not make the players happy; if he can do both, so much the better... ...but the Laws should come first. As to the "and why not", well, because it's not very honest, that's why not. If a director has not made an error, he should not cop to one just because it will make things easier, or make everyone happier; I'd much sooner be feared for my integrity than loved for my charity. Tony (aka ac342) ps. if you don't get the fear/love dichotomy, please reread your "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli, a must read for any aspiring despot, oops, I mean director... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 23:08:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:08:00 +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 XAA10863 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:07:53 +1000 Received: from client25cd.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.205] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yoSp4-0004QZ-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:09:19 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:59:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd9ea6$d0f1a8e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Declarer plays from both hands > > A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >his hand onto the table. RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change >his club king? Declarer cannot withdraw the club king once it is played, Law 47F. However if he smartly places all the rest of his cards face up on the table and makes a statement of claim, surely the TD would rule that the play of the king would not be a normal play of the cards. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 23:38:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:38:10 +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 XAA10966 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:38:00 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoTIC-0005Z4-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:39:26 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:37:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:37:14 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: SNIP > >> his club king? > > > >No. L47F. > > OK, let us take this a step further. > >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down > from > >> his hand onto the table. > > Is the play of the club king legal? > > ######### OK. I'll fall for it. I don't see why not? ########## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 23 23:48:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:48:29 +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 XAA10991 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:48:13 +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 OAA13285 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:47:55 +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 OAA24154 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:47:54 +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 OAA25671 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:47:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 98 14:47:50 BST Message-Id: <2320.9806231347@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David continues: > > OK, let us take this a step further. > >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from > >> his hand onto the table. > > Is the play of the club king legal? No: L44B. However there is no specific penalty (no equivalent of L57 for declarer) and L57C even envisages that it may happen (A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, ...). It is possible that exposing the CK is a claim by declarer (L48B2). He plays a club from table knowing RHO has CA and only clubs; needing only one more trick, declarer exposes CK meaning "I'm going to make one more trick with CK". 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 Jun 24 00:20:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:20:18 +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 AAA13360 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:20:11 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoTx1-0002KT-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 14:21:38 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:19:30 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:19:29 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin wrote: SNIP > > > > Is the play of the club king legal? > > No: L44B. > > ######### I'm not sure that I agree with this. The Scope and > Interpretation of the Laws states that "A simple declaration that a > player "does" something ("... dummy spreads his hand in front of > him...") establishes correct procedure **without any suggestion that a > violation be penalised**" The "**" are mine. Reading Law 44B > carefully ("each other player in turn plays a card") clearly shows > that *it does not require anything* but is merely establishing correct > procedure and that does not of itself make declarer's premature play > illegal although, as it is a failure to follow correct procedure, a > Law 90 procedural penalty could be applied (but I doubt that any TD > would normally dream of doing so). All other plays out of turn that > are illegal and that are penalised are therefore covered by other Laws > that specifically make them illegal and specify the penalty to be > paid. ######### > > > However there is no specific penalty (no equivalent of L57 for > declarer) and L57C even envisages that it may happen (A defender is > not subject to penalty for playing before his partner if declarer has > played from both hands, ...). > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 00:27:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:27:19 +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 AAA13380 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:27:10 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h26.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id SAA29957; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:28:29 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3590562E.C70@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:28:14 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands References: <01bd9ea6$d0f1a8e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Anne Jones wrote: > > Declarer cannot withdraw the club king once it is played, Law 47F. > However if he smartly places all the rest of his cards face up on the > table and makes a statement of claim, surely the TD would rule that the > play of the king would not be a normal play of the cards. > > Anne Thank you, Anne - it is what I warned when we discussed the case about prematurely Declarer's ruffing at Dummy and his following claims...(when LHO opponent wanted to receive trick with ruffing by his last small trump). I stayed at position that current trick should be finished at the same conditions for all the players - for avoiding such attempts... As I can remember it was David who explained the legality of such doing:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 01:15:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:15:57 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA13557 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:15:48 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Tue, 23 Jun 98 11:17:09 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa16329; 23 Jun 98 10:52 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA19130 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:14:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199806231514.LAA19130@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:14:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies to David, to whom I sent the original message. One of these days I will master the concept of group reply. > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >David Stevenson challenged us: > >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down > >> from his hand onto the table. > > > >Let us assume that the TD has ruled this was not an accident. It is > >then a play of the club king, since L45C2 does not seem to exempt a > >play OOT. > > > >> RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change > >> his club king? > > > >No. L47F. I disagree with this, for reasons stated later. > OK, let us take this a step further. > >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down > >> from his hand onto the table. > > Is the play of the club king legal? I'd say no, from L44B. Declarer did not play subsequently, so it is out of turn, hence playing against that law. That makes it an illegal play. Since the play of the club king is an illegal play, declarer may withdraw it accoriding to L47B. Since L47B can be applied, one can't use L47F. By L60C (perhaps a stretch; I'm considering the ability to withdraw a "penalty"), declarer may still withdraw the club king. Even without L60C, I don't see how RHO's play of the ace can change the play of the club king from an illegal play to a legal play. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 01:47:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:47:59 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA13664 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:47:46 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoVJk-0002ip-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:49:09 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:47:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:47:08 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John wrote: SNIP > I'd say no, from L44B. Declarer did not play subsequently, so it is > out > of turn, hence playing against that law. That makes it an illegal > play. > > Since the play of the club king is an illegal play, declarer may > withdraw > it accoriding to L47B. Since L47B can be applied, one can't use L47F. > By L60C (perhaps a stretch; I'm considering the ability to withdraw a > "penalty"), declarer may still withdraw the club king. Even without > L60C, > I don't see how RHO's play of the ace can change the play of the club > king from an illegal play to a legal play. > > ######### I have already replied to Robin on this issue but I believe > that my reply applies equally here too so I have pasted it in. The > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws states that "A simple declaration > that a player "does" something ("... dummy spreads his hand in front > of him...") establishes correct procedure **without any suggestion > that a violation be penalised**" The "**" are mine. Reading Law 44B > carefully ("each other player in turn plays a card") clearly shows > that *it does not require anything* but is merely establishing correct > procedure and that does not of itself make declarer's premature play > illegal although, as it is a failure to follow correct procedure, a > Law 90 procedural penalty could be applied (but I doubt that any TD > would normally dream of doing so). All other plays out of turn that > are illegal and that are penalised are therefore covered by other Laws > that specifically make them illegal and specify the penalty to be > paid. ######### > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 02:20:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 02:20:20 +1000 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (cerium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA13922 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 02:20:14 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.77] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yoVoA-00022u-00; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:20:34 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bd9ec3$1c215600$4d3463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:22:24 +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 >>A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >>his hand onto the table. Which way up? Or is that another red herring? If declarer's CK was face down, then there might be a case for ruling it as played under 47C2 - or there might not. There are some scenarios in which I could easily imagine allowing a change even if the CK was faced - for example, if RHO had a small club as a major penalty card, but instead played the ace. However, I do not imagine that this is what DWS is getting at. As far as I can see, declarer has played the CK (L45A), but out of turn (L44B). Assuming that there are no other legal considerations (for instance, a change of play by RHO on the same trick!) then it appears to me that declarer must play his CK under L47F. Though I suppose a resourceful declarer might then play all the rest of his cards at the same time and make a claim, to avoid having to drop the CK under the ace (L48B2). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 05:28:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 05:28:19 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f6.hotmail.com [207.82.250.17]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA14380 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 05:28:13 +1000 Received: (qmail 27321 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jun 1998 19:29:10 -0000 Message-ID: <19980623192910.27320.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.131.54 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:29:09 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.131.54] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:29:09 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think I (and Robin, and John) have a case for disagreeing with you, David. >>########## I have already replied to Robin on this issue but I >> believe that my reply applies equally here too so I have pasted >>it in. The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws states that >>"A simple declaration that a player "does" something >>("... dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes >> correct procedure **without any suggestion >> that a violation be penalised**" The "**" are mine. >> Reading Law 44B carefully ("each other player in turn plays a >> card") clearly shows that *it does not require anything* but is Here's where I dispute. I don't think it clearly shows anything except that the law-makers do not suggest that violation of the law is to be penalized. >>merely establishing correct >> procedure and that does not of itself make declarer's premature >> play illegal Sure it's illegal. He broke a Law - that's the definition of illegal. It just isn't one that he should expect to be punished for, most of the time. It happens to be one that really annoys me, but that of itself doesn't make it punishable, either. Another example is possession of marijuana in certain (enlightened? or just lit?) areas of Canada and the U.S. - it's illegal, but police are encouraged not to arrest you unless you're carrying enough to be suspected of "dealing". I expect, though, that if they needed to arrest someone on something (The Capone attack), they might just use this "decriminalized" act. Also read L72B1 - "To infringe a law intentionally is a serious breach of propriety...The offense may be the more serious **when no penalty is prescribed**" (my emphasis). Not that I think it is "more serious", in this case; but this argues to me against the idea that laws that suggest no penalty for violation aren't "real laws". Unfortunately, this also argues for the club K not being played, and therefore retractable. That's why I'm one of the TD's who will warn, then punish someone for repeated failure to follow procedure (oh, and if evidence is brought forward that declarer did this in order to find out about the CA, IMO, we're talking C&E territory, not PP). >>although, as it is a failure to follow correct procedure, a >> Law 90 procedural penalty could be applied (but I doubt that any TD >> would normally dream of doing so). All other plays out of turn >> that are illegal and that are penalised are therefore covered by >> other Laws that specifically make them illegal and specify the >> penalty to be paid. ######### As I said, I do not believe that it's the specification of a penalty that makes something illegal, it's a law that proscribes that makes something illegal. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 05:51:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 05:51:54 +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 FAA14419 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 05:51:47 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h20.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id XAA12455; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:52:56 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3590A23A.436@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:52:42 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands References: <001d01bd9ec3$1c215600$4d3463c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Burn wrote: >snip > Though I suppose a resourceful declarer might then play all the > rest of his cards at the same time and make a claim, to avoid having > to drop the CK under the ace (L48B2). Sic! For my opinion there should not use word "resourceful" - because the doing is deliberate infraction of bridge ethics. And in similar case (being so TD as AC member) I would suspect such deliberate infraction and investigate features of hand and plan of play for establishing reason of playing K of Clubs (and/or claiming after appearing A of Clubs). Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 07:25:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 07:25:19 +1000 Received: from bach.videotron.net (bach.videotron.net [205.151.222.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14632 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 07:25:13 +1000 Received: from default (ppp030.100.mmtl.videotron.net [207.253.100.30]) by bach.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA22304; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002401bd9eed$2568b9e0$1e64fdcf@default> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: "John A Kuchenbrod" , Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:23:18 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Unless there is some other element to add to this very simple question, the Club King is a played card for all intents and purposes! I see nothing different from this scenario than another very familiar one : declarer leads a small club to dummy's AQ and calls for the queen before LHO has even played. Then, when LHO produces the King, declarer changes his mind and tells dummy to "cover". Sorry, big guy, your mind was made up! And we all know we cannot have a change of mind when we play a card. It was always your intention to finesse against the queen and you never expected the King to appear. No sir, the "in the same breath" excuse is not a valid one here. When a player calls a card without even waiting for the opponent to play, that's because he couldn't care less...Well, now here's something for you to care about.... Having to play a King under an Ace is, IMO, the finest of all possible PP for inconsiderate players. And no Law in the Good Book was ever written to protect players from their own lack of ethics! -----Message d'origine----- De : John A Kuchenbrod À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 23 juin, 1998 12:37 Objet : Re: Declarer plays from both hands >My apologies to David, to whom I sent the original message. One of these >days I will master the concept of group reply. > >> Jens & Bodil wrote: >> >David Stevenson challenged us: >> >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down >> >> from his hand onto the table. >> > >> >Let us assume that the TD has ruled this was not an accident. It is >> >then a play of the club king, since L45C2 does not seem to exempt a >> >play OOT. >> > >> >> RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change >> >> his club king? >> > >> >No. L47F. > >I disagree with this, for reasons stated later. > >> OK, let us take this a step further. >> >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down >> >> from his hand onto the table. >> >> Is the play of the club king legal? > >I'd say no, from L44B. Declarer did not play subsequently, so it is out >of turn, hence playing against that law. That makes it an illegal play. > >Since the play of the club king is an illegal play, declarer may withdraw >it accoriding to L47B. Since L47B can be applied, one can't use L47F. >By L60C (perhaps a stretch; I'm considering the ability to withdraw a >"penalty"), declarer may still withdraw the club king. Even without L60C, >I don't see how RHO's play of the ace can change the play of the club >king from an illegal play to a legal play. > >John >-- >| John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | > >-- >| John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 08:25:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:25:54 +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 IAA14743 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:25:49 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA01319 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:26:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-20.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.52) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001294; Tue Jun 23 17:26:13 1998 Received: by har-pa1-20.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD9ED4.08D6EB80@har-pa1-20.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:23:35 -0400 Message-ID: <01BD9ED4.08D6EB80@har-pa1-20.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Inadvertent call Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:23:33 -0400 Encoding: 73 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would not allow a change in any of the three cases. But I seem to be in the minority on the subject of change of call with bidding boxes. I feel a player bears a responsibility to ascertain what bid card he is about to place on the table at least equal to the one that he bears to determine what playing card he is about to place on that same table. If LHO lead the three of clubs and dummy plays the king and then, holding AQ I put the queen on the table, I should not have until partner next plays a card to correct my mechanical error. Why should I be able to pause, think, and then correct my misplay of a card just because it is a bid card? Regulations perpetrating this abomination in the name of popularizing bidding boxes (itself a worthy endeavour) have gone to an extreme...more so in practice than even intended by the regulation makers. In a recent ACBL club game, my partner, out of her mind with delusions of grandeur bids a Blackwood 4N in a crowded, competitive auction. RHO, a decent high flight C player, promptly places the 5N card on the table. After a few (2-3) seconds of trying to figure out what is going on, I decide that DOPI does not apply here and pass with my aceless hand. LHO then stares pointedly at his partner's bid card (10-15 sec) until she exclaims "oh my, I meant to bid 5S" and attempts to replace the bid card. I politely call the director. He is a decent flight A player, capable of winning a small regional on a good day more often than not with a good partner. His knowledge of the law is rather deficient, however. He rules that she may change the bid without penalty and that my pass must stand. I ask him poltely if he could show me where it says that in the FLB because it appears to conflict with Laws 25A and 25B. After being rather stubborn about it, I am at last allowed to double, since DOPI does apply by agreement over 5S. We reach the disaster that partner's absurd bidding ensured thereafter...but they were not making either 5N or 6S. The director informs me that since bidding boxes have come into practice, anyone can change his call at any time prior to partner bidding! Consultation with the club manager, a fine A player and more laws knowledgeable, reveals that the true communication he had received is that the player may correct a mechanical error at any time...but that the player's assertion that it was indeed not a change of mind is automatically accepted. In effect Law 25A has been superseded by zonal regulation (ACBL). I must ask some of you with more knowledge of this than I five questions: 1. Is this really what the ACBL wants? 2. Do other parts of the world have the same approach? 3. Is this a good idea, or should players NOT be able to call back a misbid with greater ease using bidding boxes than speech? 4. If this is going to be legal, would it be legal (I know it would not be ethical, but that is not the question) for a player to deliberately place a wrong bid card on the table and then pull it back after learning what action LHO would take. Or could he have a nice little code with partner (maybe the misbid could show the number of hearts he holds for example). Somehow I feel if this regulation is not B.S. it is at least B.A.---but I would like to know how others feel. 5. Should this matter be clarified by the rulemakers, perhaps now as to intent of Law 25 in a bid box situation and more formally in 2007? I don't really care whether you agree with me on this one so much as I would like to hear what your feelings are on the matter and what logic you use to back them up. This appears to be a case in which a good change (bidding boxes are a boon to the hearing impaired and eliminate a lot of tone of voice black magic not to mention the LOL "pass" "no bid" "I pass" problem) leads to related changes in the application of the Laws that do not seem to have been envisioned when they were written. There are likely to be many such developments over the next few years. I think we should examine the effect of such changes, and whether they are what is best for the game. Thrashing such legalities out seems to be one of the best uses of this forum. I'm ready to duck now, if need be...but please do respond. :-) Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 08:31:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:31:21 +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 IAA14764 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:31:17 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:33:52 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:33:34 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Inadvertent call 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 have read the replies from David S. & Herman and offer the following = comments, subject to the understanding that I have no experience with = bidding boxes=21 (we use mostly written bidding in Australia). In case 1, I agree with David. The question to my mind is =22What was = West=27s intended call?=22. West may simply have forgotten for a brief = moment that they are playing transfers and therefore fully intended to = pass, therefore no change of call allowed under law 25A. Now in case 2, I agree with Herman. East=27s alert and explanation = convinces me that pass was never East=27s intended call, therefore I allow = a change of call under law 25A. In case 3, West has been woken up by his partner=27s comment and I would = say West=27s attempt to change his call has not been =22without pause for = thought=22. Agreeing once again with David, no change of call under either = law 25A or 25B. Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> =22Jan Peter Pals=22 23/06/98 20:39:02 >>> Dear collegues, This may be old stuff, but nevertheless I would appreciate comments. 1) W N E S 1NT p 2D p=20 p/oops... 2D is a transfer to hearts, not alertable in the NL. 2) W N E S 2C(A) p p p=09 East has alerted and explained 2C as strong, artificial and forcing. After South=27s very quick final pass East reacts: =27oops....=27 3) W N E S 1S dbl 2H(A) p p p =09 West has alerted 2H as 7-9 HCP and exactly three spades. After North=27s final pass East says: =27Hey, you sure about that = pass??=27 West: =27Of course not, I should have bid 2S=21=22 NBB regulations concerning the use of bidding-boxes (mainly intended to cope with =27mechanical errors=27: bidding cards sticking together, etc.): 8e.=20 For the application of Law 25, a call is deemed to have made if a player has touched a bidding card that does not correspond with his intent. Substitution of this not-intended call may take place until partner makes a call. Case 1:=20 Is this a change of mind? It=27s certainly not a =27mechanical error=27. = But it is clearly an inadvertent call. Is West allowed to subsitute his pass under L25A? Case 2 is similar, but here is a BL who reacts quick as lightning.... Do you allow East to substitute his pass under L25A? Case 3 seems clear-cut, but I=27m just curious.... JP FFTQFTE Jan Peter Pals Dept. European Archaeology University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam tel. (+)31 (0)20 525 5811 email j.p.pals=40frw.uva.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 09:21:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:21:35 +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 JAA14833 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:21:29 +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 TAA26381 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806232322.TAA25534@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01BD9ED4.08D6EB80@har-pa1-20.ix.NETCOM.com> (message from Craig Senior on Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:23:33 -0400) Subject: Re: Inadvertent call Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior writes: > I would not allow a change in any of the three cases. But I seem to be > in the minority on the subject of change of call with bidding boxes. > The director informs me that since bidding boxes have come into > practice, anyone can change his call at any time prior to partner bidding! > Consultation with the club manager, a fine A player and more laws > knowledgeable, reveals that the true communication he had received is that > the player may correct a mechanical error at any time...but that the > player's assertion that it was indeed not a change of mind is automatically > accepted. To some extent, this is necessary. In the actual situation (5NT bid over opponent's Blackwood intended to be 5S), a change of mind is unlikely and a mispulled card is likely. In contrast, if a player opens 2D and then claims he intended to bid 1H (after partner fails to alert 2D as Flannery), a change of mind is likely and a mispull is unlikely. Suggested rule of thumb: A player who claims to have pulled the wrong card from a bidding box should be assumed to be telling the truth if the corrected card is adjacent to the one pulled, or if the intended bid cannot have a similar meaning to the pulled > In effect Law 25A has been superseded by zonal regulation (ACBL). > I must ask some of you with more knowledge of this than I five > questions: > 3. Is this a good idea, or should players NOT be able to call back a > misbid with greater ease using bidding boxes than speech? Given that mechanical errors are more common, I think this is necessary. > 4. If this is going to be legal, would it be legal (I know it would not > be ethical, but that is not the question) for a player to deliberately > place a wrong bid card on the table and then pull it back after learning > what action LHO would take. No, and not even inadvertantly. I would rule that LHO's action is UI to the misbidder and AI to opponents, since it is a withdrawn action resulting from the opponent's infraction. > 5. Should this matter be clarified by the rulemakers, perhaps now as > to intent of Law 25 in a bid box situation and more formally in 2007? Ues/. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 09:36:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:36:52 +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 JAA14899 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:36:46 +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 TAA26628 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 19:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806232338.TAA25864@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01BD9ED4.08D6EB80@har-pa1-20.ix.NETCOM.com> (message from Craig Senior on Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:23:33 -0400) Subject: Re: Inadvertent call Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (Sorry for re-post; last message was sent prematurely.) Craig Senior writes: > I would not allow a change in any of the three cases. But I seem to be > in the minority on the subject of change of call with bidding boxes. > The director informs me that since bidding boxes have come into > practice, anyone can change his call at any time prior to partner bidding! > Consultation with the club manager, a fine A player and more laws > knowledgeable, reveals that the true communication he had received is that > the player may correct a mechanical error at any time...but that the > player's assertion that it was indeed not a change of mind is automatically > accepted. To some extent, this is necessary. In the actual situation (5NT bid over opponent's Blackwood intended to be 5S), a change of mind is unlikely and a mispulled card is likely. In many similar situations, you can assume a mispulled card. In contrast, if a player opens 2D and then claims he intended to bid 1H (after partner fails to alert 2D), a change of mind is likely and a mispull is unlikely. Likewise if a player opens 1NT and then corrects to 1D: he could have forgotten his NT range. There are still some unclear situations in which you must trust the player. A player who opens 1S and wants to change to 1H or 1NT might have found a club in his spades. Suggested rule of thumb: A player who claims to have pulled the wrong card from a bidding box should be assumed to be telling the truth if the corrected card is adjacent to the one pulled, or if the intended bid cannot have a similar meaning to the pulled bid (including a possible system forget as "similar"). A correction of a bid to a pass/double/redouble or vice versa is never possible; a correction of pass, double, or redouble to another one of these cards is. An immediate correction, or correction due to stuck or misarranged cards in the bidding box, should always be allowed; a non-immediate correction can only be authorized by the Director. (Yes, in theory, the Director should always be called, but in practice, if I intend to open 2NT, find the 2S bid stuck to it, and correct this when it hits the table, there should be no question.) Director should not look at the player's hand during the auction to determine the legality, as this passes UI; Director or AC may use the hand as evidence if there is an appeal. > I must ask some of you with more knowledge of this than I five > questions: > 3. Is this a good idea, or should players NOT be able to call back a > misbid with greater ease using bidding boxes than speech? Given that mechanical errors are more common, I think this is necessary. > 4. If this is going to be legal, would it be legal (I know it would not > be ethical, but that is not the question) for a player to deliberately > place a wrong bid card on the table and then pull it back after learning > what action LHO would take. No, and not even inadvertantly. I would rule that LHO's action is UI to the misbidder and AI to opponents, since it is a withdrawn action resulting from the opponent's infraction. (A mispulled card is an infraction, even though it is not subject to penalty.) > 5. Should this matter be clarified by the rulemakers, perhaps now as > to intent of Law 25 in a bid box situation and more formally in 2007? Yes. Bid boxes are common enough that clarifications should be made for the Law 25 policies, as there are clarifications for rules with screens. -- 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 Jun 24 10:53:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:53:00 +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 KAA15066 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:52:53 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yodpJ-0004aU-00; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:54:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:02:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: <001d01bd9ec3$1c215600$4d3463c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >>>A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from >>>his hand onto the table. >Which way up? Or is that another red herring? If declarer's CK was >face down, then there might be a case for ruling it as played under >47C2 - or there might not. There are some scenarios in which I could >easily imagine allowing a change even if the CK was faced - for >example, if RHO had a small club as a major penalty card, but instead >played the ace. However, I do not imagine that this is what DWS is >getting at. As far as I can see, declarer has played the CK (L45A), >but out of turn (L44B). Assuming that there are no other legal >considerations (for instance, a change of play by RHO on the same >trick!) then it appears to me that declarer must play his CK under >L47F. Though I suppose a resourceful declarer might then play all the >rest of his cards at the same time and make a claim, to avoid having >to drop the CK under the ace (L48B2). I do not know why people are looking for red herrings: if I had intended something else I would have said so. Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the table in the normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because he makes no attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make any other comments. With no cunning additions at all, the two questions asked are: "Can declarer change his club king?" and "Is the play of the club king legal?" -- 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 Jun 24 11:54:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:54:52 +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 LAA15394 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:54:45 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yoenB-0002Ec-00; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:56:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 02:53:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Inadvertent call In-Reply-To: <01BD9ED4.08D6EB80@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: > The director informs me that since bidding boxes have come into >practice, anyone can change his call at any time prior to partner bidding! >Consultation with the club manager, a fine A player and more laws >knowledgeable, reveals that the true communication he had received is that >the player may correct a mechanical error at any time...but that the >player's assertion that it was indeed not a change of mind is automatically >accepted. In effect Law 25A has been superseded by zonal regulation (ACBL). > > I must ask some of you with more knowledge of this than I five >questions: > > 1. Is this really what the ACBL wants? No comment. > > 2. Do other parts of the world have the same approach? No, we follow the Laws of the game. > > 3. Is this a good idea, or should players NOT be able to call back a >misbid with greater ease using bidding boxes than speech? Is what a good idea? L25A applies far more often with bidding boxes, which seems a good idea. When L25A does not apply, it seems a good idea not to apply it. > 5. Should this matter be clarified by the rulemakers, perhaps now as >to intent of Law 25 in a bid box situation and more formally in 2007? I don't find the language of L25A at all ambiguous. If the ACBL does allow any change in any circumstance that is *clearly* against the wording of L25A. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 13:21:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:21:44 +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 NAA15585 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:21:31 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-119-34.s34.tnt2.brd.erols.com [207.172.119.34]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA05476 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806240322.XAA05476@smtp3.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:22:44 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-reply-to: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David > Stevenson > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 5:03 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands > [snip] > > Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then > detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the > table in the > normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because > he makes no > attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. > > RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He > plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is > allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make > any other > comments. > > With no cunning additions at all, the two questions asked are: > > "Can declarer change his club king?" > Yes. The sequence of play is specified in 44B, and that procedure has not been followed. This mades CK an illegally played card. 47B allows retraction of an illegally played card. > and > > "Is the play of the club king legal?" > No. See 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 ~ > I would also rule that 12A1 applies, as 44B does not provide indemnity to the non-offending side, and also 72B1, as the offender may have known the play out of turn could damage the opponents. Equity would appear to be the worst likely result for declarer at the time of the infraction, and whatever score that is would be my ruling. Further, if there was so much as a hint of deliberateness about this play, I would add a procedural penalty under 72B2, and refer the matter to the Recorder (in ACBL-land) for follow-up. I hate allowing retraction of the CK, and would love to have my ruling refuted. As it is, I think I have to allow the retraction, and adjust the score after the fact. Hirsch Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 14:00:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:00:27 +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 OAA15767 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:00:22 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port15.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.65]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA29518 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:01:48 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:01:48 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199806240401.OAA29518@fep6.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Misunderstood director Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I must pass. I do. The director goes away. This seems to be the first director error. Surely no TD slopes off when there could be change of call, lead penalties etc. When a ruling has been misunderstood, it is indubitably the director's fault, regardless of how many at the table received the correct information. This is the first law of communication. (However it is wise to let the players feel that if anything goes wrong it is their fault). Having made a complete stuff up, what is wrong with cancelling the last two passes and allowing the board to be played. After all, the players have paid their money to play. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 18:45:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA16423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:45:05 +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 SAA16418 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:44:58 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yolCC-0003Z7-00; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 08:46:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 03:30:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >Situation arose in recent tournament where a non jump suit response in a >previously unpassed hand was questioned and the bidder told that it >should be alerted. i.e. >N E S W >1D* 1H 1S * precision diamond 11-15 could be short as three. >The 1S is 5-7 with 5 card spade and is non forcing. >OR >1H 1S 2C where the 2C is 5-7 with 5 card suit. Do these bids have to >be alerted and if so why? Your comments and thoughts would be >appreciated. In NAmerica, these bids require an alert. A non-forcing new-suit response by an unpassed hand requires an alert apparently. The ACBL Alerting pamphlet does say so, though the only examples it gives are responses over a pass. In England/Wales, these bids require an alert. The new Orange book makes this completely clear, though it has always been the interpretation. In Australia, the alerting regulations are not detailed, and it seems to depend on whether such bids are normal as non-forcing rewsponses. If so, then no alert is necessary: if not, an alert is required. In Russia, these bids require an alert. A non-forcing new-suit response requires an alert. ------- It does seem that the actual sequences are ones that require an alert everywhere! ------- I should be very pleased to receive details of alerting regulations in any other country. -- 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 Jun 24 19:26:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:26:19 +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 TAA16475 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:26:13 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yolq6-0007MH-00; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:27:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:26:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Misunderstood director In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: >All agree that the director's explanation was correct and not misleading. I would have thought that ends the matter. How anyone can rule Director's error after this is beyond me. >The cynics will be pleased to note that the director did not >give an artifical score, despite the fact no table result was obtained. I would have been displeased if no table result had been obtained because then L12C1 applies and an ArtAS would be correct and not an AssAS: however, you did get a result at the table [passed out is a valid score] so an AssAS is correct! -- 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 Jun 24 19:48:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:48:46 +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 TAA16552 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:48:37 +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 KAA05637 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:49:47 +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 KAA19159 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:49:46 +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 KAA04063 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:49:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98 10:49:45 BST Message-Id: <5804.9806240949@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David You wrote: [snip] > > In Russia, these bids require an alert. A non-forcing new-suit > response requires an alert. > [snip] > > I should be very pleased to receive details of alerting regulations in > any other country. > I'm impressed. Do you read Russian? or have they been translated for you? or are Russian regulations printed in English? Will you need to learn a new language for each new set of alerting regulations? 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 Jun 24 20:26:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:26:27 +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 UAA16638 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:26:10 +1000 Received: from (mamos.demon.co.uk) [158.152.129.79] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yomm3-0004eu-00; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:27:32 +0000 Message-ID: <+gbpnDApZLk1EwZk@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:18:49 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk snip > > With no cunning additions at all, the two questions asked are: > > "Can declarer change his club king?" > > and > > "Is the play of the club king legal?" > yes no -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 24 20:30:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:30:12 +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 UAA16659 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:30:03 +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 LAA06097 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:06:11 +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 LAA21496 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:06:09 +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 LAA04246 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:06:09 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 98 11:06:08 BST Message-Id: <5814.9806241006@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David You wrote: > I do not know why people are looking for red herrings: if I had > intended something else I would have said so. Because we thought the answer was obvious. > Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then > detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the table in the > normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because he makes no > attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. I assumed that if CK was part of a claim you would have said so. I only mentioned a claim because of L48B2. > RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He > plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is > allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make any other > comments. > > With no cunning additions at all, the two questions asked are: > > "Can declarer change his club king?" No, it must be played (L45C2). > and > > "Is the play of the club king legal?" It is legal to play club king to this trick, so (IMO) L47B does not apply. But the play of the club king prematurely is not legal, in that it does not follow correct procedure (L44B). I think the problem is the wording of L47B: the word "illegal" should not be taken to apply to cards played out of turn if they are otherwise legal. 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 Jun 24 20:45:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:45:45 +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 UAA16696 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:45:36 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yon4v-0001v9-00; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:47:01 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:24:52 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:24:51 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > I think I (and Robin, and John) have a case for disagreeing with you, > David. > > >>######OLD#### I have already replied to Robin on this issue but I > >> believe that my reply applies equally here too so I have pasted > >>it in. The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws states that > >>"A simple declaration that a player "does" something > >>("... dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes > >> correct procedure **without any suggestion > >> that a violation be penalised**" The "**" are mine. > >> Reading Law 44B carefully ("each other player in turn plays a > >> card") clearly shows that *it does not require anything* but is > > Here's where I dispute. I don't think it clearly shows anything > except that the law-makers do not suggest that violation of the > law is to be penalized. > > >>merely establishing correct > >> procedure and that does not of itself make declarer's premature > >> play illegal > > Sure it's illegal. He broke a Law - that's the definition of illegal. > > > ########## If a law says that you 'must', 'shall', 'shall not', 'may > not' or 'must not' do something and you do the opposite then you have > broken a law and that is illegal, ie. outside the law's permitted > acts. Where the law says that you 'should' or 'should not' do > something and you fail then this is a minor infraction which will > only jepordise your rights and this is therefore argueably not > illegal. Where the Law establishes correct procedure or provides you > with options via the use of 'may' then a failure to do this is IMO > definitely not illegal. ############# From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 25 03:05:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:05:21 +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 DAA20049 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:05:15 +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 NAA17150 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <001d01bd9ec3$1c215600$4d3463c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:12:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then >detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the table in the >normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because he makes no >attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. > > RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He >plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is >allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make any other >comments. > > With no cunning additions at all, the two questions asked are: > > "Can declarer change his club king?" > > and > > "Is the play of the club king legal?" Has anybody mentioned Law 60 in this discussion so far? It seems to me that the director has two irregularities to deal with here: the play of the club K out of turn, and the play of the club A before summoning the director to deal with the first. The director should explain everything, and then, following the general principle of dealing with the irregularities in the order in which they occur, director should refer to Law 60 and offer declarer's LHO the option of accepting the play of the club K. This is authorized by Law 57C, which permits LHO to play before RHO since declarer has already played from both hands (note that the play of the club A is in abeyance, according to Law 9B2). If LHO chooses this option, then the club K is played and cannot be withdrawn (the reference to Law 53C is irrelevant, since it was dummy's lead, not RHO's). Now the club A, being exposed, is presumably a penalty card, and must be played at the first legal opportunity, which is now. Good. On the other hand, if LHO chooses not to accept the play of the club K, then the club A is played (it is still an exposed card by a defender) and declarer can substitute another card for the illegally played club K. As director, I would freely apply Law 12 in this position if it seemed appropriate, even if I were sure the premature play of the club K was inadvertent. _________________________________________________________________________ | Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 545 - 6000 - 7878 | |________________________________________________________________________| From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 25 03:45:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:45:38 +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 DAA20235 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 03:45:31 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yotdB-0006r7-00; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:46:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:42:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert of non forcing response In-Reply-To: <5804.9806240949@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: >I'm impressed. > >Do you read Russian? or have they been translated for you? or are >Russian regulations printed in English? > >Will you need to learn a new language for each new set of alerting >regulations? Look, Robin, which do you think was easiest, reading NAmerican regulations in what they call English, Australian regulations in what they call English, English/Welsh regulations in what a former Laws & Ethics committee considers is English, or Russian regulations that have been translated into English for me? You are only allowed one guess! -- 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 Jun 25 06:39:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 06:39:34 +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 GAA20680 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 06:39:27 +1000 Received: from mike (user-37kbm10.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.216.32]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA27458 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980624164006.00774f4c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:40:06 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Inadvertent call In-Reply-To: <01BD9ED4.08D6EB80@har-pa1-20.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:23 PM 6/23/98 -0400, Craig wrote: > I would not allow a change in any of the three cases. But I seem to be >in the minority on the subject of change of call with bidding boxes. > I feel a player bears a responsibility to ascertain what bid card he >is about to place on the table at least equal to the one that he bears to >determine what playing card he is about to place on that same table. If LHO >lead the three of clubs and dummy plays the king and then, holding AQ I put >the queen on the table, I should not have until partner next plays a card >to correct my mechanical error. Why should I be able to pause, think, and >then correct my misplay of a card just because it is a bid card? >Regulations perpetrating this abomination in the name of popularizing >bidding boxes (itself a worthy endeavour) have gone to an extreme...more so >in practice than even intended by the regulation makers. > > In a recent ACBL club game, my partner, out of her mind with delusions >of grandeur bids a Blackwood 4N in a crowded, competitive auction. RHO, a >decent high flight C player, promptly places the 5N card on the table. >After a few (2-3) seconds of trying to figure out what is going on, I >decide that DOPI does not apply here and pass with my aceless hand. LHO >then stares pointedly at his partner's bid card (10-15 sec) until she >exclaims "oh my, I meant to bid 5S" and attempts to replace the bid card. > > I politely call the director. He is a decent flight A player, capable >of winning a small regional on a good day more often than not with a good >partner. His knowledge of the law is rather deficient, however. He rules >that she may change the bid without penalty and that my pass must stand. I >ask him poltely if he could show me where it says that in the FLB because >it appears to conflict with Laws 25A and 25B. After being rather stubborn >about it, I am at last allowed to double, since DOPI does apply by >agreement over 5S. We reach the disaster that partner's absurd bidding >ensured thereafter...but they were not making either 5N or 6S. > > The director informs me that since bidding boxes have come into >practice, anyone can change his call at any time prior to partner bidding! >Consultation with the club manager, a fine A player and more laws >knowledgeable, reveals that the true communication he had received is that >the player may correct a mechanical error at any time...but that the >player's assertion that it was indeed not a change of mind is automatically >accepted. In effect Law 25A has been superseded by zonal regulation (ACBL). > > I must ask some of you with more knowledge of this than I five >questions: > > 1. Is this really what the ACBL wants? > > 2. Do other parts of the world have the same approach? > > 3. Is this a good idea, or should players NOT be able to call back a >misbid with greater ease using bidding boxes than speech? > > 4. If this is going to be legal, would it be legal (I know it would not >be ethical, but that is not the question) for a player to deliberately >place a wrong bid card on the table and then pull it back after learning >what action LHO would take. Or could he have a nice little code with >partner (maybe the misbid could show the number of hearts he holds for >example). Somehow I feel if this regulation is not B.S. it is at least >B.A.---but I would like to know how others feel. > > 5. Should this matter be clarified by the rulemakers, perhaps now as >to intent of Law 25 in a bid box situation and more formally in 2007? > > I don't really care whether you agree with me on this one so much as I >would like to hear what your feelings are on the matter and what logic you >use to back them up. This appears to be a case in which a good change >(bidding boxes are a boon to the hearing impaired and eliminate a lot of >tone of voice black magic not to mention the LOL "pass" "no bid" "I pass" >problem) leads to related changes in the application of the Laws that do >not seem to have been envisioned when they were written. There are likely >to be many such developments over the next few years. I think we should >examine the effect of such changes, and whether they are what is best for >the game. Thrashing such legalities out seems to be one of the best uses of >this forum. I'm ready to duck now, if need be...but please do respond. :-) > I agree with your sentiments completely. Nobody knows what the ACBL wants. Its efforts to communicate both regulations and the intentions behind them are lame in most instances. It seems reasonable to assume that their intention is to make the bidding boxes more acceptable, but really, how would anyone know? L25A (and other applicable laws) should be interpreted for bidding boxes in the same way that it would be for oral bidding. It will generally be up to a TD, based on the facts presented by the players, to determine whether a call was changed "without pause for thought". It is not consistent with L25 to allow a change beyond that point, and any regulation which purports to do so is illegal. If that is the ACBL's position, then it is simply another example of that organization's disregard of the Laws. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 25 09:34:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:34:45 +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 JAA21031 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:34:38 +1000 Received: from client273c.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.27.60] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yoz5A-0007oa-00; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:36:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:26:45 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd9fc7$8da8cc40$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: Don Kersey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 6:39 PM Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands >> "Can declarer change his club king?" >> and >> "Is the play of the club king legal?" >Has anybody mentioned Law 60 in this discussion so far? It seems to me that >the director has two irregularities to deal with here: the play of the club >K out of turn, and the play of the club A before summoning the director to >deal with the first. The director should explain everything, and then, >following the general principle of dealing with the irregularities in the >order in which they occur, director should refer to Law 60 and offer >declarer's LHO the option of accepting the play of the club K. This is >authorized by Law 57C, which permits LHO to play before RHO since declarer >has already played from both hands (note that the play of the club A is in >abeyance, according to Law 9B2). If LHO chooses this option, then the club >K is played and cannot be withdrawn (the reference to Law 53C is >irrelevant, since it was dummy's lead, not RHO's). Now the club A, being >exposed, is presumably a penalty card, and must be played at the first >legal opportunity, which is now. Good. > >On the other hand, if LHO chooses not to accept the play of the club K, >then the club A is played (it is still an exposed card by a defender) and >declarer can substitute another card for the illegally played club K. As >director, I would freely apply Law 12 in this position if it seemed >appropriate, even if I were sure the premature play of the club K was >inadvertent. I think this is the most comprehensive contribution we have received in reply to Davids' question and it really does make sence doesn't it? Thank you Don. I think this was really helpful Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 25 20:55:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA22357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:55:49 +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 UAA22352 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:55:43 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yp9iH-0003o0-00; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:57:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:55:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then >detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the table in the >normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because he makes no >attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. > > RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He >plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is >allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make any other >comments. > > "Can declarer change his club king?" Have we a problem here? I think we have had some answers here that show we may have. The instinctive answer is "No, it's been played", and most answers are along those lines. Robin quotes L45C2 which says a card held near the table must be played, a popular misconception: this card was played under L45A, rather than must be played, still the effect is the same. Michael argues it is not played, but it clearly is. Whether a card is in turn or not does not affect whether it is played or not, as Jens notes. Robin, Jens, Chris, John, Vitold, Anne, DavidM, DavidB, Mike, Christian agreed it may not be retracted. Anne, Vitold, Robin, DavidB, Vitold discussed the possibility of a claim. Don produces an interesting diversion as to whether his LHO can accept the CK: since this does not affect the main course of this thread I shall leave that to another article: he then says that CK may be retracted but gives no reason. Christian compares the situation where declarer leads towards AQ in dummy: the king is played, and declarer asks for the queen but attempts to change it to the ace. While we do not permit the change of mind, we are discussing in this thread whether we should do so if the player asks for the queen *before* LHO plays the king: the normal situation is where declarer asks for the queen as LHO plays the king, or immediately after, which is in turn and irrelevant to this thread. > "Is the play of the club king legal?" But let us consider the second question, and where that leads us. Robin, John, Anne, Mike said it was not legal [L44B]. DavidM said that failure to follow a Law that merely establishes correct procedure is not illegal if there is no penalty. Michael argues strongly against that, quoting the 1987 [?] Laws. Robin produces a confusing answer which apparently says Yes and No! John A Kuchenbrod wrote: >I'd say no, from L44B. Declarer did not play subsequently, so it is out >of turn, hence playing against that law. That makes it an illegal play. Despite DavidM's arguments, this seems convincing to me. If you do not follow a Law then you are doing something against that Law, and thus illegal. Whether it matters: whether there is any punishment: how serious it is: whether everyone does it: whether there is another Law covering the situation: none of this matters; if it is against a Law then it is illegal, isn't it? isn't that what illegal means? John A Kuchenbrod wrote: >Since the play of the club king is an illegal play, declarer may withdraw >it accoriding to L47B. Since L47B can be applied, one can't use L47F. This is the meat of the affair: while instinctively most of us feel that the club king should not be changed it is very difficult to argue with these two sentences. John A Kuchenbrod wrote: >By L60C (perhaps a stretch; I'm considering the ability to withdraw a >"penalty"), declarer may still withdraw the club king. I do not know why John has interpolated this since L60C is irrelevant: declarer has not made another play after his illegal one. John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > Even without L60C, >I don't see how RHO's play of the ace can change the play of the club >king from an illegal play to a legal play. Exactly. John [and now Anne] say the club king may be changed. I do not like this. I do not see we have a problem with declarer "trying it on" and doing this deliberately: we then hit him with L72B1 [there is a new one in the 1997 Laws, Michael]. However, when it is accidental or when declarer changes his mind it is difficult to say he may not change his card. As the person who asked me this problem said "When the Laws say you may retract an illegal play, and a player makes an illegal play, it is difficult to see how we can not allow him to retract it." Further comments are welcomed. -- 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 Jun 25 22:05:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:05:57 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA22565 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:05:49 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Thu, 25 Jun 98 08:07:16 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa19310; 25 Jun 98 7:41 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA04049 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:02:39 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199806251202.IAA04049@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:02:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 25, 98 11:55:46 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > >By L60C (perhaps a stretch; I'm considering the ability to withdraw a > >"penalty"), declarer may still withdraw the club king. > > I do not know why John has interpolated this since L60C is irrelevant: > declarer has not made another play after his illegal one. > As I said, it was a stretch. After looking over L60 once again, I withdraw that statement. > I do not like this. I do not see we have a problem with declarer > "trying it on" and doing this deliberately: we then hit him with L72B1 > [there is a new one in the 1997 Laws, Michael]. However, when it is > accidental or when declarer changes his mind it is difficult to say he > may not change his card. > > As the person who asked me this problem said "When the Laws say you > may retract an illegal play, and a player makes an illegal play, it is > difficult to see how we can not allow him to retract it." > > Further comments are welcomed. Perhaps the 2007 Laws should contain a law dealing with declarer's POOT. >From all of the discussion that this thread has contained, it's clear that the current Laws do not give a clear-cut solution to this problem. Although this problem may not occur as often as an OLOOT or a revoke, it should be treated with its own law. Thanks for the summary, David. One message is much nicer than twenty when it comes to keeping track of who said what. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 00:10:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:10:49 +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 AAA23250 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:10:37 +1000 Received: from [130.15.248.149] (toll1-slip146.tele.QueensU.CA [130.15.248.146]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22389 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:11:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:13:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote (in part): > >> Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then >>detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the table in the >>normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because he makes no >>attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. >> >> RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He >>plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is >>allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make any other >>comments. >> >> "Can declarer change his club king?" > Don produces an interesting diversion as to whether his LHO can accept >the CK: since this does not affect the main course of this thread I >shall leave that to another article... I don't think my argument is a diversion, David - I think it is the crux of the whole matter. There is an apparent contradiction between Law 47B2 and Laws 57C and 60A. Suppose the play had gone dummy club 2 - declarer club K - LHO club 3 - director, please? Law 47B2 seems to indicate that the club K can be withdrawn, Laws 57C and 60A that it cannot. The only way I can see to reconcile the apparent contradiction is to apply 60 first. The point is then 60A2; once LHO accepts the play of the club K, the club K is *legalized* (that is after all the title of the Law, "Irregularity Legalized") and so Law 47B2 *no longer applies*. In other words, the answer to your second question, "Is the play of the club K illegal" should be "We don't know yet". Note that this is consistent with the treatment of a call out of turn, in which the first option goes to LHO, who may choose to regularize the irregularity. ___________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca Kingston, Ontario, Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 00:23:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:23:04 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f109.hotmail.com [207.82.250.228]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25308 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:22:58 +1000 Received: (qmail 9500 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jun 1998 14:23:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19980625142357.9499.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.94 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 07:23:57 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.94] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 07:23:57 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Michael argues strongly against >that, quoting the 1987 [?] Laws. Robin produces a confusing answer >which apparently says Yes and No! I do apologize. I was reading the laws off of the ACBL web site. The "new laws" are on the first page, but the link to "laws of Duplicate" are the old ones. I should have checked. Reading the new laws (and sending a note to Chyah about updating the web site)... > I do not like this. I do not see we have a problem with declarer >"trying it on" and doing this deliberately: we then hit him >with L72B1 [there is a new one in the 1997 Laws, Michael (as I > see - MDF)]. However, when it is accidental or when declarer >changes his mind it is difficult to say he may not change his card. > I agree. Of course, I want to have L72B2 ready (that one hasn't changed :-)... > As the person who asked me this problem said "When the Laws say you >may retract an illegal play, and a player makes an illegal play, it is >difficult to see how we can not allow him to retract it." > I agree with this. I wish I didn't, but there it is. What bothers me about the whole thing is L57C - it seems to legitemize "incorrect" procedure. Maybe I should just treat that as "the penalty declarer is willing to pay" for playing illegally. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 00:40:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:40:33 +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 AAA25366 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:40:17 +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 OAA08131; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:15:54 +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 OAA10391; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:15:53 +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 OAA16348; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:15:52 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 98 14:15:49 BST Message-Id: <6145.9806251315@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, accurately summarizing the discussion, writes: [snip] > Robin produces a confusing answer which apparently says Yes and No! I admit it was confusing. [snip] > Exactly. John [and now Anne] say the club king may be changed. > > I do not like this. I do not see we have a problem with declarer > "trying it on" and doing this deliberately: we then hit him with L72B1 > [there is a new one in the 1997 Laws, Michael]. However, when it is > accidental or when declarer changes his mind it is difficult to say he > may not change his card. > > As the person who asked me this problem said "When the Laws say you > may retract an illegal play, and a player makes an illegal play, it is > difficult to see how we can not allow him to retract it." > > Further comments are welcomed. Goody! (1) I agree that "it is difficult to see how can not allow him to retract it" but I will try (clutching at straws). L47B "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal ... play." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The CK does not need correction, only the time a which it was played. We can not undo the fact that it was played prematurely, that is history: picking the CK up does not "correct" the premature play. The illegal play can not be corrected, so there is no allowance to withdraw it. Alternatively: all that needs correcting is the turn at which the card was played, not which card it was. So the card is picked up and the same card played at the correct turn. There is no allowance to change the card just the turn at which it is played. (2) What happens in the other cases of premature plays? David discussed premature play by dummy: this is equally unsatisfactory! What about premature play by defender after partner has played, i.e. at dummy/declarer's turn to play. L49 applies (it is not "in the normal course of play"), so the card played becomes a penalty card, which (unless it is a revoke) will be played once dummy/declarer has played. This is satisfactory. (3) Do we need an addition to L57. For instance: "Any other play out of turn by defender becomes a penalty card (see Law 49). A play out of turn by declarer or dummy can not be changed, the card must be played at the correct turn (if it is then legal)." (4) What illegal plays "should" L47B apply to? As far as I can see, L47B should only apply in specific cases (revokes, two cards played to a trick from the same hand, etc.) where the card would be illegal if played at the correct turn. Perhaps this should be added to L47B: "; expect that a play out of turn may not be withdrawn if it would be a legal play if made at the correct turn." 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 Jun 26 08:42:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:42:33 +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 IAA27055 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:42:25 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA12275 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806252243.PAA12275@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:40:00 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote:---------- > > I do not like this. I do not see we have a problem with declarer > "trying it on" and doing this deliberately: we then hit him with L72B1 > [there is a new one in the 1997 Laws, Michael]. However, when it is > accidental or when declarer changes his mind it is difficult to say he > may not change his card. > > As the person who asked me this problem said "When the Laws say you > may retract an illegal play, and a player makes an illegal play, it is > difficult to see how we can not allow him to retract it." > > Further comments are welcomed. > I'm late to this thread, having been on vacation in Colorado for several weeks. Reading it, I get the feeling of *deja vue* "all over again." Didn't we establish a long time ago that it is not illegal for declarer to play from both hands at once, and therefore a card so played may not be retracted? I remember being chastized for thinking otherwise. The Preface to the Laws says: "A simple declaration that a player 'does' something...establishes a correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." L44: "After the opening lead, each player in turn plays a card..." L45 explains what constitutes a played card. L57 makes it illegal for defenders to violate correct procedure in regard to sequence of play, and even implies (L57C) that it is not unusual for declarer to do so. Of course the practice is annoying, and often has the intent of making defenders play faster than they might otherwise play, possibly leading to error. I would call the TD if I suspected such shenanigans, and hope that he would warn against the practice, with threat of a PP if it is repeated. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 14:38:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:38:49 +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 OAA27859 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:38:43 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lciu2.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.194]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA32589 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980626003924.00778bf8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:39:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Dummy Revokes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This seems too easy and obvious, but the situation did occasion discussion in a club matchpoint event. South Declares 2S (1Nt-P-2H-P-2S-AP) 98xxxx AQxx x J KQx Kxxx AK Qxxx West led a diamond. Declarer won and continued the suit, pitching dummy's club. A club was then ruffed, and a small trump led to the K and A. West switched to a heart, which rode to the K. Declarer played the trump Q, east failing, and then led a heart. As West followed and declarer called for the Q, dummy suddenly discovered the diamond 3 lurking underneath the heart Q. The TD was summoned at this point, was given the facts, and instructed that play should continue while he retired to RTFLB. Declarer won the heart in dummy, ruffed the diamond 3 (!), and ran hearts, conceding a trick to the trump Jack, making 5-odd. The eventual ruling was to award a 1-trick penalty to EW, effectively restoring the "normal" result of +170 to NS. The TD appeared uncertain as to the correct ruling. Comments? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 15:23:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:23:35 +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 PAA27930 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:23:30 +1000 Received: from qb (t13.dialup.peg.apc.org [192.203.176.141]) by pegasus.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA02131 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:28:55 +1000 (GMT+1000) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:28:55 +1000 (GMT+1000) Message-Id: <199806260528.PAA02131@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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Roger Penny & Jane Stapleton Subject: Dummy Revokes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:39 26/06/98 -0400, Michael Dennis wrote: >This seems too easy and obvious, but the situation did occasion discussion >in a club matchpoint event. > >South Declares 2S (1Nt-P-2H-P-2S-AP) > 98xxxx > AQxx > x > J > > > KQx > Kxxx > AK > Qxxx > >West led a diamond. Declarer won and continued the suit, pitching dummy's >club. A club was then ruffed, and a small trump led to the K and A. West >switched to a heart, which rode to the K. Declarer played the trump Q, east >failing, and then led a heart. > >As West followed and declarer called for the Q, dummy suddenly discovered >the diamond 3 lurking underneath the heart Q. The TD was summoned at this >point, was given the facts, and instructed that play should continue while >he retired to RTFLB. Declarer won the heart in dummy, ruffed the diamond 3 >(!), and ran hearts, conceding a trick to the trump Jack, making 5-odd. > >The eventual ruling was to award a 1-trick penalty to EW, effectively >restoring the "normal" result of +170 to NS. The TD appeared uncertain as >to the correct ruling. Comments? > > The decision to award a "1-trick penalty" was incorrect in law because there can be no penalty for a revoke by dummy (by an exposed hand - Law 64B, I think: I don't have a Law Book with me just at the moment). Using Law 64(C), however, a TD is responsible for restoring equity in cases where no penalty applies and - in this case - should award the "normal" result for that reason because declarer gained an unfair advantage through his discard of CJ when he should have had that second diamond 'exposed' in dummy. +170 to N/S. Roger Penny From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 20:51:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:51:15 +1000 Received: from bach.videotron.net (bach.videotron.net [205.151.222.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA28395 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:51:08 +1000 Received: from default (ppp153.223.mmtl.videotron.net [207.96.223.153]) by bach.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id GAA20541; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 06:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000a01bda0ef$f32d44a0$99df60cf@default> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Dummy Revokes Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 06:48:25 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Life should always be so simple...The ruling is correct : the normal result would have been 2S +4 for 170 N/S. Since dummy cannot revoke, restoring equity is the proper way of solving this situation... But at the risk of sounding picky, I suggest the expression "one trick penalty" be used for "regular" revoke situations covered by L64A, which doesn't apply here. It would be easy for the players to be misled by the apparent similarity between this situation and other cases of failure to follow suit if the TD uses the same familiar way of awarding penalty tricks to NOS. Ever since a regional in Ottawa where I mistakingly awarded a penalty trick to the defenders instead of restoring equity which would have resulted in the same number of tricks for both sides, I carefully state in such rulings that "since dummy cannot revoke, restoring equity applies to this situation..." and avoid using the expression "penalty trick" like the pleague. Christian -----Message d'origine----- De : Michael S. Dennis À : bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date : 26 juin, 1998 01:21 Objet : Dummy Revokes >This seems too easy and obvious, but the situation did occasion discussion >in a club matchpoint event. > >South Declares 2S (1Nt-P-2H-P-2S-AP) > 98xxxx > AQxx > x > J > > > KQx > Kxxx > AK > Qxxx > >West led a diamond. Declarer won and continued the suit, pitching dummy's >club. A club was then ruffed, and a small trump led to the K and A. West >switched to a heart, which rode to the K. Declarer played the trump Q, east >failing, and then led a heart. > >As West followed and declarer called for the Q, dummy suddenly discovered >the diamond 3 lurking underneath the heart Q. The TD was summoned at this >point, was given the facts, and instructed that play should continue while >he retired to RTFLB. Declarer won the heart in dummy, ruffed the diamond 3 >(!), and ran hearts, conceding a trick to the trump Jack, making 5-odd. > >The eventual ruling was to award a 1-trick penalty to EW, effectively >restoring the "normal" result of +170 to NS. The TD appeared uncertain as >to the correct ruling. Comments? > > > > > >Mike Dennis _ >msd@mindspring.com o\ /o >Pikesville, MD o|_|o >USA |-| > o|-| > |-| > |_| > / \ > ( _ ) > \ _ / > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 22:12:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:12:28 +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 WAA28595 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:12:21 +1000 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6 [134.117.136.26]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id IAA22233 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id IAA14900; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806261213.IAA14900@freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy Revokes Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The eventual ruling was to award a 1-trick penalty to EW, effectively >restoring the "normal" result of +170 to NS. The TD appeared uncertain as >to the correct ruling. Comments? > Seems correct to me. The only point I would change is that this should not be called a 1-trick "penalty". We all know that dummy can revoke; we also know that there is no penalty for doing so. However, when dummy does revoke, the director is charged with restoring equity. I would therefore suggest reading section L64(B)3 followed by 64(C), and telling the players you are restoring equity, not assessing a penalty. Tony (aka ac342) ps. a small question: when I refered to L64, I used the format L64(B)3; is this format correct, adequate, or is there a proper format for this? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 26 22:51:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:51:37 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA28826 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:51:28 +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 JAA20395 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980626085244.0069c5c0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:52:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Inadvertent call In-Reply-To: <01BD9ED4.08D6EB80@har-pa1-20.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:23 PM 6/23/98 -0400, Craig wrote: > The director informs me that since bidding boxes have come into >practice, anyone can change his call at any time prior to partner bidding! >Consultation with the club manager, a fine A player and more laws >knowledgeable, reveals that the true communication he had received is that >the player may correct a mechanical error at any time...but that the >player's assertion that it was indeed not a change of mind is automatically >accepted. In effect Law 25A has been superseded by zonal regulation (ACBL). > > I must ask some of you with more knowledge of this than I five >questions: > > 1. Is this really what the ACBL wants? I don't think so. Nor do I think it is what they have said. What they want, IMO, is: - If the TD can determine from the facts that the call was inadvertant, L25A applies. - If the TD can determine from the facts that the call was not inadvertant, L25A does not apply. - If the TD cannot determine whether the call was inadvertant based on the facts ("is in doubt"), he should accept the statement of the player who made the call ("the offender"). Note that without the statement by the ACBL, this would not be the case, as the TD would (a) discount the offender's statement as "obviously self-serving", which would leave him still in doubt, then (b) resolve any doubtful points in favor of the NOs. What I think they have instructed TDs (or at least tried to) is that in bidding-box situations, the offender's statement must be accepted as evidence, i.e. *not* discounted or ignored as self-serving. I do not read their instruction as saying that the statement must be taken as determinative, i.e. "automatically accepted" as the basis for ruling despite contrary evidence from the facts of the situation. I do not believe that the instruction requires TDs to accept obviously absurd statements of intent. What it does do is create an exception to the normal guidelines, so that, in this particular case, doubtful situations are resolved in favor of the "offenders". 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 Jun 27 03:07:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 03:07:08 +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 DAA02029 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 03:07:02 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ypbz8-0005vc-00; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:08:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 18:06:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy Revokes In-Reply-To: <000a01bda0ef$f32d44a0$99df60cf@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000a01bda0ef$f32d44a0$99df60cf@default>, christian chantigny writes >Life should always be so simple...The ruling is correct : the normal result >would have been 2S +4 for 170 N/S. Since dummy cannot revoke, restoring >equity is the proper way of solving this situation... > >But at the risk of sounding picky, I suggest the expression "one trick >penalty" be used for "regular" revoke situations covered by L64A, which >doesn't apply here. It would be easy for the players to be misled by the >apparent similarity between this situation and other cases of failure to >follow suit if the TD uses the same familiar way of awarding penalty tricks >to NOS. > >Ever since a regional in Ottawa where I mistakingly awarded a penalty trick >to the defenders instead of restoring equity which would have resulted in >the same number of tricks for both sides, I carefully state in such rulings >that "since dummy cannot revoke, restoring equity applies to this >situation..." and avoid using the expression "penalty trick" like the >pleague. > Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!! Dummy *can* revoke. The statement I use is: "When a revoke is made by dummy there is no revoke penalty, but it is still up to the Director to restore equity". Pause. "So has declarer made more tricks than he should have done, let us see..." etc The players are very comfortable with this in my experience. 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 Sat Jun 27 03:07:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 03:07:04 +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 DAA02023 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 03:06:57 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ypbz7-0002Ga-00; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:08:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 18:02:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy Revokes In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980626003924.00778bf8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980626003924.00778bf8@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >This seems too easy and obvious, but the situation did occasion discussion >in a club matchpoint event. > >South Declares 2S (1Nt-P-2H-P-2S-AP) > 98xxxx > AQxx > x > J > > > KQx > Kxxx > AK > Qxxx > >West led a diamond. Declarer won and continued the suit, pitching dummy's >club. A club was then ruffed, and a small trump led to the K and A. West >switched to a heart, which rode to the K. Declarer played the trump Q, east >failing, and then led a heart. > >As West followed and declarer called for the Q, dummy suddenly discovered >the diamond 3 lurking underneath the heart Q. The TD was summoned at this >point, was given the facts, and instructed that play should continue while >he retired to RTFLB. Declarer won the heart in dummy, ruffed the diamond 3 >(!), and ran hearts, conceding a trick to the trump Jack, making 5-odd. > >The eventual ruling was to award a 1-trick penalty to EW, effectively >restoring the "normal" result of +170 to NS. The TD appeared uncertain as >to the correct ruling. Comments? > I'd have ruled the same. (This may be a contra-indication) L64B3 The penalty for an established revoke does not apply ... failing to play .. card from dummy's hand. BUT L64C 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. A little care is needed here because if the line up to the point where the revoke occurred would have led to the extra trick anyway then you shouldn't adjust. -- 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 Jun 27 04:27:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 04:27:59 +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 EAA02412 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 04:27:50 +1000 Received: from modem38.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.38] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0ypdFP-0004Zf-00; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:29:19 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "ron endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Lynn&Dan Hunt" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "Sandra Claridge" , "Anna Gudge" Subject: homecoming Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:25:24 +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 safely home. other messages will follow. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 27 07:29:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 07:29:35 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03061 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 07:29:29 +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 RAA27293 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11077; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:31:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:31:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806262131.RAA11077@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > "Can declarer change his club king?" > and > "Is the play of the club king legal?" David's simple questions have certainly created a muddle! I don't think the answer to 1 is all that hard, but there are points of interest. Taking the second question first, the Laws don't define "illegal" or "infraction." However, I'm willing to accept David's definition that anything not in accord with the Laws is illegal. At the very least, playing out of turn (L44B: "in turn plays") is a breach of correct procedure (Preface), although one that will not normally be penalized. One could, however, argue it is not an infraction. Violating the next step in list of imperatives ("should") is specifically stated to be an infraction of Law, so perhaps violating the milder "simple declaration" is not to be considered one. I am not inclined to accept this position, but I'm not certain it is wrong. Fortunately, the correct answer to question 1 does not depend on this semantic argument. The issue is whether L47B can be interpreted to allow retraction of the C-K if it is deemed to be an illegal play. I claim it does not, because L47B has an implied phrase "in accordance with other Laws." Textual support is the use of "A..." rather than "Any..." as the first word of the Law. Even if you don't like that, L45C2 "Declarer must play...." is both explicit and specific, and there is nothing about any exceptions. L45C2 also uses the strongest imperative form, "must." L47B, on the other hand, is just a general granting of permission. One principle of interpreting the Laws is that where two laws seem to conflict, the specific law overrides the general one, and I don't see how you can rule otherwise than that L45C2 overrides L47B. So the C-K is played, just as most of us thought in the first place. Wouldn't you rule the same way if declarer had called you to the table before RHO had played a card? "Must" means must, unless there is an overriding Law that calls for an exception. (L62 combined with L44C comes to mind.) No doubt the Preface to the 2007 Laws should clarify the general principles for dealing with possibly conflicting laws. And whatever phrase is implied in L47B should be made explicit. Defining "illegal" or "infraction" may be useful as well, although it hardly seems necessary. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 27 11:58:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:58:18 +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 LAA03753 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:58:11 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ypkHD-0003Xt-00; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 01:59:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 02:25:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: homecoming In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Grattan > >safely home. >other messages will follow. It's ok, Grattan. You haven't missed much. Just so long as you don't try to play from both hands as declarer before the defence . -- 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 Jun 27 12:03:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 12:03:47 +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 MAA03769 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 12:03:40 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ypkMV-0000EY-00; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 02:05:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 02:25:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: homecoming In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Grattan > >safely home. >other messages will follow. It's ok, Grattan. You haven't missed much. Just so long as you don't try to play from both hands as declarer before the defence . -- 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 Jun 28 00:21:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:21:44 +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 AAA07192 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:21:36 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h53.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id SAA00540; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:23:02 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35959AE8.3229@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:22:48 -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: declarer's play... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="RESPOND.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RESPOND.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) As it was mentioned in this discussion - the problem has no final resolution under the current Laws David wrote: > This is the meat of the affair: while instinctively most of us feel >that the club king should not be changed it is very difficult to argue >with these two sentences. > As the person who asked me this problem said "When the Laws say you >may retract an illegal play, and a player makes an illegal play, it is >difficult to see how we can not allow him to retract it." John wrote: >From all of the discussion that this thread has contained, it's clear that >the current Laws do not give a clear-cut solution to this problem. There were suggested several changes to future Laws-2007... But - as you have already could notice - I am a bit odd: the Legend:)) The Legend says that Declarer has ritght to play simultaniously from both hands and that in such case Defenders may play in any order. And that's why in current Laws there is no penalty neither for Declarer (for simultaniously play) nor for Defenders (for their play in any order in such cases) One may explain origin and reasons for such statement in the Legend: All of us approve when Declarer makes play shorter - by claim (or concession). Simultanios play of Declarer is claim (or concession) made in current trick only, without dealing with following tricks. Declarer allows to Defenders to make their decision quicker - and after that trick he will plan his play (maybe - depending on which Defender won that trick and what was following lead). As a conclusion - it was allowed to Defenders to play in any order - because each of them is in turn (RHO - after Dummy's card was played, LHO - after Declarer's card was played). The only (quite natural) condition: without consulting between Defenders:)) That's why in David's case there are no infractions at all: neither from Declarer (simultanious play) nor from Defenders (play in wrong order, not calling TD). And that's why I was surprised when David asked his questions:)) Best wishes. Vitold P.S. My thanks to Anne for discussing the matter with me privatly From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 28 04:14:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 04:14:04 +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 EAA07803 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 04:13:57 +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 OAA00353 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 14:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 14:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806271815.OAA05989@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199806262131.RAA11077@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: David Stevenson >> "Can declarer change his club king?" >> and >> "Is the play of the club king legal?" > David's simple questions have certainly created a muddle! I don't > think the answer to 1 is all that hard, but there are points of > interest. > Taking the second question first, the Laws don't define "illegal" or > "infraction." However, I'm willing to accept David's definition that > anything not in accord with the Laws is illegal. I think this is the correct definition; it's one which I used in another context. If a player pulls the wrong card from his bidding box, he may correct this without penalty, but it is still an infraction, and thus an opponent's withdrawn action over the wrong bid is UI to the mispuller. -- 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 Jun 28 06:00:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 06:00:24 +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 GAA08087 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 06:00:18 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27363; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806272000.NAA27363@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 12:56:35 -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 David Grabiner wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > >> "Can declarer change his club king?" > >> and > >> "Is the play of the club king legal?" > > > David's simple questions have certainly created a muddle! I don't > > think the answer to 1 is all that hard, but there are points of > > interest. > > > Taking the second question first, the Laws don't define "illegal" or > > "infraction." However, I'm willing to accept David's definition that > > anything not in accord with the Laws is illegal. > > I think this is the correct definition... I think not, unless "in accord with the laws" includes interpretations of language given by the Preface to the Laws. To repeat myself: The Preface to the Laws says: "A simple declaration that a player 'does' something...establishes a correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." L44: "After the opening lead, each player in turn plays a card..." L45 explains what constitutes a played card. L57 makes it illegal for defenders to violate correct procedure in regard to sequence of play, and even implies (L57C) that it is not unusual for declarer to do so. I can't find any law that makes declarer's simultaneous play from both hands illegal. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 28 07:17:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:17:16 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08222 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:17:08 +1000 Received: from modem11.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.139] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yq2Mi-00026O-00; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 22:18:33 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Richard Lighton" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Recorder (fwd) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:39:47 +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 Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms, and four legs. ---------- > From: Richard Lighton > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: RE: Recorder (fwd) > Date: 04 June 1998 16:50 > > > On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, David Martin wrote: > > > > > ###### I strongly object to complaints and accusations being > > made secretively without the accused being able to publically confront > > their accuser(s) and deny any wrong doing. This seems to me to run > > counter to all notions of natural justice. > > > I don't think David's claim is correct. The ACBL procedure is for > the Recorder to communicate with the accused and determine if there > really is a reason to maintain a record. ++++[ I hold a strong opinion that nothing should be recorded without laying the question before the accused and allowing them if they wish to record their comments or to rebut the alleged facts. A farmyard muck pile of sleazy unconfirmed allegations should not be considered a factual record and should not prejudice the judgement when an issue arises. ~ Grattan ~ ] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 28 07:17:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:17:14 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08221 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:17:05 +1000 Received: from modem11.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.139] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yq2Mh-00026O-00; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 22:18:31 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Re; Weekend Information (2) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:30:30 +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 Grattan Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms, and four legs. ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Re; Weekend Information (2) > Date: 01 June 1998 13:45 > > > >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. > > TD practice, at least in my part of the country, does go beyond the > strictest possible interpretation of the rule, and interprets it as though > it read "players who should recognize" or "an opponent who has reason to > suspect"; this follows the current consensus philosophy of interpreting > rules to not require "mind reading". One is expected to protect oneself in > either of two situations: > ++++ I can confirm that numbers of appeal decisions not to provide redress at international level have been based upon the expectation that a player of international rank should recognize possibilities in situations where partnerships frequently have special understandings; this especially applies when screens are in use and questions can be put without fear of UI ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 28 07:29:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:29:57 +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 HAA08255 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:29:51 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yq2Z8-0006JP-00; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 21:31:22 +0000 Message-ID: <9szGZ3ClRWl1EwA$@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 22:30:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Recorder (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >Grattan > >Our language quite frequently begs >A meaning to hang on its pegs >But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows >A back, two arms, and four legs. > > >---------- >> From: Richard Lighton >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: RE: Recorder (fwd) >> Date: 04 June 1998 16:50 >> >> >> On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, David Martin wrote: >> >> > >> > ###### I strongly object to complaints and accusations being >> > made secretively without the accused being able to publically confront >> > their accuser(s) and deny any wrong doing. This seems to me to run >> > counter to all notions of natural justice. >> > >> I don't think David's claim is correct. The ACBL procedure is for >> the Recorder to communicate with the accused and determine if there >> really is a reason to maintain a record. > >++++[ I hold a strong opinion that nothing should be recorded >without laying the question before the accused and allowing them >if they wish to record their comments or to rebut the alleged >facts. A farmyard muck pile of sleazy unconfirmed allegations should >not be considered a factual record and should not prejudice the >judgement when an issue arises. ~ Grattan ~ ] ++++ I am in total agreement with this. Having grown up in a system where common law and precedent is the governing method, I find that the laying of matters without the right of response is fundamentally a system wide open to serious abuse. -- 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 Jun 28 08:59:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:59:53 +1000 Received: from legend.sat.txdirect.net (root@legend.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08386 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:59:47 +1000 Received: from biigal2 (iits-01-36.sat.txdirect.net [209.142.71.36]) by legend.sat.txdirect.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA02091; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:01:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <35957994.69E5@txdirect.net> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:00:36 -0500 From: "Albert \"biig-Al\" Lochli" Reply-To: biigal@txdirect.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: For Cat Lovers Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6BAC649E31FF" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6BAC649E31FF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rules for Cats who have a House to Run... I. DOORS: Do not allow closed doors in any room. To get door opened, stand on hind legs and hammer with forepaws. Once door is opened, it is not necessary to use it. After you have ordered an "outside" door opened, stand halfway in and out and think about several things. This is particularly important during very cold weather, rain, snow, or mosquito season. Swinging doors are to be avoided at all costs. II. CHAIRS AND RUGS: If you have to throw up, get to a chair quickly. If you cannot manage in time, get to an Oriental rug. If there is no Oriental rug, shag is good. When throwing up on the carpet, make sure you back up so that it is as long as the human's bare foot. III. BATHROOMS: Always accompany guests to the bathroom. It is not necessary to do anything -- just sit and stare. IV. HAMPERING: If one of your humans is engaged in some close activity and the other is idle, stay with the busy one. This is called "helping", otherwise known as "hampering". Following are the rules for "hampering": a) When supervising cooking, sit just behind the left heel of the cook. You cannot be seen and thereby stand a better chance of being stepped on and then picked up and comforted. b) For book readers, get in close under the chin, between eyes and book, unless you can lie across the book itself. c) For knitting projects or paperwork, lie on the work in the most appropriate manner so as to obscure as much of the work or at least the most important part. Pretend to doze, but every so often reach out and slap the pencil or knitting needles. The worker may try to distract you; ignore it. Remember, the aim is to hamper work. Embroidery and needlepoint projects make great hammocks in spite of what the humans maytell you. d) For people paying bills (monthly activity) or working on income taxes or Christmas cards (annual activity), keep in mind the aim -- to hamper! First, sit on the paper being worked on. When dislodged, watch sadly from the side of the table. When activity proceeds nicely, roll around on the papers, scattering them to the best of your ability. After being removed for the second time, push pens, pencils, and erasers off the table, one at a time. e) When a human is holding the newspaper in front of him/her, be sure to jump on the back of the paper. They love to jump. V. WALKING: As often as possible, dart quickly and as close as possible in front of the human, especially: on stairs, when they have something in their arms, in the dark, and when they first get up in the morning. This will help their coordination skills. VI. BEDTIME: Always sleep on the human at night so s/he cannot move around. VII. COMPUTER: When your human is working on the computer, jump in her/his lap and paw at or lick face. Knead lap. Nibble ears. Swat hands. Lay or walk on keyboard. Attack anything on the monitor screen. Lay on top of monitor & hang legs over screen - obscuring view. And, most importantly, shed...shed...shed! -- BiigAl, Al Lochli - POBox 15701 San Antonio TX 78212-8901 phone 210-829-4274 District 16 Internet Coordinator http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/ ### I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by. --------------6BAC649E31FF Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from foo.america.net (foo.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by legend.sat.txdirect.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA13822; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:25:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gvtc.com (usr10-30.gvtc.com [208.218.98.39]) by foo.america.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12510; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 16:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <359554E6.A2DF4453@gvtc.com> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 15:24:06 -0500 From: Patty Moncus X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Lochli CC: Ann Galloway , Betty Jean Dobbins , Carolyn Houston , Darrell Beck , Deanna Moncus , Glenn Lilie , Gwen Meade , Joan Carlson , Joe Hornsby , Keith Moncus , Kyle & Mike Glastonbury , Larry & Claudia Cowley , Lisa Fairchild , Martha Godbey , Mary Ellen Cooper , Max , Mellie Bergman , Norma Hummel , Paul Porterfield Subject: For Cat Lovers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rules for Cats who have a House to Run... > > I. DOORS: Do not allow closed doors in any room. To get door opened, > stand on hind legs and hammer with forepaws. Once door is opened, it is > not necessary to use it. After you have ordered an "outside" door > opened, stand halfway in and out and think about several things. This is > particularly important during very cold weather, rain, snow, or mosquito > season. Swinging doors are to be avoided at all costs. > > II. CHAIRS AND RUGS: If you have to throw up, get to a chair quickly. If > you cannot manage in time, get to an Oriental rug. If there is no > Oriental rug, shag is good. When throwing up on the carpet, make sure > you back up so that it is as long as the human's bare foot. > > III. BATHROOMS: Always accompany guests to the bathroom. It is not > necessary to do anything -- just sit and stare. > > IV. HAMPERING: If one of your humans is engaged in some close activity > and the other is idle, stay with the busy one. This is called "helping", > otherwise known as "hampering". Following are the rules for "hampering": > > a) When supervising cooking, sit just behind the left heel of the cook. > You cannot be seen and thereby stand a better chance of being stepped on > and then picked up and comforted. > b) For book readers, get in close under the chin, between eyes and book, > unless you can lie across the book itself. > c) For knitting projects or paperwork, lie on the work in the most > appropriate manner so as to obscure as much of the work or at least the > most important part. Pretend to doze, but every so often reach out and > slap the pencil or knitting needles. The worker may try to distract you; > ignore it. Remember, the aim is to hamper work. Embroidery and > needlepoint projects make great hammocks in spite of what the humans may > tell you. > > d) For people paying bills (monthly activity) or working on income taxes > or Christmas cards (annual activity), keep in mind the aim -- to hamper! > First, sit on the paper being worked on. When dislodged, watch sadly > from the side of the table. When activity proceeds nicely, roll around > on the papers, scattering them to the best of your ability. After being > removed for the second time, push pens, pencils, and erasers off the > table, one at a time. > e) When a human is holding the newspaper in front of him/her, be sure to > jump on the back of the paper. They love to jump. > > V. WALKING: As often as possible, dart quickly and as close as possible > in front of the human, especially: on stairs, when they have something > in their arms, in the dark, and when they first get up in the morning. > This will help their coordination skills. > > VI. BEDTIME: Always sleep on the human at night so s/he cannot move > around. > > VII. COMPUTER: When your human is working on the computer, jump in > her/his lap and paw at or lick face. Knead lap. Nibble ears. Swat hands. > Walk on keyboard. Attack anything on the monitor screen. Lay on top of > monitor & hang legs over screen - obscuring view. And, most importantly, > shed...shed...shed! > --------------6BAC649E31FF-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 28 16:18:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:18:54 +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 QAA08773 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:18:44 +1000 Received: from modem122.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.122] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yqAow-0004nk-00; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:20:14 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: homecoming = Anne's question and a lo-o-ong answer. Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 07:19:05 +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 Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms, and four legs. ---------- > From: Anne Jones > To: Grattan > Subject: Re: homecoming > Date: 28 June 1998 02:27 > > Thank you. > I am enclosing the mailings as a word document. I hope this is > acceptable. > I have not snipped it, but have emboldened the bits that I think are > relevant. > I am most interested in the Law 10C2 element of the discussion. > (Confidential comment.. \x/ removed \x/) > > David's request for your opinion is on P9/10. > > Many thanks > > Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan > : Saturday, June 27, To: Anne Jones > Subject: Re: homecoming > > >> From: Anne Jones > >> To: Grattan > >> Subject: Re: homecoming > >> Date: 27 June 1998 00:27 > >> > >> Welcome Home.(or as we say Croeso 'nol) I hope you had a super time. > >> > >> I am sure you will enjoy reading all that has gone on during your > >> absence. I would like to > >> draw your attention to my "Re: Law 25 and others." In particular > David's > >> contribution which > > > > \x/ \x/ \x/ > > > >+++ As I have shut down during this period please could you copy what > >you wish me to look at - please - ~G~ +++ > > > >> One thing I am particularly interested in is the application of Law > 10. > >> "If they consult- withdraw their options" > > > >+++ Also anything here that I should take a look at. +++ > > > >> I look foreward to reading your contribution if you have time to get > >> involved. > > > >> > >++++ no point in accepting the role offered me by the President > >of the WBF if I am not prepared to 'get involved', and therefore > >make the time for it. ~Grattan~ ++++ > > ##### Thank you Anne for passing to me the long and tortuous enclosure. There is so much of it that I am still feeling my way along the twine. But let me begin to put some provisional thoughts together if I can persuade my brain it is time to do some work again. I have understood that the Director arrived when South had already substituted 1S in place of 2D. Someone pointed out that West has to be allowed to accept this if she wishes. That is so, and the Director should explain her options (plural) to West. West refuses to accept the substituted bid and the fun begins. Let us first of all get the conversation between East and West out of the way. This was not consultation about an option, as I have understood it, but an erudite consideration of the nature of the law; that constitutes extraneous action and only if it causes damage to opponents (which it did not) has the Director any need to do anything about it. The Director explains her Law 25 options to South. North intervenes by telling South what not to do. There is UI involved but it is also a clear breach of Law 73A1; North has communicated illegally with South. North does not have a right to speak to the matter except in answer to the Director. She is subject to a procedural penalty and if playing in an international event should be expected to know this; a penalty should be applied. Since N/S are the only offending side they have nothing to forfeit under Law 11 and the Director has no cause to consider forfeiture of the right to penalize. EBL 10.4 would perhaps be more clear if it said the right to penalize is forfeited where there is one (this being stated as guidance to TDs on EBL practice at the time when it was written). In Law 10C1 it should be noted that the key word used is 'explain'. Not only what the options are should be listed for the player but also any effects stated in the law; if a penalty or adjusted score may be awarded (albeit in the discretion of the Director) this should be made clear, but where the size of the penalty is discretionary no more than that need be stated. The position at this point (*and this is consistent, of course, with EBL 10.4 *) is that South is to be offered her options; she needs to know that if she follows the advice - ? instruction - from her partner and this turns out to her advantage, the Director is empowered by Law 84E to award an adjusted score, arising out of the breach of law by North. You will notice, Anne, that I have not so far relied for anything upon 10C2. Up to this point I do not think there has been any 'consultation'. However, for the record, EBL10.4 does take the view that if guidance is offered by North, South completes the consultation process if she then allows it to influence her choice of option. I wrote it; I continue to think it right. However, and for the avoidance of doubt, we have Law 73A1 to turn to. Law 84E is a resource to deal with a breach of either 10C2 or 73A1. So to my final page! When Edgar urged upon us - upon me - adoption of 25B2(b)2 he argued that we should do something to take away the folly of requiring the player to perform in a wholly bizarre contract. He argued that we should give the player an escape clause and that, whereas opponents would take whatever score the permitted escape led to, the offending player herself would be limited to 40% if the escape score were better for her than 40%. No-one on the Committee argued a counter view to this interpretation of the score; it was clear in the drafting that the player would get her escape score or 40% (average minus per 12C1) whichever was the lower. As far as I am concerned the correct interpretation of this law conforms to Edgar's prescription since, after discussion, the Committee accepted what he put forward without demur. Edgar believed he was responding to a desire of players. In team events the meaning of 'average minus' is as defined in Law 86A. Except in knock-out play there is no action to balance scores as adjudicated on the foregoing basis and certainly the laws allow that the sum of the two teams' scores may exceed the VP maximum for the match. I have not ever considered whether a VP scoring arrangement can be devised so that the possibility is excluded (under Law 78D). [I do not believe you can do it legally by simply placing a lid on the scores, although I think it has been done by some who consider the law a hass. ] [As a footnote, and as EBL10.4 indicates, recourse to 84E is a matter in which the Director uses his judgement, whether to or not. The Director needs to be of the opinion that damage may have been caused to opponents by a breach of law for which no penalty is specified; I did not say above that the Director could not form the view even before the option is chosen, although I doubt she would in these circumstances. I do believe that where the laws give the Director discretion one should restrain oneself as much as possible from offering advice on how to apply it, although it is reasonable to enunciate principles and, in seminar mode, to discuss their application. ] Now, Anne, what have I overlooked? I must go to bed; it is Sunday, 6.15 a.m. - making time, you understand, 'to get involved' ...... :-))) ~~~~ Grattan~~~~ ###### From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 28 16:52:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:52:53 +1000 Received: from smtp02.iafrica.com (kuD7Uq2K5z1MBv+SC68uxJKlTv1Do223@smtp02.iafrica.com [196.7.0.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA08803 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:52:44 +1000 Received: from [196.31.19.210] (helo=196-31-19-210.iafrica.com) by smtp02.iafrica.com with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yqBLh-0005Ex-00; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:54:06 +0200 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rusty Court" Organization: Internet Africa To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 08:38:43 +0200 Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Reply-to: ruscourt@iafrica.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:31:13 -0400 > From: ruscourt@iafrica.com (Rusty Court) > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Hi all, I seldom contribute to BLML because I have very limited time to spend on it and use that time to try and digest all the messages, however I feel strongly on this issue and herewith my two bits worth. > > From: David Stevenson > > "Can declarer change his club king?" > > and > > "Is the play of the club king legal?" > Steve Willner wrote : > Taking the second question first, the Laws don't define "illegal" or > "infraction." However, I'm willing to accept David's definition that > anything not in accord with the Laws is illegal. At the very least, > playing out of turn (L44B: "in turn plays") is a breach of correct > procedure (Preface), although one that will not normally be penalized. > One could, however, argue it is not an infraction. Violating the next > step in list of imperatives ("should") is specifically stated to be an > infraction of Law, so perhaps violating the milder "simple declaration" > is not to be considered one. I am not inclined to accept this > position, but I'm not certain it is wrong. > . > > The issue is whether L47B can be interpreted to allow retraction of the > C-K if it is deemed to be an illegal play. I claim it does not, > because L47B has an implied phrase "in accordance with other Laws." > Textual support is the use of "A..." rather than "Any..." as the first > word of the Law. Even if you don't like that, L45C2 "Declarer must > play...." is both explicit and specific, and there is nothing about any > exceptions. L45C2 also uses the strongest imperative form, "must." > L47B, on the other hand, is just a general granting of permission. One > principle of interpreting the Laws is that where two laws seem to > conflict, the specific law overrides the general one, and I don't see > how you can rule otherwise than that L45C2 overrides L47B. So the C-K > is played, just as most of us thought in the first place. > . I fully agree with Steve's views and wish to add some comments L45C2 defines declarer's played card unambiguously. It does not specify whether it is played OOT or not. Thus the card played by declarer in this instance is a legally played card. Can we now say that, because the card was played OOT, it is not legal when the Laws define it as a legally played card. Certainly, the play OOT is an irregularity but that should not invalidate a law. I specifically agree with Steve's statement that "must means must". If this argument is accepted then David's first question falls away. What worries me is that if we find ways to circumvent laws, then where is it going to stop? I am sure that the intent of the WBFLC could not have been other than that the card is a played card. Yes, I know that many of the 1997 Laws are less than perfect and many are contradictory. Sentiments expressed on BLML leave little doubt about that. The formulation of laws, generally, is a very complex issue. Most laws usually arise because of a need to control situations that are detrimental to the general public served by those laws. Unfortunately a certain sector of any public always finds ways to take selfish advantage and because that sector is always more inventive than the law-makers, laws tend to lag behind. Even when laws are promulgated these people will find loop-holes. The promulgating of laws for organisations such as sports bodies which are spread world-wide must be even more difficult, however with the advent of the Internet, and other instant communication devices, this factor must be significantly reduced. So I add my voice to those that suggest that the WBFLC make use of the wealth of bridge laws knowledge that is available from certain BLML members. I hope that comments on BLML will result in significant changes and that, at least, clarification of the intent of some laws will be forthcoming from the WBFLC meeting in Lille, so that we can have some greater bridge laws uniformity throughout the world. I feel for the bridge players of the world when even the administrators of the Laws, the TD's and AC's, are unable to agree on those issues that should be straight-forward. Cheers, crawling back into my hidey-hole. Rusty From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 28 22:48:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:28 +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 WAA09269 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:21 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqGtq-0007QZ-00; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:49:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:26:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don Kersey wrote: >> "Can declarer change his club king?" >> >> and >> >> "Is the play of the club king legal?" >Has anybody mentioned Law 60 in this discussion so far? It seems to me that >the director has two irregularities to deal with here: the play of the club >K out of turn, and the play of the club A before summoning the director to >deal with the first. The director should explain everything, and then, >following the general principle of dealing with the irregularities in the >order in which they occur, director should refer to Law 60 and offer >declarer's LHO the option of accepting the play of the club K. This is >authorized by Law 57C, which permits LHO to play before RHO since declarer >has already played from both hands (note that the play of the club A is in >abeyance, according to Law 9B2). I do not agree with this. Look at the wording: "A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner if ...". There is no suggestion in this Law that it is a right to be exercised. Compare the wording of L27A ["Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO."] and L29A ["Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call ..."]. While the Law clearly envisages the possibility of the defender playing before his partner it merely states he is not subject to penalty. Once the other defender has played I am sure that if this Law meant that there was a right to be exercised it would be worded differently. > If LHO chooses this option, then the club >K is played and cannot be withdrawn (the reference to Law 53C is >irrelevant, since it was dummy's lead, not RHO's). Now the club A, being >exposed, is presumably a penalty card, and must be played at the first >legal opportunity, which is now. Good. When your RHO plays a card it is your turn to play. If you now play a card as L44B tells you to it is *not* a penalty card because it is in turn! Illegal acts by your partner might change this but never by an opponent! Don goes on to assume the CK can be changed because it is illegal. Don Kersey wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote (in part): >> >>> Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then >>>detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the table in the >>>normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because he makes no >>>attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. >>> >>> RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He >>>plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is >>>allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make any other >>>comments. >>> >>> "Can declarer change his club king?" >I don't think my argument is a diversion, David - I think it is the crux of >the whole matter. There is an apparent contradiction between Law 47B2 and >Laws 57C and 60A. Suppose the play had gone dummy club 2 - declarer club K >- LHO club 3 - director, please? Law 47B2 seems to indicate that the club K >can be withdrawn, Laws 57C and 60A that it cannot. The only way I can see >to reconcile the apparent contradiction is to apply 60 first. The point is >then 60A2; once LHO accepts the play of the club K, the club K is >*legalized* (that is after all the title of the Law, "Irregularity >Legalized") and so Law 47B2 *no longer applies*. I am happy that LHO can accept the play of the club king by playing a card. But he didn't. > In other words, the answer >to your second question, "Is the play of the club K illegal" should be "We >don't know yet". No, that's wrong. Once a call or play is illegal then it is illegal. It may be accepted but that does not mean that it was originally legal. So the fact that LHO could have accepted the club king by playing a card is [a] irrelevant to whether the play was legal, and [b] moot, because he didn't >Note that this is consistent with the treatment of a call out of turn, in >which the first option goes to LHO, who may choose to regularize the >irregularity. Exactly: and the fact that the wording of the Law is totally different suggests the treatment is different. -- 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 Jun 28 22:48:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:25 +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 WAA09256 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:15 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqGtq-0007Qa-00; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:49:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:27:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: <199806262131.RAA11077@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >The issue is whether L47B can be interpreted to allow retraction of the >C-K if it is deemed to be an illegal play. I claim it does not, >because L47B has an implied phrase "in accordance with other Laws." >Textual support is the use of "A..." rather than "Any..." as the first >word of the Law. Even if you don't like that, L45C2 "Declarer must >play...." is both explicit and specific, and there is nothing about any >exceptions. L45C2 also uses the strongest imperative form, "must." >L47B, on the other hand, is just a general granting of permission. One >principle of interpreting the Laws is that where two laws seem to >conflict, the specific law overrides the general one, and I don't see >how you can rule otherwise than that L45C2 overrides L47B. So the C-K >is played, just as most of us thought in the first place. No doubt whatever that the CK is played. But is it a legal play? >Wouldn't you rule the same way if declarer had called you to the table >before RHO had played a card? "Must" means must, unless there is an >overriding Law that calls for an exception. (L62 combined with L44C >comes to mind.) I believe you are getting confused about L45C2. Suppose a defender is on lead. Declarer [thinking it is his turn to lead] takes a card out off his hand, and holds it touching the table. What does L45C2 say? It says it "must" be played. So it is played. **THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A LEGAL PLAY!** It is still illegal, being a Lead out of Turn! So in the current case the CK must be played, or is played, or whatever: but that does not make it legal. ------ Rusty Court wrote: >L45C2 defines declarer's played card unambiguously. It does not >specify whether it is played OOT or not. Thus the card played by >declarer in this instance is a legally played card. This is illogical. Since L45C2 does not specify whether it is played OOT or not, *then* L45C2 does not tell us whether the card played by declarer in this instance is a legally played card. > Can we now say >that, because the card was played OOT, it is not legal when the Laws >define it as a legally played card. Certainly, the play OOT is an >irregularity but that should not invalidate a law. I specifically >agree with Steve's statement that "must means must". All that means is the CK was played, whether legally or illegally, and certainly does not answer either question. -- 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 Jun 28 22:48:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:26 +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 WAA09255 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:15 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqGtq-0007Qb-00; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:49:45 +0000 Message-ID: <43gpf2Achjl1EwRz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:34:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: <6145.9806251315@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: >(1) I agree that "it is difficult to see how can not allow him to >retract it" but I will try (clutching at straws). > >L47B "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal ... play." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >The CK does not need correction, only the time a which it was played. >We can not undo the fact that it was played prematurely, that is >history: picking the CK up does not "correct" the premature play. >The illegal play can not be corrected, so there is no allowance to >withdraw it. > >Alternatively: all that needs correcting is the turn at which the >card was played, not which card it was. So the card is picked up >and the same card played at the correct turn. There is no allowance >to change the card just the turn at which it is played. Consider a LOOT in the middle of the hand by Declarer. The defence decide not to accept it. Now the correct player leads, and declarer's card is picked up and the same card need not be played next. What is the difference? Why is there an allowance to change the card in one situation and not in another? Either you are allowed to withdraw it or you aren't. Suggesting you can withdraw it but not change it is a nonsense without support in the Law. -------- Michael Farebrother wrote: >I agree with this. I wish I didn't, but there it is. What bothers >me about the whole thing is L57C - it seems to legitemize "incorrect" >procedure. Maybe I should just treat that as "the penalty declarer >is willing to pay" for playing illegally. I am surprised this should bother you, since it is quite normal: bids and leads out of turn can be condoned, so why not a play? -------- Marvin L. French wrote: >Didn't we establish a long time ago that it is not illegal for >declarer to play from both hands at once, and therefore a card so >played may not be retracted? I remember being chastized for thinking >otherwise. No. I do not believe we have discussed this subject, certainly not in depth. >The Preface to the Laws says: "A simple declaration that a player >'does' something...establishes a correct procedure without any >suggestion that a violation be penalized." No-one has suggested penalising declarer. >L44: "After the opening lead, each player in turn plays a card..." > >L45 explains what constitutes a played card. > >L57 makes it illegal for defenders to violate correct procedure in >regard to sequence of play, and even implies (L57C) that it is not >unusual for declarer to do so. None of this answers the questions being asked. >I can't find any law that makes declarer's simultaneous play from >both hands illegal. L44, as you quote. -- 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 Jun 28 22:48:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:34 +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 WAA09275 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:24 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqGtu-0007QZ-00; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:49:47 +0000 Message-ID: <538pf5Asjjl1EwR+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:37:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer says to dummy "Play the two of clubs, please". He then >detaches the club king from hand and puts it face up on the table in the >normal fashion of playing a card. It is not a claim because he makes no >attempt to claim. He does not do anything fancy. > > RHO plays a card because a club has been played to his right. He >plays the club ace. Declarer now calls the TD and asks whether he is >allowed to change the club king. He does not say why or make any other >comments. > "Is the play of the club king legal?" Steve and Rusty have argued that since the card is played, or must be played, that makes it legal. Don has argued that since LHO could have accepted the club king we do not know whether it is legal. Marvin quotes the Law that is apparently breached and then says he cannot find a Law that makes it illegal. He and David M argue that a breach of L44B is not subject to penalty because of the Introduction, but no-one was suggesting penalising declarer! In my view, none of these arguments is sound. I have given detailed arguments in separate articles. I have seen nothing that suggests playing out of turn is legal. It is simply against a Law, namely L44B. > "Can declarer change his club king?" So how have we progressed? No-one has really produced a convincing argument that contradicts JohnK: if the club king is illegal then it may be changed. Admittedly, Robin says that the club king way be withdrawn but not changed because it is only illegal in timing: he must stop eating cheese and sardines before he goes to bed. :) John A Kuchenbrod wrote: >Since the play of the club king is an illegal play, declarer may >withdraw it according to L47B. Since L47B can be applied, one can't >use L47F. I believe that we have established this as correct so long as the play of the club king is illegal. -------- Repeating myself: As the person who asked me this problem said "When the Laws say you may retract an illegal play, and a player makes an illegal play, it is difficult to see how we can not allow him to retract it." Having considered everyone's articles to date, I believe the play of the club king is illegal, and may be changed. I believe that if this is done with intent we should adjust under L72B1. -------- Someone wrote: >I feel for the bridge players of the world when even the administrators >of the Laws, the TD's and AC's, are unable to agree on those issues >that should be straight-forward. Someone wrote: >From all of the discussion that this thread has contained, it's clear that >the current Laws do not give a clear-cut solution to this problem. Although >this problem may not occur as often as an OLOOT or a revoke, it should be >treated with its own law. I worry that many of the readers of this list retreat at the first sign of battle! While members of the WBFLC read BLML, and thus will consider any matters we raise that they see fit to promulgate opinions on, we are often able to talk things through and come to a reasonable consensus. Just because the first posts do not all agree on a problem that many readers will not have considered does not mean we shall not get there in the end. Give us a chance! -- 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 Jun 28 22:48:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:27 +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 WAA09254 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:48:15 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqGtq-0007QY-00; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:49:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 11:42:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: homecoming = Anne's question and a lo-o-ong answer. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >EBL 10.4 would perhaps be more clear if it said the right to >penalize is forfeited where there is one (this being stated as >guidance to TDs on EBL practice at the time when it was >written). It might be more clear but it is not supported by the Laws. I think it is incorrect both in its current form and in your suggested form, and believe it should be looked at again. Suppose North has a choice of A or B. South suggests B. Nothing in the Laws says that we should now disallow B. South should be given a warning or fine as appropriate. South's suggestion is UI, and perhaps easiest is to go through the UI motions. North may not accept B if it is suggested by the UI [obviously so!] and if A is an LA. EBL 10.4 would not allow B even when A is not an LA, and without a Law to indicate that I believe that to be an incorrect way to proceed. -- 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 Jun 28 23:01:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:01:56 +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 XAA09350 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:01:50 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.58]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.06/64) id 5241300 ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 09:02:34 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980628090751.007da9e0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 09:07:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Private Communication Between Partners Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While the question I would like to put on the table is currently an issue more or less exclusively for internet bridge, the ramifications are, imo, of great significance for face-to-face bridge, as well, especially as increasing numbers of players learn the game on-line and then make their way into clubs and tournaments. There are a number of means, including email, telephone and external chat programs such as ICQ, through which players have the potential to communicate with their partners and with spectators (essentially kibbitzers who can see all four hands) during play, and this practice is defended vigorously by some, including at least one very prominent player. While no one, of course, publicly supports the use of these methods to communicate information germane to a hand in play, there are clearly a number of concerns which arise in this context. While some have focused on deliberate cheating, I am actually considerably more concerned with the potential for inadvertent transmission of UI and of the potential for progressive deterioration of standards, particularly insofar as these practices may be used by players who are learning the game and look to their teachers and to other luminaries as role models. Here is the question for BLML: Is communication between partners, private or otherwise, but unrelated to the hand in play, expressly forbidden by the laws, and if so, which laws? There are a number of loosely analogous circumstances, but clearly the specific circumstance was not anticipated. Potential models include: a) situations such as partners being together in the restroom unescorted during the play of a hand b) partners talking during the play of a hand in a language which is unknown to the opponents c) partners arranging to communicate in some other means I would appreciate your insights on this matter. Thank you. Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 01:24:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:24:24 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12050 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:24:17 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.68.9.174]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980628152518.SABD87@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 15:25:18 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: Private Communication Between Partners Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 11:04:14 -0400 Message-ID: <01bda2a6$03a110c0$6c16440c@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 Bill Segraves wrote: >Here is the question for BLML: > >Is communication between partners, private or otherwise, but unrelated to >the hand in play, expressly forbidden by the laws, and if so, which laws? > >There are a number of loosely analogous circumstances, but clearly the >specific circumstance was not anticipated. Potential models include: > >a) situations such as partners being together in the restroom unescorted >during the play of a hand ************ Bill raises some interesting questions, but for now I will deal with only his "model a." The reason is that it matches exactly the rather famous incident at the ITT involving Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell. The facts presented at the hearing were that Meckstroth and Rodwell were found alone together in a restroom. Rodwell was in the middle of declaring a hand. Meckstroth had left the table before Rodwell, but not before having a look at a defender's and Rodwell's hands. There was no evidence presented that the two actually talked to each other in the restroom. Meckstroth and Rodwell each denied discussing the hand or anything else while alone together. Both, in fact, said they were both shocked and dismayed to find the other there. As individuals, we might speculate as to what happened. We could ignore facts and choose to believe some sort of "conspiracy of silence." We could decide these two men planned to meet in the restroom for the express purpose of exchanging information. But that would do them and us a great disservice. The people in charge of investigating the incident had ample opportunity to investigate the incident. They chose to bring the case forward without making any suggestion that Meckstroth and Rodwell discussed the hand in progress. These people happily would have brought a charge that Meckstroth and Rodwell discussed the hand in question if they had even the slightest scintilla of evidence to that effect. The way Rodwell played the hand was discussed extensively during the hearing. There was literally only one line of play that offered any hope of success. Rodwell took that line. We all have a responsibility to ensure that events are properly run. The Appeals & Charges Committee decided the reason Meckstroth and Rodwell were allowed into the restroom at the same time had more to do with the way the event was run and random chance than with anything these two players might have planned. The staff running the ITT was set to run the event and handle table rulings. There were not enough bodies to handle the additional duty of escorting playering out of the playing area. If we want more staff so that they can handle this duty as well, we must be prepared to pay additional money to play. Personally, I want a properly held event but would not want to pay an additional fee for an escort out of the playing area. Therefore, I propose the players establish a "buddy" system. We leave in pairs, much as we have screen mates right now. If we have a mixed pair, there could be some complications, but this might be a way to solve a problem without making the game too expensive. How many of us would be willing to have a buddy system? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 03:39:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 03:39:18 +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 DAA12450 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 03:39:11 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with UUCP id MAA07322 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:25:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0HF7R00A Sun, 28 Jun 98 12:24:07 Message-ID: <9806281224.0HF7R00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 28 Jun 98 12:24:07 Subject: DECLARER PLAYS FROM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The arguments in this thread have become rather blurred. But, the cases noted below are quite different so the argument has no bearing of applicability to the subject case being the correct hand lead and declarer followed suit OOT. The premise of the argument is that if we call declarer's OOT play of the king illegal, then the TD must allow declarer to correct the irregularity by changing his card to a beneficial card after the ace has been played. Must we turn a blind eye to the fallacy of the argument. I think that the best we can do is to say, ' We have noticed a situation where it might be argued that after a legal lead, declarer/TD may call his OOT play illegal and thereby be permitted to change to a beneficial play. This is not the intent of the laws.'. That answers the question and nips lawyering in the bud. Comments? B>Robin Barker wrote: B>>(1) I agree that "it is difficult to see how can not allow him to B>>retract it" but I will try (clutching at straws). B>> B>>L47B "A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal ... play." B>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ B>>The CK does not need correction, only the time a which it was played. B>>We can not undo the fact that it was played prematurely, that is B>>history: picking the CK up does not "correct" the premature play. B>>The illegal play can not be corrected, so there is no allowance to B>>withdraw it. B>> B>>Alternatively: all that needs correcting is the turn at which the B>>card was played, not which card it was. So the card is picked up B>>and the same card played at the correct turn. There is no allowance B>>to change the card just the turn at which it is played. B>Consider a LOOT in the middle of the hand by Declarer. The defence B>decide not to accept it. Now the correct player leads, and declarer's B>card is picked up and the same card need not be played next. What is B>the difference? Why is there an allowance to change the card in one B>situation and not in another? B>Either you are allowed to withdraw it or you aren't. Suggesting you B>can withdraw it but not change it is a nonsense without support in the B>Law. B>David Stevenson R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 05:53:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 05:53:10 +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 FAA12767 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 05:53:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA08487; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806281953.MAA08487@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 12:50:41 -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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin > quotes the Law that is apparently breached and then says he cannot find > a Law that makes it illegal. He and David M argue that a breach of L44B > is not subject to penalty because of the Introduction, but no-one was > suggesting penalising declarer! > > In my view, none of these arguments is sound. I have given detailed > arguments in separate articles. I have seen nothing that suggests > playing out of turn is legal. It is simply against a Law, namely L44B. > When a Law describes correct procedure, violating the procedure does not necessarily constitute a violation of law. The Preface (no Introduction in my book) makes this pretty clear. Look at the second of these two sentences from the Preface: "A simple declaration that a player "does" something...establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized. When a player "should" do something..., his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom." If merely not following correct procedure were always an infraction of law (i.e., "illegal"), the Preface would have said so in the first sentence. I conclude that declarer's simultaneous play from hand and dummy is improper procedure, but not illegal, and a card so played may not be withdrawn. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 06:04:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 06:04:16 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA12798 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 06:04:09 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Sun, 28 Jun 98 16:05:39 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa27309; 28 Jun 98 15:41 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA09861; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:02:49 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199806282002.QAA09861@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: DECLARER PLAYS FROM To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <9806281224.0HF7R00@bbs.hal-pc.org> from "r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org" at Jun 28, 98 12:24:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > The arguments in this thread have become rather blurred. But, the > cases noted below are quite different so the argument has no bearing > of applicability to the subject case being the correct hand lead and > declarer followed suit OOT. > > The premise of the argument is that if we call declarer's OOT play > of the king illegal, then the TD must allow declarer to correct the > irregularity by changing his card to a beneficial card after the ace > has been played. Must we turn a blind eye to the fallacy of the > argument. I think that the best we can do is to say, ' We have > noticed a situation where it might be argued that after a legal > lead, declarer/TD may call his OOT play illegal and thereby be > permitted to change to a beneficial play. This is not the intent of > the laws.'. That answers the question and nips lawyering in the bud. > > Comments? The play of the ace has nothing to do with the legality of the premature play of the king. Just as declarer may be trying to take advantage of the play of the ace, wouldn't you say that the RHO may be trying to take advantage of the premature play of the king? We have to settle the issue of the play of the king, by itself, ignoring the ace or whatever the RHO wanted to do. (And why didn't RHO call for the TD before trying to play to the trick? That is what irritates me about this case!!!) John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 06:13:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 06:13:25 +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 GAA12813 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 06:13:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA11315; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806282014.NAA11315@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "JApfelbaum" , Subject: Re: Private Communication Between Partners Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:10:22 -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 Jay wrote, in regard to the men's room incident: > > The way Rodwell played the hand was discussed extensively during the > hearing. There was literally only one line of play that offered any hope of > success. Rodwell took that line. As I remember, the line included a first-round finesse for a jack, surely the best line, and a successful one. What comes into mind is whether that line would have been selected if the finesse would not have worked. I believe that Meckwell were innocent of wrongdoing, but just because the line of play adopted was the only promising line does not prove that. It led to a verdict of "not guilty," which is not synonymous with "innocent." >How many of us would be willing to have a buddy system? Unless one has a urological or other health problem, there is ample time for peeing (and smoking, IMO), during breaks. No need to leave the table at other times, except perhaps in a pair event when TDs are not enforcing the regulation against slow play. Of course one would not want a buddy system for pairs anyway, since leaking hand information (in addition to other leaks) would be helpful to the leakee's chances. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 07:05:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 07:05:57 +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 HAA12897 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 07:05:32 +1000 Received: from marian by krypton.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0yqOi6-000raqC; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:10:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980628230314.0090e4b0@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t701321@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:03:14 +0200 To: Bill Segraves From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Private Communication Between Partners Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980628090751.007da9e0@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:07 AM 28-06-98 -0400, you wrote: >While the question I would like to put on the table is currently an issue >more or less exclusively for internet bridge, the ramifications are, imo, >of great significance for face-to-face bridge, as well, especially as >increasing numbers of players learn the game on-line and then make their >way into clubs and tournaments. > > >There are a number of means, including email, telephone and external chat >programs such as ICQ, through which players have the potential to >communicate with their partners and with spectators (essentially kibbitzers >who can see all four hands) during play, and this practice is defended >vigorously by some, including at least one very prominent player. > > >While no one, of course, publicly supports the use of these methods to >communicate information germane to a hand in play, there are clearly a >number of concerns which arise in this context. While some have focused on >deliberate cheating, I am actually considerably more concerned with the >potential for inadvertent transmission of UI and of the potential for >progressive deterioration of standards, particularly insofar as these >practices may be used by players who are learning the game and look to >their teachers and to other luminaries as role models. > > >Here is the question for BLML: > > >Is communication between partners, private or otherwise, but unrelated to >the hand in play, expressly forbidden by the laws, and if so, which laws? > > >There are a number of loosely analogous circumstances, but clearly the >specific circumstance was not anticipated. Potential models include: > >a) situations such as partners being together in the restroom unescorted >during the play of a hand > >b) partners talking during the play of a hand in a language which is >unknown to the opponents > >c) partners arranging to communicate in some other means > > >I would appreciate your insights on this matter. > > >Thank you. > > >Bill Segraves >Guilford, CT > > > sure. all comm. is forbidden (look at the art. about resp. of kibitzeres. but, you probably are looking for other problems. a simple ex. one plays a tournament but has access of 2 tel. lines and computers, so he can see both hands. how can you avoid this??? you cant. simply said: the internet is full of loopholes where people can cheat if they want (and if moey is involved, they will. This is not our problem, but one of the organizers. we cant solve it. be assured of that. Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 07:49:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 07:49:03 +1000 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12994 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 07:48:57 +1000 From: DANDEE4727@aol.com Received: from DANDEE4727@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id JVTLa02268; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:49:29 EDT To: a.witzen@tip.nl, bills@cshore.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Re: Private Communication Between Partners Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) sub 7 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 6/28/98, 5:09:17 PM, a.witzen@tip.nl writes: <> We have two phone lines - my wife plays one hand from the living room and I play the other from my computer room. Haven't found an incentive for taking advantage of this situation, but I suppose some people would. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 09:16:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:16:24 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13127 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:15:55 +1000 Received: from modem43.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.171] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yqQhH-0000FL-00; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:17:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:16:25 +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-------- > From: David Stevenson > To: Grattan Endicott ; > Subject: Declarer plays from both hands > Date: 28 June 1998 20:19 > > First article: > > A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from > his hand onto the table. RHO plays the club ace: can declarer change > his club king? > ~~~~ [Since I do not know who has said what I shall refrain from comment upon the need for this discussion. I presume someone has suggested that it is illegal to play prematurely to a trick and therefore the player is enabled by Law 47B to withdraw the King. Well, even if we do not challenge this it is quite certain that in his due turn declarer *must* play the King (Law 45C2) since the King has been maintained in a position to indicate it has been played. Concerning the suggested illegality of the premature play I would draw your attention to the form of words of Law 44B and the comparative stringency of the wording used in 45C2. There can be no doubt which of the two is mandatory and overrides the other if there is conflict (See 'Scope and Interpretation of the Laws' at the front of the law book.)There is no comparable law to Law 57 governing the actions of Declarer. ] ~~~~~ > Second article: > > OK, let us take this a step further. > >> A club is led from dummy, and declarer puts his club king down from > >> his hand onto the table. > > Is the play of the club king legal? > ~~~~~ [ The premature play of the King by Declarer is a violation of correct procedure but there is no suggestion in the Laws that it should be penalized. It is an 'irregularity'. The terms in which Law 44B is couched establish this. The Laws apply the term 'infraction' to those matters which the player 'should' or 'must' do. It may be noted that the purpose for which 47B allows withdrawal of the card is to 'correct an illegal ..... play'; the King may be played legally to the trick, though perhaps foolishly, and so no correction is required. In the case in point Law 47B would come into play if the player attempted to substitute another card for the King; that would be illegal (in breach of 45C2) and the illegality would require to be corrected.]# #Connoisseurs of my practices will note the square brackets denoting personal opinion. Quite simply, the Committee has never felt any urge to debate the matter. However, the references are all there in the Law Book. ~~ Grattan ~~~~~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 12:40:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:40:42 +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 MAA13520 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:40:36 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.87]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.06/64) id 5366100 ; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:41:19 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980628224641.007eb720@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:46:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In another forum, the question of the specific meaning of "communication" in Law 73A has now been very pointedly raised by the claim that Law 73 is silent on the matter of communication not related to the hand in play. Comments, please. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 14:41:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:41:51 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13692 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:41:45 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA02090; Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:43:11 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:43:10 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Lavinthal revoke Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is an interesting question that my partner brought to my attention today. Suppose South is playing 4H. On the second round of trumps, West revokes, discarding the D2, then finds his heart and corrects the revoke before it is established. So: the diamond is a major penalty card, lead penalties may apply, any information conveyed by the D2 is unauthorized. Now -- if the defenders are playing Lavinthal discards, this D2 tells East to lead a club. Do we treat a conventional discard any differently from a "natural" discard? This calls to mind the similar case of this well-known situation: South West North East 2NT Pass 2C (insufficient Stayman) If East becomes declarer, lead penalties can be imposed against a major suit instead of against clubs. Arguing along similar lines, it seems as if the lead penalties resulting from the D2 penalty card ought to be against clubs, not diamonds (or perhaps declarer could choose which of the 2 suits to impose a penalty upon?) The law as written doesn't seem to give this option, though. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 19:27:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 19:27:43 +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 TAA19226 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 19:27:32 +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 KAA06143 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:28:43 +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 KAA14700 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:28:42 +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 KAA07801 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:28:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 98 10:28:14 BST Message-Id: <7155.9806290928@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Consider a LOOT in the middle of the hand by Declarer. The defence > decide not to accept it. Now the correct player leads, and declarer's > card is picked up and the same card need not be played next. What is > the difference? Why is there an allowance to change the card in one > situation and not in another? > > Either you are allowed to withdraw it or you aren't. Suggesting you > can withdraw it but not change it is a nonsense without support in the > Law. > But the laws (L55) for LOOT explicitly require retractaction is the lead is not accepted. So the lead will not be withdrawn anyway. I am not suggesting declarer's play out of turn is withdrawn without being corrected; on the contrary, I am suggesting that it must not be withdrawn because it does not need correction. -------- Steve Willner writes: > The issue is whether L47B can be interpreted to allow retraction of the > C-K if it is deemed to be an illegal play. I claim it does not, > because L47B has an implied phrase "in accordance with other Laws." I would like to think L47B had such an implied phrase. However, L45E2 (fifth card played to trick by declarer) does not say that the card is withdrawn. I assume that this card is withdrawn (under L47B) but L47B is (currently) the only law that allows/requires withdrawal. -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 19:56:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 19:56:10 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19316 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 19:56:04 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-245.uunet.be [194.7.13.245]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25774 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:57:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35973C78.80F25F48@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:04:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: homecoming = Anne's question and a lo-o-ong answer. 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: > > Grattan wrote: > > >EBL 10.4 would perhaps be more clear if it said the right to > >penalize is forfeited where there is one (this being stated as > >guidance to TDs on EBL practice at the time when it was > >written). > > It might be more clear but it is not supported by the Laws. I think > it is incorrect both in its current form and in your suggested form, and > believe it should be looked at again. > > Suppose North has a choice of A or B. South suggests B. Nothing in > the Laws says that we should now disallow B. South should be given a > warning or fine as appropriate. South's suggestion is UI, and perhaps > easiest is to go through the UI motions. North may not accept B if it > is suggested by the UI [obviously so!] and if A is an LA. EBL 10.4 > would not allow B even when A is not an LA, and without a Law to > indicate that I believe that to be an incorrect way to proceed. > If an action is not clear enough that a partner finds it necessary to offer suggestions, then it clearly has LA's. As a guide to directors, many of them of lesser quality than yourself, I find nothing particularly wrong in telling them that they may well discourage the suggested option right from the start. I use a phrase like this : "if after that illegal suggestion from your partner, you do choose that option, I will examine this very harshly and rule against you if I find that his suggestion influenced your choice". This usually gets the message accross and I have not yet had players answer, "but I simply cannot ...", thereby indicating that they have no LA. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 29 21:01:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:01:29 +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 VAA19478 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:01:22 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqbhu-000460-00; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:02:48 +0000 Message-ID: <0Cg6SOAej2l1EwDN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11:13:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lavinthal revoke In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: > >Here is an interesting question that my partner brought to my attention >today. Suppose South is playing 4H. On the second round of trumps, West >revokes, discarding the D2, then finds his heart and corrects the revoke >before it is established. > >So: the diamond is a major penalty card, lead penalties may apply, any >information conveyed by the D2 is unauthorized. Now -- if the defenders >are playing Lavinthal discards, this D2 tells East to lead a club. Do we >treat a conventional discard any differently from a "natural" discard? > >This calls to mind the similar case of this well-known situation: > >South West North East >2NT Pass 2C (insufficient Stayman) > >If East becomes declarer, lead penalties can be imposed against a major >suit instead of against clubs. Arguing along similar lines, it seems as if >the lead penalties resulting from the D2 penalty card ought to be against >clubs, not diamonds (or perhaps declarer could choose which of the 2 suits >to impose a penalty upon?) The law as written doesn't seem to give this >option, though. The lead penalties are specific: the actual words of L50D2A include "... the suit of the penalty card ..." which has no reference to its meaning. However, the card itself is UI [L50D1] so if partner led a club the TD might determine that he has chosen an alternative amongst LAs that is suggested by the UI and adjust accordingly. -- 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 Jun 29 23:09:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:09:07 +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 XAA19854 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:09:00 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqdhL-00056X-00; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 13:10:20 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:01:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: declarer plays from both hands Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:01:07 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Wrote: SNIP > Taking the second question first, the Laws don't define "illegal" or > "infraction." > > SNIP > > No doubt the Preface to the 2007 Laws should clarify the general > principles for dealing with possibly conflicting laws. And whatever > phrase is implied in L47B should be made explicit. Defining "illegal" > or "infraction" may be useful as well, although it hardly seems > necessary. > > > ######## Unfortunately, the definitions in the Laws do not define > 'illegal' or 'infraction' but they *do* define an 'irregularity' as > "A deviation from the correct procdures set forth in the Laws." Even > more unfortunately, they then use the undefined terms quite widely! > ########## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 00:57:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:57:45 +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 AAA22373 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:57:38 +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 KAA05325 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12384; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:59:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:59:12 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806291459.KAA12384@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Bill Segraves > In another forum, the question of the specific meaning of "communication" > in Law 73A has now been very pointedly raised by the claim that Law 73 is > silent on the matter of communication not related to the hand in play. It seems popular for partners, between rounds, to compare notes on how well or badly their game is going. Does anyone think L73 prohibits this practice? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 02:05:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:05:44 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22729 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:05:38 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.68.7.239]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980629160641.JMWC12631@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 16:06:41 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:03:12 -0400 Message-ID: <01bda377$6b088c80$ef07440c@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 Steve Wilner wrote: > >It seems popular for partners, between rounds, to compare notes on >how well or badly their game is going. Does anyone think L73 >prohibits this practice? > It seems that Law 73 does not deal with this practice, but ACBL regulations expressly do. The most recent revision to the Disciplinary Code provides the following recommended discipline: Behavior: Deliberately ask for or give information about a board in play after both parties played it Suggested Discipline: Private Reprimand to Public Reprimand From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 02:36:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:36:57 +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 CAA22770 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:36:52 +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 JAA02720 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA21788; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:40:54 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:40:54 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199806291640.JAA21788@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Private Communication Between Partners Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Private Communication Between Partners Jay Apfelbaum wrote: |Personally, I want a properly held event but would not want to pay an |additional fee for an escort out of the playing area. Therefore, I propose |the players establish a "buddy" system. We leave in pairs, much as we have |screen mates right now. If we have a mixed pair, there could be some |complications, but this might be a way to solve a problem without making the |game too expensive. | |How many of us would be willing to have a buddy system? Not me. Instead, I would like L74C8 enforced. It was a violation of law for either of them to have left the table needlessly before the round was called. Violating 74C8 is common practice in high-level events. I think it should be stopped. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 02:40:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:40:00 +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 CAA22787 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:39:51 +1000 Received: from client087a.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.122] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yqgzR-0000BC-00; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:41:17 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: homecoming = Anne's question and a lo-o-ong answer. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 16:04:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda36f$3c9f1d80$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: 28 June 1998 14:22 ###Subject: homecoming = Anne's question and a lo-o-ong answer. >Grattan wrote: > >>EBL 10.4 would perhaps be more clear if it said the right to >>penalize is forfeited where there is one (this being stated as >>guidance to TDs on EBL practice at the time when it was >>written). > > It might be more clear but it is not supported by the Laws. I think >it is incorrect both in its current form and in your suggested form, and >believe it should be looked at again. > > Suppose North has a choice of A or B. South suggests B. Nothing in >the Laws says that we should now disallow B. South should be given a >warning or fine as appropriate. South's suggestion is UI, and perhaps >easiest is to go through the UI motions ++++ Something has come off the rails. 10.4 does not say the option should be disallowed, nor does my posting. 10.4 says that in accordance with EBL practice (when it was written - today I do not know) a right to penalize, where there is one - not in the case in question since EW have committed no infraction subject to penalty, should be forfeited if the players consult. The "instruction" to partner by North is a breach of Law 73A1 (which Law covers all communication whilst the auction and/or play is incomplete), and the Director has power to apply 84E if there is a reasonable possibility etc.. I think one probably interprets 'communication' as being communication on matters which can affect the hand, but this is not what it actually says and I could envisage circumstances in which a more rigid application would be justified. Perhaps you should read my message to Anne over again since there are other things in it, too.? ~~~ Grattan ~~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 02:44:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:44:10 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22811 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:44:00 +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 MAA08322 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:45:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA12510; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:45:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:45:37 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199806291645.MAA12510@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "JApfelbaum" > It seems that Law 73 does not deal with this practice, but ACBL regulations > expressly do. The most recent revision to the Disciplinary Code provides the > following recommended discipline: > > Behavior: Deliberately ask for or give information about a board in play > after both parties played it > Suggested Discipline: Private Reprimand to Public Reprimand If this is meant to apply to _partners_ (and not to different contestants, as seems obvious), that should be made clear. I cannot imagine it is meant for that, though, or that players would accept it. My earlier question was about a (private, between rounds, directed to partner only) remark like "Well, partner, I have us two boards above average. What do you estimate?" Or (Jay's case) "Gee, I guess I could have made 3NT on board 3. Do you think the field will make it?" Does anyone think these are illegal or even improper? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 03:06:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:06:40 +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 DAA22890 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:06:35 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:07:58 +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 SAA08261 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:07:43 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. In-Reply-To: <01bda377$6b088c80$ef07440c@jay-apfelbaum> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:05:40 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: > Steve Wilner wrote: > > > > > >It seems popular for partners, between rounds, to compare notes on > >how well or badly their game is going. Does anyone think L73 > >prohibits this practice? > > > > It seems that Law 73 does not deal with this practice, but ACBL regulations > expressly do. The most recent revision to the Disciplinary Code provides the > following recommended discipline: > > Behavior: Deliberately ask for or give information about a board in play > after both parties played it > Suggested Discipline: Private Reprimand to Public Reprimand Hmm, I presume this is meant to stop you from discussing previously played boards with your current opponents; I'm unconvinced that anybody intended it to refer to communication between partners. Otherwise it would seem to condemn questions/comments such as "Does it help if I switch to a club?", "Sorry, I should have doubled." or even "Was that -1100 or -1400?" just after the board has been finished. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 03:15:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:15:24 +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 DAA22938 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:15:15 +1000 From: bills@cshore.com Received: from [130.132.145.68] ([130.132.145.68]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.06/64) id 5538700 ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 13:15:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 13:16:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. Message-Id: <199806291815.5538700@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Steve Wilner wrote: > > >> >>It seems popular for partners, between rounds, to compare notes on >>how well or badly their game is going. Does anyone think L73 >>prohibits this practice? >> > >It seems that Law 73 does not deal with this practice, but ACBL regulations >expressly do. The most recent revision to the Disciplinary Code provides the >following recommended discipline: > >Behavior: Deliberately ask for or give information about a board in play >after both parties played it >Suggested Discipline: Private Reprimand to Public Reprimand Please tell me that there is some misunderstanding here! 1) Law 73 says "communication between partners *during the auction and play*". 2) These are *partners*. They were both there at the same table at the same time. Doesn't "parties" refer to *other* players? Please, Jay, tell me this isn't true. Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 03:37:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:37:15 +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 DAA23006 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:37:04 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqhsy-0004Wz-00; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 17:38:37 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:25:31 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:25:30 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: SNIP > The premature play of the King by Declarer is a violation > of correct procedure but there is no suggestion in the Laws that it > should > be penalized. It is an 'irregularity'. The terms in which Law 44B is > couched establish this. The Laws apply the term 'infraction' to those > matters which the player 'should' or 'must' do. > However, the references are all there in the Law Book. > > ########### I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, it is a great > shame that the law book does not define the term 'infraction' which it > has such a specific meaning especially given that the term > 'irregularity' is defined. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 06:59:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 06:59:29 +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 GAA23483 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 06:57:59 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-178.access.net.il [192.116.204.178]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA22188; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:55:49 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35980056.153ED909@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:00:07 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Simultaneous plays - 6h as penalty card ??? References: <01bd9d6d$5c829620$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I have no doubt that Anne's summary bellow is the right ruling - if the lawmakers wrote the present version of Law 57 intentionally or not ...... But Reg's story includes the decision that West's 6h becomes a penalty card , if Declarer decides to compel West to play his highest or lowest heart card ..... As much as I remembered Law 57A , and I read it again , there is no penalty card for the defender that has to comply with penalty - only the offender's card becomes a penalty card . Am I wrong ???? Sorry for my late "awake" but was busy with some non-serious business. Dany Anne Jones wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Reg Busch > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 6:54 AM > Subject: Simultaneous plays > > > It is agreed that these two plays were simultaneous. West, not > noticing East's > >club play, has also played the H6 to declarer's lead. > > I am interested to not the "It is agreed." Which players agreed? West > cannot have agreed because it is said that he did not notice. Declarer > and dummy are the two of import who are left to agree with the claim > that it was simultaneous. > It is advantageous for the declaring side to agree simultaneous or > subsequent rather than previous to the correct lead which is of course > only a LOOT. Otherwise as David suggests we have a ROOT assuming always > that East did in fact have a trump. We have not been told, and at the > point of ruling we do not have a need to know. > I suspect that Dec looks left as soon as he has played towards dummy, so > he is not really in a position to be sure. Dummy is the person most > likely to notice the timing. > So for the moment I will assume there is some doubt ( I know there was > agreement). > Law 57 is intended to protect Dec from UI by premature play by an opp > whose turn it was not. > Imagine the case where East was in fact devoid of trumps. It may > cartainly be an advantage > for West to know this before he plays to the trick. As Directors we are > not surely intended > examine the hands in order to make a ruling of Law enabling the play of > the hand. > We should understand that where a card is played either simultaneously, > or subsequently to > a legal lead we should apply Law 57/58A. I can see the reason for this. > I can understand those who would prefer to apply Law 49 to this > situation, but I cannot agree with them. I apply Law 57/58A and allow > Dec the right to chose higher/lower etc. > As a final thought, I can remember at least two occasions in 17 years > that my pard has followed in an > anti-clockwise direction to a trick. It is more likely to happen when > Decs line of play is marked, e.g leading > a trump towards dummy. > I understand that in this example this is probably not a case of > disorientated East. However without doubt I am going to rule Law 57/58A, > and not Law 49. > > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 07:24:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:24:04 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23608 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:23:57 +1000 Received: from modem54.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.182] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yqlQR-0008FC-00; Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:25:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" , "David Martin" Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:24:48 +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: David Martin > To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' > Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands > Date: 29 June 1998 18:25 > > Grattan wrote: > > SNIP > > > ########### I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, it is a great > > shame that the law book does not define the term 'infraction' which it > > has such a specific meaning especially given that the term > > 'irregularity' is defined. +++ However it should be noted that in the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws when a player 'should' do something it is stated to be an infraction if he fails to do it, whereas when the Law merely states that the player does something it is merely an'irregularity' if he fails to do it. A dividing line is thus marked out.. All infractions are irregularities but not all irregularities are infractions. I agree that the Laws themselves are lazy in their use of the terms. ~~~~ Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 07:27:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:27:36 +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 HAA23624 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:27:29 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h31.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id BAA22118; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:28:54 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3598A1BA.3C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:28:42 -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: Private Communication @ What are the Limitation of Law 73A References: <199806280522.AAA30358@pookie.uchicago.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980628170311.007c28a0@awod.com> <3.0.5.32.19980628214808.007bb930@awod.com> <35986DDF.1773@elnet.msk.ru> <35986F22.69A7@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Bill opened two threads: Private Communication Between Partners and What Are the Limitation of Law 73A. Thing is that in OKBridge just now is continueing hot discussion about possibilities of use ICQ byt partners - for private communication. OKbridge allows to partners to have only public communications... Some participants of this discussion says that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (especially L73A) ate irrelevant in OKbridge communuty... Indeed, both Codes (so Duplicate as Rubber) were written for use in face-to-face bridge, not in internet bridge. Bur let me remind that the very bridge has origin, tradition and common-sense principles which has higher priority than changable rules (Codes, Laws). And in respond of Bill threads I'd like to mail you my post from OKbridge discussion: Really - I am too old-fashioned because I DO NOT understand the problem: using system as ICQ for communication with partner (I am ICQ user too) when playing internet bridge is the same as in face-to-face bridge to exchange with partner messages via close envelopes. Maybe - there happens to find players that like (and even enjoy) such style of play. But I guess that not too much:) The problem is that such similar procedure (via envelopes) makes it clear at once - it is rather unfair:) But anybody is free to establish his own standards:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 10:50:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:50:48 +1000 Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA23927 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:50:41 +1000 Received: from modem106.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.106] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yqoeb-00030x-00; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:52:13 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:33:33 +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 Our language quite frequently begs A meaning to hang on its pegs But any fool knows a 'chairperson' grows A back, two arms, and four legs. ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. > Date: 29 June 1998 17:45 " > > From: "JApfelbaum" > > Behavior: Deliberately ask for or give information about a board in play > > after both parties played it > > Suggested Discipline: Private Reprimand to Public Reprimand > > If this is meant to apply to _partners_ (and not to different contestants, > as seems obvious), that should be made clear. I cannot imagine it is > meant for that, though, or that players would accept it. > " ++++ I would assume this relates to conversations between sides about boards previously played. It would be a regulation surely and, I imagine, intended as a reinforcement of 90B4. ~~~ Grattan ~~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 17:37:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:37:48 +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 RAA24488 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:37:28 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA18727; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199806300738.AAA18727@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , "bridge-laws" , "David Martin" Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:34:28 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > However, it is a great shame that the law book > does not define the term 'infraction' which it > has such a specific meaning especially given that > the term 'irregularity' is defined. The word "irregularity" is defined in the Laws' definitions because it has a meaning that one cannot get out of the dictionary: "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." The word "infraction," as used in the Preface (When a player *should* do something, his failure to do so is an infraction of law...") need not be defined because its meaning is standard English. Surely everyone knows what an "infraction of law" means. For those who don't, it means the breaking of a law, i.e., an illegal action. I am perfectly comfortable with the usage of these words in the Laws. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 20:36:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 20:36:15 +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 UAA24654 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 20:36:05 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqxmi-0005y2-00; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:37:15 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:34:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:34:45 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: SNIP > The word "irregularity" is defined in the Laws' definitions because > it has a meaning that one cannot get out of the dictionary: "A > deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." > > The word "infraction," as used in the Preface (When a player *should* > do something, his failure to do so is an infraction of law...") need > not be defined because its meaning is standard English. Surely > everyone knows what an "infraction of law" means. For those who > don't, it means the breaking of a law, i.e., an illegal action. > > > ########## Clearly everyone does not know what the term 'infraction' > means as some posters to this list have indicated that *all* > 'irregularities' are 'infractions' which is simply not the case. > ########## > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 30 22:12:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:12:58 +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 WAA24867 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:12:51 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yqzIm-0004Fx-00; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 12:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:32:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: homecoming = Anne's question and a lo-o-ong answer. In-Reply-To: <01bda36f$3c9f1d80$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>EBL 10.4 would perhaps be more clear if it said the right to >>>penalize is forfeited where there is one (this being stated as >>>guidance to TDs on EBL practice at the time when it was >>>written). >> It might be more clear but it is not supported by the Laws. I think >>it is incorrect both in its current form and in your suggested form, and >>believe it should be looked at again. >> >> Suppose North has a choice of A or B. South suggests B. Nothing in >>the Laws says that we should now disallow B. South should be given a >>warning or fine as appropriate. South's suggestion is UI, and perhaps >>easiest is to go through the UI motions >++++ Something has come off the rails. 10.4 does not say the >option should be disallowed, nor does my posting. 10.4 says > that in accordance with EBL practice (when it was written - today >I do not know) a right to penalize, where there is one - not in the >case in question since EW have committed no infraction subject to >penalty, should be forfeited if the players consult. The "instruction" >to partner by North is a breach of Law 73A1 (which Law covers all >communication whilst the auction and/or play is incomplete), and >the Director has power to apply 84E if there is a reasonable >possibility etc.. I think one probably interprets 'communication' as >being communication on matters which can affect the hand, but this >is not what it actually says and I could envisage circumstances in >which a more rigid application would be justified. I have misread EBL 10.4, and accept that if there is no penalty involved then there is nothing wrong with it. I am still unhappy with it when there is a penalty involved. > Perhaps you should read my message to Anne over again >since there are other things in it, too.? ~~~ Grattan ~~~ ++++ I have answered all I wanted to, thanks! -- 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 ~