From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 01:07:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 01:07:43 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f76.hotmail.com [207.82.250.182]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA27435 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 01:07:35 +1000 Received: (qmail 24621 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jun 1998 15:08:39 -0000 Message-ID: <19980630150839.24620.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.131.40 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 08:08:39 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.131.40] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 08:08:39 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Marvin wrote (David M in ##): > > 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. >> So, every "infraction of law" is the breaking of a law. So what is the breaking of a law that isn't an infraction? Surely failing to follow correct procedure is breaking the law that states what correct procedure is? Or are there laws that can be broken and laws that can't, even by not doing what the law says to do? >> >> ########## 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. >> ########## >> Well, if you are referring to me, I don't believe all 'irregularities' are 'infractions'. However, I do believe that all 'irregularities' are illegal, because they are a "breaking of a law, i.e. an illegal action." And L47B says nothing about 'irregularities' or 'infractions'; it talks about "correct[ing] and illegal...play". (and if I want to be obnoxious about it, the 'irregularity' caused by not following correct procedure is an 'infraction' under L72A1). Since I can't find a definition in the Laws for 'illegal', I use the dictionary definition - "contrary to law". I am willing to be convinced otherwise, that 'illegal act' is used as a synonym for 'infraction' - as I have said before, I'm arguing for a practice I strongly dislike - but I have a hard time dealing with breaking laws != illegal. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 01:51:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 01:51:20 +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 BAA27550 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 01:51:14 +1000 Received: from client86cc.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.86.204] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yr2i3-0004rM-00; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:52:43 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:54:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda43f$57887ee0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Date: 29 June 1998 14:46 Subject: RE: declarer plays from both hands >> ######## 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! >> ########## +++ [I wonder whether it is helpful to think of what 'should', 'shall', or 'must', be done as a punishable failure if not done - an 'infraction'. A violation of correct procedure which is not punishable for itself is an 'irregularity' but not an infraction. It may reach a punishable level if the breach is aggravated by other factors - but rarely. It is correct procedure, but not a punishable offence, to wash certain materials in lukewarm water - the label asks us to do it. ~~~ Grattan ] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 02:47:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 02:47:26 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA27856 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 02:47:16 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yr3aF-0000pb-00; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:48:43 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:43:09 +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 17:43:07 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael wrote: > >Marvin wrote (David M in ##): > > > > 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. > >> > So, every "infraction of law" is the breaking of a law. So what is > the breaking of a law that isn't an infraction? Surely > failing to follow correct procedure is breaking the law that states > what correct procedure is? Or are there laws that can be broken > and laws that can't, even by not doing what the law says to do? > > ######### Yes, there are such laws. This is precisely the point that > I and others are making. The purpose of some laws is *merely to > define* correct procedure and these laws use specific language to > indicate that this is what they are doing. To fail to follow such > laws is an irregularity but is in *no way wrong* and therefore neither > illegal nor an infraction. Other laws forbid players from doing > something or require them to do something and again specific language > is used to indicate that this is what such laws are doing. To fail to > obey these laws is an infraction (and therefore illegal) and the > language used then tells us exactly how serious the breach is and > hence how much voltage to put in the lightening bolt that will follow. > ########### > > > >> > >> #####OLD##### 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. > >> #####OLD##### > >> > Well, if you are referring to me, I don't believe all 'irregularities' > are 'infractions'. However, I do believe that all 'irregularities' > are illegal, because they are a "breaking of a law, i.e. an illegal > action." And L47B says nothing about 'irregularities' or > 'infractions'; it talks about "correct[ing] and illegal...play". > > ####### You can only break a law that requires or forbids something. > You cannot break a law that merely defines something. Grattan's > example pasted in here makes the point excellently. "It is correct > procedure, but not a punishable offence, to wash > certain materials in lukewarm water - the label asks us to do it." > Washing them in hot water may be very silly or careless but is not > illegal. ############ > > (and if I want to be obnoxious about it, the 'irregularity' caused > by not following correct procedure is an 'infraction' under L72A1). > > ######### I disagree with this. Law 72A1 only applies to laws that > require or forbid etc. Law 90 deals with irregularities that are of > an aggrevated nature and again to quote Grattan's recent posting. " > It may reach a punishable > level if the breach is aggravated by other factors - but rarely." > ############ > > Since I can't find a definition in the Laws for 'illegal', I use the > dictionary definition - "contrary to law". > > I am willing to be convinced otherwise, that 'illegal act' is used as > a synonym for 'infraction' - as I have said before, I'm arguing for > a practice I strongly dislike - but I have a hard time dealing with > breaking laws != illegal. > > ######### IMO, infraction=illegal. Breaking procedure defining > laws<>illegal. > Breaking non-procedure defining laws=illegal.######### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 04:20:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:20:16 +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 EAA28044 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:20:09 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA07283; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:21:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-24.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.56) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007262; Tue Jun 30 13:20:50 1998 Received: by har-pa1-24.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDA431.E61C2980@har-pa1-24.ix.netcom.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:18:05 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDA431.E61C2980@har-pa1-24.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , JApfelbaum Subject: RE: Private Communication Between Partners Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:18:03 -0400 Encoding: 67 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There comes a point at which the intrusiveness of authority becomes tantamount to accusation. To require an escort to the rest room for routine events (especially between rounds and during breaks) is an example of such Big Brotherism. It infers the likelihood of unethical behaviour, and is unacceptable as a routine policy. This is particularly so at lower levels of play. At some point we must rely on the fact that the vast majority of players are not desirous of cheating...educating them to the exisitng prohibition against discussing hands still to be played should be sufficient; penalising them sharply for such discussion if and when it occurs is acceptable, but providing bodyguards for a trip to the urinal is not. This problem is exacerbated in some areas where competent authoritative same sex directors may yet be of a different sexual orientation. I would be rather suspicious of the limpness of wrist of any official who wanted to take me to the men's room. And what if the TD is a woman? Unlike some of our more enlightened brethren overseas, most Americans have not accpeted the concept of the coed or unisex water closet. Somehow I suspect that a TD suggesting he escort some retired steelworker in Jay's bailiwick to the men's might provoke impolite language at least and possibly lead to a black eye. (Perhaps there's a little more tolerance out on the left coast.) John or David B. might address the related concern of requiring an escort to where they are selling the beer. Perhaps what we need is less tournament officials and more waiters? Or does someone always buy the table? :-) ---------- From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 4:10 PM To: JApfelbaum; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Private Communication Between Partners 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 Wed Jul 1 10:21:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:21:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28972 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:20:55 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrAfB-0001Q8-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:22:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:45:17 +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 Grattan wrote: >> 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 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. No, I do not agree with this. If the king is maintained in a position to indicate that it has been played then it must be played at that time. That does not mean that it may not be withdrawn at a later time. Compare the situation where declarer leads a card from hand by putting it on the table but in fact it is dummy's lead. He may not just put it back in his hand without any penalty since it must be played per L45C2. That makes it a played card, but does not make it a legal card. The penalty is not very severe - in effect the defence get a choice of which hand he leads from, but there is a penalty. **If the illegal play is not condoned then the card is picked up per L47B.** But what Law makes it illegal to lead from the wrong hand? L44G, no? Another way of looking at it is that if you suggest that the club king must be played later because it was put in a played position when it was a play out of turn, then what is different with the lead out of turn? Ah, but that lead out of turn may be retracted: well, yes, but at first sight that also applies to the play out of turn. What is the difference? > 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. However, there is no conflict because they apply at different times. >> 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 what way is it legal? If I lead out of turn, that is a breach of L44G: how does a play differ? > 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.]# No, this misses the point. Either the Laws allow the card to be withdrawn, or they don't. There is no suggestion that declarer may withdraw the king unless there is a Law specifically authorising it. However, the wording of L47B appears to allow its withdrawal, so long as the play out of turn is illegal. To put it another way, there seems to be a suggestion that declarer's play out of turn is legal. OK, what determines which leads/plays/calls out of turn are legal, and which illegal? >However, the references are all there in the Law Book. Now that's a sneaky comment! Yes, all the references are there, but the conclusion from them is not completely clear! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 10:20:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:20:39 +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 KAA28964 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:20:31 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrAev-0001Py-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:22:03 +0000 Message-ID: <4TkpWXABpXm1EwLr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:52:34 +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: <01bda43f$57887ee0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> ######## 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! >>> ########## > >+++ [I wonder whether it is helpful to think of what 'should', 'shall', >or 'must', be done as a punishable failure if not done - an 'infraction'. > A violation of correct procedure which is not punishable for >itself is an 'irregularity' but not an infraction. It may reach a punishable >level if the breach is aggravated by other factors - but rarely. > It is correct procedure, but not a punishable offence, to wash >certain materials in lukewarm water - the label asks us to do it. Is it illegal? The problem that causes our difficulty is that L47B apparently gives a player the right to withdraw a card to correct an illegal play. Now it is all very well for people to talk about infractions and irregularities but that is not the wording that causes trouble: it is "illegal". Some people think that if you do not follow a Law your action is illegal. If the Law book has a different meaning for illegal then i believe it should say so. ---------- David Martin wrote [#########]: >Michael wrote: >> So, every "infraction of law" is the breaking of a law. So what is >> the breaking of a law that isn't an infraction? Surely >> failing to follow correct procedure is breaking the law that states >> what correct procedure is? Or are there laws that can be broken >> and laws that can't, even by not doing what the law says to do? >> ######### Yes, there are such laws. This is precisely the point that >> I and others are making. The purpose of some laws is *merely to >> define* correct procedure and these laws use specific language to >> indicate that this is what they are doing. To fail to follow such >> laws is an irregularity but is in *no way wrong* and therefore neither >> illegal nor an infraction. One of the Laws you refer to is L44. So please explain to me why we penalise a lead out of turn when it is neither illegal nor an infraction. And please don't quote L54 to L56: they tell you what the penalties are, but they do not say why a lead out of turn is not perfectly legal. > Other laws forbid players from doing >> something or require them to do something and again specific language >> is used to indicate that this is what such laws are doing. To fail to >> obey these laws is an infraction (and therefore illegal) and the >> language used then tells us exactly how serious the breach is and >> hence how much voltage to put in the lightening bolt that will follow. >> ########### Why do you assume that an infraction is the same as illegal? I don't think it is. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 15:30:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:30:48 +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 PAA29432 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:30:42 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA27897; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807010531.WAA27897@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:27:58 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > One of the Laws you refer to is L44. So please explain to me why we > penalise a lead out of turn when it is neither illegal nor an > infraction. And please don't quote L54 to L56: they tell you what the > penalties are, but they do not say why a lead out of turn is not > perfectly legal. As I see it, by stating penalties when defenders do not follow L44, L54 & L56 turn what would otherwise be a mere irregularity into an illegal action. There is no law that does the same for declarer's simultaneous play from both hands, so it is not illegal. The Preface could be a little more clear about "simple declarations," which "establish correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." That does not mean that such violations are never penalized, of course. L17C says that "each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation," which is a simple declaration of proper procedure, but failure to follow that procedure is penalized. Statements like that seem to call for a "must," but the lawmakers evidently thought that would be stuffy. Instead, they use a simple declaration to establish proper procedure, then make violating the procedure illegal *de facto* by imposing a penalty when it is not followed. No penalty, no illegal action. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 17:32:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:32:04 +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 RAA29731 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:31:56 +1000 Received: from modem43.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.43] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yrHOT-0001pC-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:33:30 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:31:54 +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 Martin > To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' > Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands > Date: 30 June 1998 17:43 > > > (and if I want to be obnoxious about it, the 'irregularity' caused > > by not following correct procedure is an 'infraction' under L72A1). > > > > ######### I disagree with this. Law 72A1 only applies to laws that > > require or forbid etc. Law 90 deals with irregularities that are of > > an aggrevated nature and again to quote Grattan's recent posting. " > > It may reach a punishable > > level if the breach is aggravated by other factors - but rarely." > > ############ > > +++ [ When I used the word 'lazy' in an earlier posting L72A1 was one item I had in mind. Technically I think Michael is right, but I would add that I believe this is so because the drafters recognized that the laws guide the Director by their language as to how it is intended he should use his discretion in awarding penalties. So a rather loose construction did not matter greatly, perhaps (?). Under the pressures of BLML one can accept that the intent of 72A1 could have been more plainly stated to advantage - defining the limits of illegality expressly. At this point there are a number of related thoughts going around in my head. Perhaps I may jot some down in a contemplative rather than a definitive vein. For example: -# It may be that a more accurate reflection of the thinking would be arrived at by changing 'illegal play' in 47B to 'play of an illegal card'. # In the same law thought might be given to introducing words to say: "When the Director requires it a played card may be withdrawn to correct etc...." # I wonder if it would be useful, in these times of great nicety of interpretation (polite) to go through the laws and specify what is an illegal action and what is a violation of procedure, spelling out for each the normal treatment of it by the Director? BLML is having an effect, I think, in introducing a different kind of scrutiny to our subject, and strangely enough it is advancing the cause of legalistic attitudes requiring a new exactitude in the expression of the laws. Bridge lawyers unite.....! # Of course, this may tend to remove from the Director some part of his discretion, something I am loath to do. # It seems fairly obvious that procedural violations only call for remedy where the opponents are damaged in consequence of the failure to wash in lukewarm water. Or are caused excessive inconvenience in consequence of it. #The mode of the laws at present is to incorporate in their language guidance to Directors on what should or should not be punished and how often. It is done in places in approximate fashion. This was the EK philosophy, using the law book as a vade mecum for the local worthy struggling with its contents in the village church halls (these are almost his words!). The technique could be reviewed altho I suspect he was right to suggest it was the best and maybe only way to reach the parts that other lubricants do not reach.] ~~ Grattan ~~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 17:43:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:43:59 +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 RAA29757 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:43:52 +1000 Received: from modem23.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.23] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yrHa1-0000WG-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:45:26 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:44:30 +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 -------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands > Date: 01 July 1998 00:45 > > Grattan wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > No, I do not agree with this. If the king is maintained in a position > to indicate that it has been played then it must be played at that time. > That does not mean that it may not be withdrawn at a later time. > > +++[ For 'at that time' substitute 'to that trick'. In my view. G. ]+++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 1 19:45:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:45:21 +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 TAA29893 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:45:14 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrJTS-0003g7-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:46:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:41:43 +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 Grattan wrote: >> >> From: David Stevenson >> No, I do not agree with this. If the king is maintained in a position >> to indicate that it has been played then it must be played at that time. >> That does not mean that it may not be withdrawn at a later time. >> > >+++[ For 'at that time' substitute 'to that trick'. In my view. G. ]+++ Sorry to repeat myself, but how does this fit in with a lead out of turn? When declarer plays the card later it is to the same trick - so what is the difference? -- 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 Jul 2 01:02:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:02:59 +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 BAA03152 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:02:40 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrOQY-0000sm-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:04:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:14:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A defender asks his partner "Having none" [outside NAmerica and Australasia] and his partner agrees that he has one! TD called: major penalty card [but it does not matter in effect]: one trick revoke. The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do you rule? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 01:46:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:46:29 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03260 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:46:19 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrP6v-0001ob-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:47:54 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:57:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:57:06 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > Compare the situation where declarer leads a card from hand by > putting > it on the table but in fact it is dummy's lead. He may not just put > it > back in his hand without any penalty since it must be played per > L45C2. > That makes it a played card, but does not make it a legal card. The > penalty is not very severe - in effect the defence get a choice of > which > hand he leads from, but there is a penalty. **If the illegal play is > not condoned then the card is picked up per L47B.** But what Law > makes > it illegal to lead from the wrong hand? L44G, no? > > ######## IMO, no! It is Law 55 that makes it illegal. ######### > > Another way of looking at it is that if you suggest that the club > king > must be played later because it was put in a played position when it > was > a play out of turn, then what is different with the lead out of turn? > Ah, but that lead out of turn may be retracted: well, yes, but at > first > sight that also applies to the play out of turn. What is the > difference? > > ######### The difference is that there is a specific Law, ie. 55A > that *requires* the retraction of Declarer's LOOT if not accepted by > the defenders but there is no equivalent law covering declarer's POOT. > ######### > > SNIP > > In what way is it legal? If I lead out of turn, that is a breach of > L44G: ####### No, it is a breach of Law 55, not Law 44G. ######### > how does a play differ? ####### There is no equivalent law covering > this. ########### > > > 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.]# > > No, this misses the point. Either the Laws allow the card to be > withdrawn, or they don't. There is no suggestion that declarer may > withdraw the king unless there is a Law specifically authorising it. > However, the wording of L47B appears to allow its withdrawal, so long > as > the play out of turn is illegal. > > To put it another way, there seems to be a suggestion that > declarer's > play out of turn is legal. OK, what determines which > leads/plays/calls > out of turn are legal, and which illegal? ####### Specific laws > covering each illegal case. ######### > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 01:46:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:46:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03261 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:46:21 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrP6y-0001ob-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:47:56 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:06:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:06:21 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: SNIP > As I see it, by stating penalties when defenders do not follow L44, > L54 & L56 turn what would otherwise be a mere irregularity into an > illegal action. There is no law that does the same for declarer's > simultaneous play from both hands, so it is not illegal. > > ####### I agree with this. ###### > > The Preface could be a little more clear about "simple declarations," > which "establish correct procedure without any suggestion that a > violation be penalized." That does not mean that such violations are > never penalized, of course. L17C says that "each player calls in turn > in a clockwise rotation," which is a simple declaration of proper > procedure, but failure to follow that procedure is penalized. > Statements like that seem to call for a "must," but the lawmakers > evidently thought that would be stuffy. Instead, they use a simple > declaration to establish proper procedure, then make violating the > procedure illegal *de facto* by imposing a penalty when it is not > followed. No penalty, no illegal action. > > ######## The use of the term 'must' would imply that call out of > rotation is a *very serious* breach of the rules and not merely a > common and minor infraction carrying a standard set of penalties. > ######## From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 01:46:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:46:43 +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 BAA03265 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:46:26 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrP6x-0001ob-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:47:55 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:00:47 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:00:45 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > Some people think that if you do not follow a Law your action is > illegal. If the Law book has a different meaning for illegal then i > believe it should say so. > > ######### Agreed, it should say so. ######## > ---------- > > > >> So, every "infraction of law" is the breaking of a law. So what is > >> the breaking of a law that isn't an infraction? Surely > >> failing to follow correct procedure is breaking the law that states > >> what correct procedure is? Or are there laws that can be broken > >> and laws that can't, even by not doing what the law says to do? > > >> ####OLD##### Yes, there are such laws. This is precisely the > point that > >> I and others are making. The purpose of some laws is *merely to > >> define* correct procedure and these laws use specific language to > >> indicate that this is what they are doing. To fail to follow such > >> laws is an irregularity but is in *no way wrong* and therefore > neither > >> illegal nor an infraction.#######OLD##### > > One of the Laws you refer to is L44. So please explain to me why we > penalise a lead out of turn when it is neither illegal nor an > infraction. And please don't quote L54 to L56: they tell you what the > penalties are, but they do not say why a lead out of turn is not > perfectly legal. > > > ########## This is where we disagree and please don't tie both my > hands behand my back! It is not Law 44 that makes the lead out of > turn illegal but, rather, it is the very existence of Laws 54 and 56 > that make a defender's lead out of turn illegal. I will quote Law 56 > because it explicitly states the fact, ie. "When declarer requires a > defender to retract his faced lead out of turn, the card *illegally* > led ........". ######### > > > > #######OLD###### Other laws forbid players from doing > >> something or require them to do something and again specific > language > >> is used to indicate that this is what such laws are doing. To fail > to > >> obey these laws is an infraction (and therefore illegal) and the > >> language used then tells us exactly how serious the breach is and > >> hence how much voltage to put in the lightening bolt that will > follow. > >> ######OLD##### > > Why do you assume that an infraction is the same as illegal? I > don't > think it is. > > ########### I assume it for two reasons. First, the sense of the use > of the terms infraction and illegal in the context of the laws clearly > suggests to me that they are meant to be the same. Second, from my > understanding of the common usage of such terms in other legal > situations, eg many commercial contracts contain clauses of definition > that are quite different in nature from the penalty clauses contained > in the same contacts. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 02:25:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:25:32 +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 CAA03655 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:25:25 +1000 Received: from client0865.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.101] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yrPiY-000404-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:26:47 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:30:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda4fc$be3ca040$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: Rusty Court To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 28 June 1998 08:28 Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands >> 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 > >> >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. > +++[ Hi Rusty - and YES. ~~~ Grattan ~~~] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 02:25:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:25:29 +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 CAA03653 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:25:22 +1000 Received: from client0865.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.101] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yrPia-000404-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:26:50 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:27:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda50d$2ca969e0$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 14:24 Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands >Robin Barker wrote: > >> >>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. > David: > 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? +++ One possible difference is the existence of Law 55 and of the words "without penalty" in it, as they are also in 47C but conspicuously not in 47B.+++ > > 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.> > +++ I would not be so rude as to describe this statement as nonsense. However, it is not based upon the text of Law 45C2 which is stated in infinite terms and holds good if it applies, or is not excluded, throughout the duration of the hand. [The statement made elsewhere that the real problem lies in the question what is 'legal' is near the mark, save that the relevant term to consider is "illegal play", which I believe is intended to be construed as "play of an illegal card" but I agree the law lacks clear enough definition in this regard. I share Robin Barker's opinion that, within the intentions of Law 44B, the premature play of a legal card by Declarer is not an illegal play.] ~~~~ Grattan ~~~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 02:25:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:25:22 +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 CAA03645 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:25:15 +1000 Received: from client0865.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.101] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yrPiW-000404-00; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:26:45 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:24:52 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda4fc$031280a0$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 >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. +++[ Having already enjoyed a long life I have several times met with a player who has drawn attention to a wrongly turned card in order to get his partner to cash a contract making/defeating trick. My first priority would be to stop that. ~~~ Grattan ~~~] +++ > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 02:31:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:31:49 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03715 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 02:31:43 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA12412 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:33:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13822; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:33:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:33:26 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807011633.MAA13822@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without > the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. > Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do > you rule? What's the problem? If the NOS would have done better had the defender kept silent, and the defender _could have known_ that drawing attention to the revoke might help his position, then you adjust. Isn't that what L72B1 says? It only requires an irregularity, not an infraction, so the semantic debate we have been having in another context doesn't matter. In practice, "could have known" may be hard to establish. Usually it is better to keep silent, isn't it? But the exceptional case where it was better to (improperly) say something seems exactly what L72B1 was designed for. Of course best of all (from my chauvinistic North American perspective) would be to allow defenders to ask each other about possible revokes and be rid of the whole silly complication. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 03:04:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 03:04:23 +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 DAA03784 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 03:04:14 +1000 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5 [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id NAA24086 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id NAA07573; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 13:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807011705.NAA07573@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > A defender asks his partner "Having none" [outside NAmerica and >Australasia] and his partner agrees that he has one! TD called: major >penalty card [but it does not matter in effect]: one trick revoke. > > The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without >the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. >Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do >you rule? > The director should find out whether there was a case or not. For example: immaterial S A S in on lead, and plays DA; H A immaterial CA by W revokes, question is asked, D K causing MPC and ER; it is obvious C A that had the question not been asked, S 2 W would have won all the remaining H 32 tricks, including DK, which would D A result in a 2 trick penalty. C --- The director, finding that there would indeed be a 2 trick penalty had the question not been asked, would assign this score to the players, and (I hope) inform them of their right to appeal. Is this legal? L63B : When there has been a violation of L61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provision of L64 apply as if the revoke had been established. L64A2: Offending player did not win revoke trick and the trick on which the revoke occured was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side. Now, the question is whether the DK in the example case can be considered a card that could have been "subsequently won by the offending player" had the question not been asked. There is no specific provision for this problem in the revoke laws; nevertheless, the remedy is found in 72B1, the infamous "Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known" clause; as well, L12A1, "Laws Provide No Indemnity", is directly relevant. Tony (aka ac342) ps. Please don't be put off by the Aces in the example; they are merely meant to represent the highest card in the in the suit. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 03:29:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 03:29:42 +1000 Received: from pm03sm.pmm.mci.net (pm03sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03913 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 03:29:36 +1000 Received: from home (usr8-dialup52.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM03SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27035) with SMTP id <0EVF00OJ4F9NFU@PM03SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:29:56 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 10:31:13 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <019601bda516$114c0460$f41437a6@home> 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 Grattan wrote: +++[ Having already enjoyed a long life I have several times >met with a player who has drawn attention to a wrongly turned >card in order to get his partner to cash a contract making/defeating >trick. My first priority would be to stop that. ~~~ Grattan ~~~] +++ Your priority is certainly worthwhile. But my main partner will almost invariably turn the first trick as though we won it. I would like to be able to correct this (as dummy or defender) *before* it becomes a problem--and without any indication that he needs to make any particular play. Without violating any laws or proprieties, or giving any UI, how? Whacking him over the head with a large stick won't change his habit--I tried. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 04:35:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 04:35:56 +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 EAA04188 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 04:35:48 +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 6329400 ; Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:31:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:31:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Message-Id: <199807011931.6329400@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > But my main partner will almost invariably turn the first trick as >though we won it. I would like to be able to correct this (as dummy or >defender) *before* it becomes a problem--and without any indication that he >needs to make any particular play. > > Without violating any laws or proprieties, or giving any UI, how? Since you are well-prepared for when he does this, you should, in principle, be able to time things properly to stop him under your 42B2 rights: 2. Attempt to Prevent Irregularity He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 10:32:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:32:48 +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 KAA05061 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:32:39 +1000 Received: from modem103.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.231] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yrXKI-0003oE-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:34:14 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Chris Pisarra" , Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:37:49 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ---------- > From: Chris Pisarra > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" > Date: 01 July 1998 18:31 > > > > Your priority is certainly worthwhile. > > But my main partner will almost invariably turn the first trick as > though we won it. I would like to be able to correct this (as dummy or > defender) *before* it becomes a problem--and without any indication that he > needs to make any particular play. > > Without violating any laws or proprieties, or giving any UI, how? [#### try failing to cash a setting trick and afterwards tell him you thought they were already one off and were trying for three off.#### Grattan] From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 10:44:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:44:59 +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 KAA05110 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:44:52 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrXUY-0002tI-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:44:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:38:06 +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: <019601bda516$114c0460$f41437a6@home> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <019601bda516$114c0460$f41437a6@home>, Chris Pisarra writes >Grattan wrote: > >+++[ Having already enjoyed a long life I have several times >>met with a player who has drawn attention to a wrongly turned >>card in order to get his partner to cash a contract making/defeating >>trick. My first priority would be to stop that. ~~~ Grattan ~~~] +++ > > > > Your priority is certainly worthwhile. > > But my main partner will almost invariably turn the first trick as >though we won it. I would like to be able to correct this (as dummy or >defender) *before* it becomes a problem--and without any indication that he >needs to make any particular play. > > Without violating any laws or proprieties, or giving any UI, how? > > Whacking him over the head with a large stick won't change his >habit--I tried. > > Chris > Try leaning over and tearing it into small shreds a couple of times. I'd fine you a deck of cards and make you remake the board up, but the message would get through. Just do it with the tatty decks that populate boards 27 and 28 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 Thu Jul 2 10:44:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:44:52 +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 KAA05103 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:44:45 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrXUY-0006Dh-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:44:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:34:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries 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 defender asks his partner "Having none" [outside NAmerica and >Australasia] and his partner agrees that he has one! TD called: major >penalty card [but it does not matter in effect]: one trick revoke. > > The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without >the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. >Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do >you rule? > Rub of the green, dear boy, I have no authority to adjust the score where the Laws proscribe a penalty which has been paid. (unless we want to wheel out L72 - and I lost that one last time out :) ) -- 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 Jul 2 16:47:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA05674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:47:56 +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 QAA05669 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:47:50 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-112.uunet.be [194.7.13.112]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA18633 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:49:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <359A58A3.AA0CA9F9@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:41:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries 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: > > A defender asks his partner "Having none" [outside NAmerica and > Australasia] and his partner agrees that he has one! TD called: major > penalty card [but it does not matter in effect]: one trick revoke. > > The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without > the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. > Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do > you rule? > Almost impossible situation, David : Four possibilities : 1) Offender has ruffed, making the trick. The trick is returned, so declarer makes it. Now the one-trick penalty applies. Without the noticing, it would be a two-trick penalty, but starting from the revoke itself - so the sae final total. 2) Offender has discarded. He does not make a trick in the revoke suit. That makes it a one-trick penalty. Without the noticing, it does not see to be a two-trick penalty 3) Offender has discarded. With the rectification, he now makes the trick. Two-trick penalty straight away. 4) Offender has discarded. He does not make the rectified trick, but a later one in the revoke suit. Two-trick penalty. Now there may be more complex cases, but before you find one, I will not rule on this one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 21:17:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 21:17:21 +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 VAA06209 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 21:17:14 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:18:37 +0100 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01143 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:16:22 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Short term UI Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:14:17 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is it possible to infringe the laws on UI by making a bid or play based on UI that is not unauthorized at the time you make the bid or play? Here's a hypothetical example of the sort of thing I have in mind: You are defending a contract and declarer cashes a spade: a suit in which you are almost sure (from the bidding and previous play) that partner has exactly one card left. However, when it's partner's turn to play, he goes into a trance, and you realize that he's going to discard. At this stage, of course, the information that partner has no more spades is unauthorized, but it will become authorized as soon as he discards. This information changes the whole complexion of the hand, and while partner is still thinking, you realize that it means the only hope of defeating the contract is a brilliant, subtle and daring deceptive play that you will have to execute at your next turn to play. What is more, you will have to play in tempo, or declarer will realize what's going on. You know you're a genius (you must be to have thought of this plan), but enough residual modesty has survived your bridge-playing days that you know you're a rather slow genius. You realize that you would never have had enough time to think of the plan and put it into effect at the necessary speed if you had waited until the knowledge of your partner's distribution was AI. Is it illegal/unethical to use your plan? If it's illegal, why? Could you claim that, since you have worked out that this plan is the only possible way to defeat the contract, no other action is a LA? Jeremy ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 23:02:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:02:56 +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 XAA06651 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:02:48 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-246.uunet.be [194.7.13.246]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA21468 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:04:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <359B2FF3.AC268B2B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 09:00:03 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199807011633.MAA13822@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > Of course best of all (from my chauvinistic North American perspective) > would be to allow defenders to ask each other about possible revokes > and be rid of the whole silly complication. No, best of all would be to allow revokes and be rid of the revoke laws altogether. Now that would be easy to apply ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 2 23:47:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:47:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA06849 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:46:55 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrjdd-00046z-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:43:02 +0000 Message-ID: <3wTauKAdh0m1Ew5f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:44:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries In-Reply-To: <359A58A3.AA0CA9F9@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: >> >> A defender asks his partner "Having none" [outside NAmerica and >> Australasia] and his partner agrees that he has one! TD called: major >> penalty card [but it does not matter in effect]: one trick revoke. >> >> The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without >> the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. >> Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do >> you rule? >> > >Almost impossible situation, David : > >Four possibilities : > >1) Offender has ruffed, making the trick. The trick is returned, so >declarer makes it. Now the one-trick penalty applies. >Without the noticing, it would be a two-trick penalty, but starting from >the revoke itself - so the sae final total. > >2) Offender has discarded. He does not make a trick in the revoke >suit. That makes it a one-trick penalty. Without the noticing, it does >not see to be a two-trick penalty > >3) Offender has discarded. With the rectification, he now makes the >trick. Two-trick penalty straight away. > >4) Offender has discarded. He does not make the rectified trick, but a >later one in the revoke suit. Two-trick penalty. > >Now there may be more complex cases, but before you find one, I will not >rule on this one. You forget that the offenders have a choice. KQJ Axx AK -- -- xx -- -- West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West does not comment, and the hand is played out with East winning a trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick [SA]. Two-trick penalty. West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West asks East who realises he has revoked, TD called, L63B. Having considered the position, West now leads a heart and East discards the SA! One trick revoke, major penalty card makes no difference. Of course this is much more likely earlier in the hand with less clear cards: but the principle is there: the defence have been woken up to the situation by the illegal question and may now arrange a one-trick revoke. -- 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 Jul 3 00:27:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 00:27:08 +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 AAA09197 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 00:27:00 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Thu, 02 Jul 98 10:28:32 EDT Received: from t4.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa06184; 2 Jul 98 10:02 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t4.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA15154 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:23:22 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199807021423.KAA15154@t4.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Short term UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 10:23:22 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Jeremy Rickard" at Jul 2, 98 11:14:17 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 > Is it possible to infringe the laws on UI by making a bid or > play based on UI that is not unauthorized at the time you make the bid > or play? > > Here's a hypothetical example of the sort of thing I have in > mind: > > You are defending a contract and declarer cashes a spade: a > suit in which you are almost sure (from the bidding and previous play) > that partner has exactly one card left. However, when it's partner's > turn to play, he goes into a trance, and you realize that he's going to > discard. > > At this stage, of course, the information that partner has no > more spades is unauthorized, but it will become authorized as soon as > he discards. > > This information changes the whole complexion of the hand, and > while partner is still thinking, you realize that it means the only > hope of defeating the contract is a brilliant, subtle and daring > deceptive play that you will have to execute at your next turn to play. > What is more, you will have to play in tempo, or declarer will realize > what's going on. As of this point, I don't see where there is a problem. You have not executed anything before the UI became AI. The only thing that might be UI is if partner agonized over *WHICH* card to discard, i.e. he might be trying to say that there's more to his hand than what his discard indicates. > You know you're a genius (you must be to have thought of this > plan), but enough residual modesty has survived your bridge-playing > days that you know you're a rather slow genius. You realize that you > would never have had enough time to think of the plan and put it into > effect at the necessary speed if you had waited until the knowledge of > your partner's distribution was AI. Why couldn't you take the time before your next play to finalize your plan? Or just keep your card face-up until you're done thinking? The only danger in such an action is that now your partner has the UI that you're up to something, so if he adopts a line of play as a result of *YOUR* pause, you might be in trouble. > Is it illegal/unethical to use your plan? If it's illegal, why? > Could you claim that, since you have worked out that this plan is the > only possible way to defeat the contract, no other action is a LA? I don't see what is illegal about your plan. If it's an issue of taking the time to think about your plan, you could have had time to think about it after partner discarded, as long as you can prove that your line of play is there no matter what partner discards. There are times at which you have to think about a hand to play it properly. The only UI that is there is "Partner, I have to think about things." If you can act indepedently of this information, WTP? John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 01:14:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:14:25 +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 BAA09291 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:07:33 +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 QAA16395; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:07:28 +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 QAA22237; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:07:27 +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 QAA06970; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:07:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 98 16:07:25 BST Message-Id: <18149.9807021507@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk Subject: Re: Short term UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy wrote: [snip] > > You are defending a contract and declarer cashes a spade: a > suit in which you are almost sure (from the bidding and previous play) > that partner has exactly one card left. However, when it's partner's > turn to play, he goes into a trance, and you realize that he's going to > discard. > > At this stage, of course, the information that partner has no > more spades is unauthorized, but it will become authorized as soon as > he discards. > > This information changes the whole complexion of the hand, and > while partner is still thinking, you realize that it means the only > hope of defeating the contract is a brilliant, subtle and daring > deceptive play that you will have to execute at your next turn to play. > What is more, you will have to play in tempo, or declarer will realize > what's going on. > > You know you're a genius (you must be to have thought of this > plan), but enough residual modesty has survived your bridge-playing > days that you know you're a rather slow genius. You realize that you > would never have had enough time to think of the plan and put it into > effect at the necessary speed if you had waited until the knowledge of > your partner's distribution was AI. > > Is it illegal/unethical to use your plan? If it's illegal, why? > Could you claim that, since you have worked out that this plan is the > only possible way to defeat the contract, no other action is a LA? > The short-term UI does not suggest the brilliancy (i.e. playing the deceptive card in tempo) as it is universally recognised that playing deceptive cards in tempo is always desirable. The short-term UI simply allows a rather slow genius to make the same play a quicker genius would make anyway. You could have been thinking ahead while partner was hesitating: "if partner follows suit high then I'll do X, if partner partner follows suit low then I'll do Y, if partner discards then I'll ... ... oh! oh yes! I'll do XYZZY!". This line of thinking is not, as such, suggested by the UI. Pragmatically, its not illegal because its not detectable. I'm not even sure I think its unethical/unfair: its hard enough to defend correctly, not giving declarer clues from your tempo etc.; if occasionally you get a chance to think about something useful when partner has bridge reason to break tempo then this evens up the balance. [ Even if your line of thinking is directed by not yet authorized information. ] Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 01:38:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:38:17 +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 BAA09397 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:38:10 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA06252 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14501; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:39:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:39:59 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807021539.LAA14501@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > KQJ Axx > AK -- > -- xx > -- -- > > West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West does > not comment, and the hand is played out with East winning a trick with a > card he could legally have played to the revoke trick [SA]. Two-trick > penalty. > > West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West asks > East who realises he has revoked, TD called, L63B. Having considered > the position, West now leads a heart and East discards the SA! One > trick revoke, major penalty card makes no difference. Presumably East discards S-A on the _second_ heart, having discarded the diamond (penalty card) on the first one. As long as West could reasonably have worked out the position (Might declarer have held up the S-A? Is East's H-void known or at least likely?), this seems a clear case for 72B1. Of course if West had said nothing, East might have discarded the S-A on the _first_ heart. Even so, _if_ West knows the position, it is clearly in his interest to wake East up, and this is exactly what L72B1 is supposed to cover. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 02:23:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 02:23:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09677 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 02:23:34 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrmAV-0003B8-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:25:08 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 17:01:35 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 17:01:33 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: SNIP > 1) Offender has ruffed, making the trick. The trick is returned, so > declarer makes it. Now the one-trick penalty applies. > Without the noticing, it would be a two-trick penalty, but starting > from > the revoke itself - so the sae final total. > > ######## Is this correct? Law 63B says "......... the penalty > provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established." > Doesn't this mean that if the attempted revoke would have won the > trick then, even after correction, the *two* trick penalty applies? > ########## > > 3) Offender has discarded. With the rectification, he now makes the > trick. Two-trick penalty straight away. > > ######### For the same reasons as above, isn't the effect of the > rectification irrelevant and doesn't the one trick penalty apply here > unless he makes another trick with a card that could have been legally > played to the revoke trick? ########## > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 03:37:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:37:11 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA09946 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:37:03 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:38:39 +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 SAA11020 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:38:37 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Short term UI In-Reply-To: <199807021423.KAA15154@t4.mscf.uky.edu> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 17:36:35 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > > Is it possible to infringe the laws on UI by making a bid or > > play based on UI that is not unauthorized at the time you make the bid > > or play? > > > > Here's a hypothetical example of the sort of thing I have in > > mind: > > > > You are defending a contract and declarer cashes a spade: a > > suit in which you are almost sure (from the bidding and previous play) > > that partner has exactly one card left. However, when it's partner's > > turn to play, he goes into a trance, and you realize that he's going to > > discard. > > > > At this stage, of course, the information that partner has no > > more spades is unauthorized, but it will become authorized as soon as > > he discards. > > > > This information changes the whole complexion of the hand, and > > while partner is still thinking, you realize that it means the only > > hope of defeating the contract is a brilliant, subtle and daring > > deceptive play that you will have to execute at your next turn to play. > > What is more, you will have to play in tempo, or declarer will realize > > what's going on. > > As of this point, I don't see where there is a problem. You have not > executed anything before the UI became AI. The only thing that might > be UI is if partner agonized over *WHICH* card to discard, i.e. he might > be trying to say that there's more to his hand than what his discard > indicates. Assume that's not the case. > > You know you're a genius (you must be to have thought of this > > plan), but enough residual modesty has survived your bridge-playing > > days that you know you're a rather slow genius. You realize that you > > would never have had enough time to think of the plan and put it into > > effect at the necessary speed if you had waited until the knowledge of > > your partner's distribution was AI. > > Why couldn't you take the time before your next play to finalize your > plan? Or just keep your card face-up until you're done thinking? The > only danger in such an action is that now your partner has the UI that > you're up to something, so if he adopts a line of play as a result of > *YOUR* pause, you might be in trouble. If you visibly take a significant time to think about what to do, that might tip off declarer; since you can do your thinking while *partner* is hesitating, declarer doesn't know that you're thinking, so won't be tipped off. Or maybe it's the sort of plan that just comes to you in a flash: if partner had not given you the time to ponder the hand, it would never have occurred to you that there was anything clever you could do until sfter you'd played to the critical trick. > > Is it illegal/unethical to use your plan? If it's illegal, why? > > Could you claim that, since you have worked out that this plan is the > > only possible way to defeat the contract, no other action is a LA? > > I don't see what is illegal about your plan. If it's an issue of taking > the time to think about your plan, you could have had time to think > about it after partner discarded, as long as you can prove that your > line of play is there no matter what partner discards. > > There are times at which you have to think about a hand to play it > properly. The only UI that is there is "Partner, I have to think > about things." If you can act indepedently of this information, WTP? Well, in the scenario I described and clarified above, you have benefitted from having the UI that partner had no spades during that period, before partner played, when it *was* UI. TP is that it doesn't seem fair that you should benefit from having UI. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 03:47:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:47:09 +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 DAA09989 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:47:03 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:48:38 +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 SAA11065 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:44:34 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Short term UI In-Reply-To: <18149.9807021507@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 17:42:34 +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 Robin wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > [snip] > > > > You are defending a contract and declarer cashes a spade: a > > suit in which you are almost sure (from the bidding and previous play) > > that partner has exactly one card left. However, when it's partner's > > turn to play, he goes into a trance, and you realize that he's going to > > discard. > > > > At this stage, of course, the information that partner has no > > more spades is unauthorized, but it will become authorized as soon as > > he discards. > > > > This information changes the whole complexion of the hand, and > > while partner is still thinking, you realize that it means the only > > hope of defeating the contract is a brilliant, subtle and daring > > deceptive play that you will have to execute at your next turn to play. > > What is more, you will have to play in tempo, or declarer will realize > > what's going on. > > > > You know you're a genius (you must be to have thought of this > > plan), but enough residual modesty has survived your bridge-playing > > days that you know you're a rather slow genius. You realize that you > > would never have had enough time to think of the plan and put it into > > effect at the necessary speed if you had waited until the knowledge of > > your partner's distribution was AI. > > > > Is it illegal/unethical to use your plan? If it's illegal, why? > > Could you claim that, since you have worked out that this plan is the > > only possible way to defeat the contract, no other action is a LA? > > > The short-term UI does not suggest the brilliancy (i.e. playing the > deceptive card in tempo) as it is universally recognised that playing > deceptive cards in tempo is always desirable. The short-term UI simply > allows a rather slow genius to make the same play a quicker genius > would make anyway. > > You could have been thinking ahead while partner was hesitating: > "if partner follows suit high then I'll do X, if partner partner > follows suit low then I'll do Y, if partner discards then I'll > ... > ... oh! oh yes! I'll do XYZZY!". > This line of thinking is not, as such, suggested by the UI. The reason I specified that you were almost sure, before partner's hesitation, that he had another spade was to suggest that if you didn't have the UI, then the gears of your slow genius would not be directed towards planning what to do if he showed out. > Pragmatically, its not illegal because its not detectable. > > I'm not even sure I think its unethical/unfair: its hard enough to > defend correctly, not giving declarer clues from your tempo etc.; > if occasionally you get a chance to think about something useful > when partner has bridge reason to break tempo then this evens up > the balance. [ Even if your line of thinking is directed by not > yet authorized information. ] ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 04:51:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 04:51:38 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA10296 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 04:51:31 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA14700 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:52:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.77) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014677; Thu Jul 2 13:52:19 1998 Received: by har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDA5C8.9EB5D1C0@har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:49:31 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDA5C8.9EB5D1C0@har-pa2-13.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Lavinthal revoke Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:49:24 -0400 Encoding: 51 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This makes good sense. May we presume that the information is AI to the defenders, however? Could they conceivably REQUIRE the lead of a diamond to avoid a spade lead? (Assuming they already are protected against a club lead and could forbid a diamond lead.) ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 6:13 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lavinthal revoke 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 Fri Jul 3 05:51:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 05:51:02 +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 FAA10514 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 05:50:49 +1000 Received: from modem81.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.209] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) id 0yrpOn-0000LE-00; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 20:52:06 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Rickard, Jeremy" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Short term UI Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 20:49:10 +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 A sprightly youg cure' in France Once invited a maiden to prance: "Fantastique" Berlioz mocked When both were unfrocked, Composing a symphonic danse. ---------- > From: Jeremy Rickard > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Short term UI > Date: 02 July 1998 17:36 > > > John A Kuchenbrod wrote: > > > > Is it possible to infringe the laws on UI by making a bid or > > > play based on UI that is not unauthorized at the time you make the bid > > > or play > +++ [ Let us postulate that at the end of the auction you are on opening lead; when the bid was made partner asked about your LHO's 1C opener which was not alerted so you lead a Spade. Later in the play you are again on lead and it is crucial that you now lead a club. However, by this time you can demonstrate that the course of the play has revealed that a club lead is correct defence. So you lead a club. I think you are perfectly entitled to use the information gained during the play which has told you to lead a club. Is there any disagreement? Is this a situation matching to your question? ~~~ Grattan ~~~~ ] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 05:52:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 05:52:13 +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 FAA10524 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 05:51:27 +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 WAA17921; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 22:50:53 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <359BE5A4.1557922F@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 22:55:16 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good evening all I think the Laws are clear enough and more explicit than it seems reading the BLML members' contributions. 1) The scope of the Laws :...."..not as punishment .....but rather as redress for damage." This thread deals with SELF-DAMAGE (the play of K cl.) ; I don't think that any of the lawmakers thought to redress for self-damage ; even more, I don't know any kind of laws dealing with "redress self-damage" - not even to punish for self-damage !!!!!!! 2) The Laws (45C2) defines with no doubt that K club must be played : "finito palavras !". 3) Law 47B , IMO, tries to define only two situation , when a played card may be withdrawn by "The Criminal" himself ! The other paragraphs of Law 47 deals with withdrawal of cards played by THE DAMAGED SIDE !!!!(and all other subsequent played , after the first NO damaged player ). I agree that it is not easy to read and implement the bridge Laws , but I think that trying to throw away my LAW 99 , i.e. not using the very peculiar part of the body called BRAINS , no new and/or more laws will help - we will reach the opposite result = the whole business will crash !!! And now for the specific David's remarks : David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > >> 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? > If the king is maintained in a position > to indicate that it has been played then it must be played at that time. This could be a damage (or not) but for sure a self-damage , though the lawmakers didn't need to define a redress for it in any law ! > > Compare the situation where declarer leads a card from hand by putting > it on the table but in fact it is dummy's lead. He may not just put it > back in his hand without any penalty since it must be played per L45C2. The case above can (not always) produce a damage to defenders ; in this case there IS NO PENALTY !!!!! just redress for damage > That makes it a played card, but does not make it a legal card. The > #### ===penalty ==== it is not a penalty!!!===== #### is not very severe - in effect the defense get a choice of which > hand he leads from, ##### but there is ==NO=== a penalty. > **If the illegal play is > not condoned then the card is picked up per L47B.** But what Law makes > it illegal to lead from the wrong hand? L44G, no? > > Another way of looking at it is that if you suggest that the club king > must be played later because it was put in a played position when it was > a play out of turn, then what is different with the lead out of turn? Here above it can produce damage to opponents , this is why the Laws deal with this case in 123456789 ways (smile please }}:: ) . > Ah, but that lead out of turn may be retracted: well, yes, but at first > sight that also applies to the play out of turn. What is the > difference? > > >> 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? Excuse me sir , and all colleagues , but I don't think this question is relevant for the TD !!!! because as David wrote bellow > > >~~~~~ [ 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. > > Now that's a sneaky comment! =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Yes, all the references are there, =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= the following I don't agree : >but the conclusion from them is not completely clear! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 05:52:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 05:52:49 +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 FAA10555 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 05:52:44 +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 MAA27848; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807021952.MAA27848@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Robin Barker" , , Subject: Re: Short term UI Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:47:43 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > [snip] > > > > You are defending a contract and declarer cashes a spade: a > > suit in which you are almost sure (from the bidding and previous play) > > that partner has exactly one card left. However, when it's partner's > > turn to play, he goes into a trance, and you realize that he's going to > > discard. > > > > At this stage, of course, the information that partner has no > > more spades is unauthorized, but it will become authorized as soon as > > he discards. > > > > This information changes the whole complexion of the hand, and > > while partner is still thinking, you realize that it means the only > > hope of defeating the contract is a brilliant, subtle and daring > > deceptive play that you will have to execute at your next turn to play. > > What is more, you will have to play in tempo, or declarer will realize > > what's going on. > > > > You know you're a genius (you must be to have thought of this > > plan), but enough residual modesty has survived your bridge-playing > > days that you know you're a rather slow genius. You realize that you > > would never have had enough time to think of the plan and put it into > > effect at the necessary speed if you had waited until the knowledge of > > your partner's distribution was AI. > > > > Is it illegal/unethical to use your plan? If it's illegal, why? > > Could you claim that, since you have worked out that this plan is the > > only possible way to defeat the contract, no other action is a LA? > > > The short-term UI does not suggest the brilliancy (i.e. playing the > deceptive card in tempo) as it is universally recognised that playing > deceptive cards in tempo is always desirable. The short-term UI simply > allows a rather slow genius to make the same play a quicker genius > would make anyway. > > You could have been thinking ahead while partner was hesitating: > "if partner follows suit high then I'll do X, if partner partner > follows suit low then I'll do Y, if partner discards then I'll > ... > ... oh! oh yes! I'll do XYZZY!". > This line of thinking is not, as such, suggested by the UI. > > > Pragmatically, its not illegal because its not detectable. > > I'm not even sure I think its unethical/unfair: its hard enough to > defend correctly, not giving declarer clues from your tempo etc.; > if occasionally you get a chance to think about something useful > when partner has bridge reason to break tempo then this evens up > the balance. [ Even if your line of thinking is directed by not > yet authorized information. ] > This reminds me of a series carried by the *Bridge World* many years ago, entitled My Favorite Hand. One of the series featured an expert who was very proud of his defense against a prosaic 1NT. He found a difficult play to beat the contract by figuring out what declarer must have, based on his partner's long thought on a previous play. His reasoning was that if partner had such-and-such, he would have had nothing to think about. That was the first and only time I ever saw an expert's bragging in print about his/her utilization of UI. I have the impression, however, that illegal use of this sort of UI is quite common. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 06:07:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:07:22 +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 GAA10620 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:06:57 +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 XAA22064; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:04:56 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <359BE8ED.3E21B3E9@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 23:09:18 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good evening sir one paragraph bellow I don't like and I wouldn't want to see any such wording in the FLB : Grattan wrote: > > # In the same law thought might be given to introducing > words to say: &&&&&& "When the Director requires it ....&&&&&&& > a played card may be withdrawn to correct etc...." Don't like to empower director to request anything , not written very explicitly in the Laws' book !(The only exception - when no other explicit law , use my Law 99 !!= use the brains ...) the following is fair enough and I believe it is the way to deal with the scope of Laws : ....."redress for damage". Please read my opinion about this subject in a former answer to this thread. Dany > # It seems fairly obvious that procedural violations only call > for remedy where the opponents are damaged in consequence of > the failure to wash in lukewarm water. Or are caused excessive > inconvenience in consequence of it. > #The mode of the laws at present is to incorporate in their > language guidance to Directors on what should or should not be > punished and how often. It is done in places in approximate > fashion. This was the EK philosophy, using the law book as a > vade mecum for the local worthy struggling with its contents > in the village church halls (these are almost his words!). The > technique could be reviewed altho I suspect he was right to > suggest it was the best and maybe only way to reach the parts > that other lubricants do not reach.] ~~ Grattan ~~~ ++++ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 06:18:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:18:59 +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 GAA10690 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:18:53 +1000 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:18:53 +1000 Received: (qmail 25384 invoked from network); 2 Jul 1998 20:20:26 -0000 Received: from pm02-d086.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.86) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 2 Jul 1998 20:20:26 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980702161851.47bf163a@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:33 PM 7/1/98 -0400, you wrote: >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without >> the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. >> Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do >> you rule? > >What's the problem? If the NOS would have done better had the defender >kept silent, and the defender _could have known_ that drawing attention >to the revoke might help his position, then you adjust. Isn't that what >L72B1 says? It only requires an irregularity, not an infraction, so the >semantic debate we have been having in another context doesn't matter. > >In practice, "could have known" may be hard to establish. Usually it >is better to keep silent, isn't it? But the exceptional case where >it was better to (improperly) say something seems exactly what L72B1 >was designed for. > >Of course best of all (from my chauvinistic North American perspective) >would be to allow defenders to ask each other about possible revokes >and be rid of the whole silly complication. > I think it would help to make sure people do NOT ask each other about possible revokes to enforce an automatical 2 trick penalty for revoke established thru questions would make TD's life much easier. And the defender would have no way out of a situation like this one 5cd ending someone writed earlier KQJ Axx AK -- -- xx -- -- Think it was close to this and Sp K leaded and East pitched a Di and West asked and woke up East so he could pitch his A of Sp to avoid 2trick penalty. Going for 1 trick penalty do not sound like the most unfavorable result that was likely for offending side without the infraction since a player not following suit. Might have no idea s/he actually did a revoke and as a sideeffect s/he is not going for the save 1 trick with pitching A of Sp. Which might have happened if board got to be played out totally without questions about possible revoke. But think getting an automatical 2 trick penalty on a revoke that shows up when opps asks each other is something we will not see in ACBL-land in this millenium I think. It is still not a singel tournament without you having opps violating L73A1 In my opinion L73A1 is saying asking pd "live" questions is prohibited, since you are only allowed to ask with the bids made and cards played. And i do not see anywhere in that law a statement like or thru spoken questions asked in public Robert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 06:50:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:50:46 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10826 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:50:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA02487 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14729; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:52:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:52:30 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807022052.QAA14729@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robert Nordgren > In my opinion L73A1 is saying asking pd "live" questions is prohibited, > since you are only allowed to ask with the bids made and cards played. And > i do not see anywhere in that law a statement like or thru spoken questions > asked in public Whether or not a defender is allowed to ask partner about a possible revoke is a Zonal option, as provided in the last sentence of L61B. In North America, asking is entirely legal. Of course it should be done always or never to avoid transmitting UI. If you think asking about a revoke violates L73A1, why is dummy permitted to ask declarer? (Answer: because L61B says it's legal.) In my opinion, permitting defenders to ask each other works extremely well, and I'd recommend that it be permitted worldwide. (Zonal Organizations other than the ACBL don't agree, unless Australia/NZ does.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 06:58:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:58:04 +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 GAA10849 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:57:46 +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 XAA04820; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:47:11 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <359BF2D1.9CB910D4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 23:51:29 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Pisarra CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" References: <019601bda516$114c0460$f41437a6@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Chris Chris Pisarra wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > > Whacking him over the head with a large stick won't change his > habit--I tried. Very badly - for sure didn't whack strong enough or not enough times ............. Or .. didn't use the best stick for this task ! It is a very common way to solve bridge partnership problems.... Dany > > Chris From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 08:13:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 08:13:21 +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 IAA11076 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 08:13:15 +1000 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 08:13:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 1260 invoked from network); 2 Jul 1998 22:14:50 -0000 Received: from pm02-d086.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.86) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 2 Jul 1998 22:14:50 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980702181316.1b0fa994@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:52 PM 7/2/98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: Robert Nordgren >> In my opinion L73A1 is saying asking pd "live" questions is prohibited, >> since you are only allowed to ask with the bids made and cards played. And >> i do not see anywhere in that law a statement like or thru spoken questions >> asked in public > >Whether or not a defender is allowed to ask partner about a possible >revoke is a Zonal option, as provided in the last sentence of L61B. In >North America, asking is entirely legal. Of course it should be done >always or never to avoid transmitting UI. > >If you think asking about a revoke violates L73A1, why is dummy permitted >to ask declarer? (Answer: because L61B says it's legal.) > >In my opinion, permitting defenders to ask each other works extremely >well, and I'd recommend that it be permitted worldwide. (Zonal >Organizations other than the ACBL don't agree, unless Australia/NZ >does.) Forbidding questions about possible revoke works very very very well too actually a lot better than letting it be legal. Forbidding questions will prevent all UI cases about he asked this time but not that time. Not asking when it is legal is also UI. And I have so far not seen 1 pair doing either asking at EVERYTIME pd shows out or never ask pd, if s/he is doing revoke or not. It is a possibility that some pairs might develop a "system" about asking and not asking that is ILLEGAL but impossible to catch, or at least very hard to catch. An idea of using asking illegal can be in cases like this Declarer pulls the trump and lets say trump are breaking 2-3 a fairly normal event i think :) when declarer plays the 3rd round of trump the hand with 2 trumps are going to show out and be forced to make a pitch in another suit Lets say they play this pitch as attitude in pitched suit. The player with 3trumps can now ask none?? or avoid asking by asking he can tell i have something in this suit as well not asking would deny the same. And I personally thinks it would be almost impossible to catch a pair doing this since they might very well have a system that lets the meaning of the asking change depending on if for example the board is an odd number, we being vul, my RHO is female, you name it. Forbidding askings about revoke would stop the pairs that do this in an effort to gain an edge other pairs don't have. All pair I have played against in NA have been asking sometimes and not everytime and that is creating UI but unfortunately it is hard to get a ruling on them on this UI even if it suggests something. So why not make it a lot easier and FORBID askings about revokes???? The cards played and bids made is the proper way of exchange information at the bridgetable. And when pd is showing out expect it to be just what it looks like he didn't have anymore cards in the suit played. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 08:48:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 08:48:23 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA11171 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 08:48:17 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa18123; 2 Jul 98 15:49 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 1998 08:13:15 PDT." <3.0.16.19980702181316.1b0fa994@pop3.iag.net> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 15:49:21 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9807021549.aa18123@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert Nordgren wrote: > Forbidding questions about possible revoke works very very very well too > actually a lot better than letting it be legal. > > Forbidding questions will prevent all UI cases about he asked this time but > not that time. Not asking when it is legal is also UI. And I have so far > not seen 1 pair doing either asking at EVERYTIME pd shows out or never ask > pd, if s/he is doing revoke or not. This all sounds good, sure we don't want UI to be transmitted and all that. But in practice, assuming that the question "No hearts, partner?" is asked in a consistent manner and tone, I'm not convinced that this causes any UI problems, since I can't imagine how one or another logical alternative would be suggested by the fact that partner did or didn't ask about the revoke. Now, if you ask "No hearts" in a surprised tone, this *does* transmit the UI that declarer has a lot more hearts (and you have a lot fewer hearts) than partner would otherwise expect. > It is a possibility that some pairs might develop a "system" about asking > and not asking that is ILLEGAL but impossible to catch, or at least very > hard to catch. [description of such a system snipped] No harder to catch than a "system" in which players tell their partners about their distribution by the way they set their pencils down after writing the contract on their scorecards. A pair that wants to develop a way to cheat can always find a way regardless of the Laws, unless we put screens at every table (and put something under the table to prevent foot communication, and add a Law saying players may not go to the bathroom, ever). The purpose of the Laws dealing with UI is not to prevent cheating---the Laws can't do that. > Forbidding askings about revoke would stop the pairs that do this in an > effort to gain an edge other pairs don't have. As I've already argued above: no, it wouldn't. Pairs who would pull crap like that would just find another way to cheat. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 12:28:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 12:28:25 +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 MAA11616 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 12:28:19 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrvbk-0000Pt-00; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 02:29:54 +0000 Message-ID: <3wTauKAdh0m1Ew5f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:44:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries In-Reply-To: <359A58A3.AA0CA9F9@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: >> >> A defender asks his partner "Having none" [outside NAmerica and >> Australasia] and his partner agrees that he has one! TD called: major >> penalty card [but it does not matter in effect]: one trick revoke. >> >> The player now asks the TD to rule under L72B1: he says that without >> the revoke being noticed it was likely to be a two-trick revoke. >> Suppose you accept this judgement about the play of the hand then how do >> you rule? >> > >Almost impossible situation, David : > >Four possibilities : > >1) Offender has ruffed, making the trick. The trick is returned, so >declarer makes it. Now the one-trick penalty applies. >Without the noticing, it would be a two-trick penalty, but starting from >the revoke itself - so the sae final total. > >2) Offender has discarded. He does not make a trick in the revoke >suit. That makes it a one-trick penalty. Without the noticing, it does >not see to be a two-trick penalty > >3) Offender has discarded. With the rectification, he now makes the >trick. Two-trick penalty straight away. > >4) Offender has discarded. He does not make the rectified trick, but a >later one in the revoke suit. Two-trick penalty. > >Now there may be more complex cases, but before you find one, I will not >rule on this one. You forget that the offenders have a choice. KQJ Axx AK -- -- xx -- -- West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West does not comment, and the hand is played out with East winning a trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick [SA]. Two-trick penalty. West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West asks East who realises he has revoked, TD called, L63B. Having considered the position, West now leads a heart and East discards the SA! One trick revoke, major penalty card makes no difference. Of course this is much more likely earlier in the hand with less clear cards: but the principle is there: the defence have been woken up to the situation by the illegal question and may now arrange a one-trick revoke. -- 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 Jul 3 13:39:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:39:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA11728 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:39:03 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yrwhv-0002jm-00; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:40:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:43:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lavinthal revoke In-Reply-To: <01BDA5C8.9EB5D1C0@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: >This makes good sense. May we presume that the information is AI to the >defenders, however? Could they conceivably REQUIRE the lead of a diamond to >avoid a spade lead? (Assuming they already are protected against a club >lead and could forbid a diamond lead.) ????????????? If you mean is it AI to declarer, then certainly. Have I missed something? -- 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 Jul 3 13:51:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:51:03 +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 NAA11775 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:50:55 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.248]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.06/64) id 6824100 ; Thu, 02 Jul 1998 23:51:28 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980702235712.007ba9b0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 23:57:12 -0400 To: From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: Short term UI In-Reply-To: <199807022252.6740800@cshore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >+++ [ Let us postulate that at the end of the auction you are on >opening lead; when the bid was made partner asked about your LHO's >1C opener which was not alerted so you lead a Spade. > Later in the play you are again on lead and it is crucial that you >now lead a club. However, by this time you can demonstrate that >the course of the play has revealed that a club lead is correct defence. >So you lead a club. > I think you are perfectly entitled to use the information gained >during the play which has told you to lead a club. Is there any >disagreement? Is this a situation matching to your question? > ~~~ Grattan ~~~~ ] +++ These are closely related situations, although the specifics of the manner in which the UI may or may not have been utilized can, of course, profoundly affect the conclusion. In the originally proposed case, it was explicitly acknowledged that obtaining the extra thinking time was likely to be of advantage. 73C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. Since the information that pard was out was unauthorized ("from a .... hesitation") until such time as partner actually showed out, it is a violation of 73C to fail to "avoid taking *any* advantage". It seems that if our correspondent wishes to follow the letter of the law, he should do his best, *until* pard plays, to avoid considering lines other than the ones he would consider if pard's delay were manifestly caused by a coffee spill rather than consideration of a discard. If this seems silly and/or impractical to some, I do not disagree, but I believe it is technically correct. In the latter case, it is clear that one is entitled to use the information gained from the play, just as in the first case one is entitled to note that pard has shown out. If the information gained in the play would, in and of itself, have led to the conclusion that a club was indicated, then the club play is fair game. However, if the player, knowing that a club was the right answer, directed special attention to those pieces of authorized information that might have suggested a club, there's a problem. >I think you are perfectly entitled to use the information gained >during the play which has told you to lead a club. Is there any >disagreement? So yes, there is potentially disagreement. Not *perfectly* entitled if the UI has potentially drawn special attention to certain information gained during the play. In the former case, I am impressed that the poster was so introspective about his ethical obligations, but not terribly concerned about the broader implications. In the latter case, I think the core problem is an important one. It is not uncommon for some players to make remarks or display mannerisms during play expressing pleasure or displeasure, certainty or uncertainty, e.g., and it is generally not always easy to recognize or to define the uninentional UI content of these actions. Nonetheless, even when they may not suggest a specific line of play, they have the effect of confirming or challenging inferences and focusing attention in certain directions in ways in which the recipient of the UI may not even be aware. Guess that was about 4 cents worth. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 16:14:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:14:06 +1000 Received: from glinda.oz.net (glinda.oz.net [208.154.100.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA12017 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:14:00 +1000 Received: from sense-sea-pm4-1.oz.net (sense-sea-pm4-1.oz.net [208.154.96.97]) by glinda.oz.net (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA16643 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807030614.XAA16643@glinda.oz.net> From: "Donald Mamula" Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:08:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: "You turned that card wrong" Priority: normal In-reply-to: <359BF2D1.9CB910D4@internet-zahav.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 2 Jul 98, at 23:51, Dany Haimovici wrote about Re: "You turned that card wrong": > > Whacking him over the head with a large stick won't change his > > habit--I tried. > Very badly - for sure didn't whack strong enough or > not enough times ............. > Or .. didn't use the best stick for this task ! > It is a very common way to solve bridge partnership problems.... But, given the ACBL's bent towards "zero tolerance"....... /whimsical mode on Which leads to this humorous rhetorical question: Is there a "justifiable homicide" type condition in the ZT scheme of things? Where any jury of bridge players would say "Yes, you broke the ZT rules, but we'll let you go since we would have done the same thing, if not worse." For those of you not in Zone 2, feel free to keep whacking partner with the large stick.... Don (a sometimes partner of Chris, who has managed, so far, to have avoided the stick) ****************************************************************** Donald Mamula Kirkland WA mamula@oz.net All opinions are those of the guest, and do not reflect those of station ownership, management, staff or advertisers. We will provide time for opposing viewpoints... ****************************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 19:42:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:42:36 +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 TAA12377 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:42:30 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-186.uunet.be [194.7.14.186]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA27364 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:43:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <359BDA9A.B7A20188@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 21:08:10 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3wTauKAdh0m1Ew5f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Now there may be more complex cases, but before you find one, I will not > >rule on this one. > > You forget that the offenders have a choice. > > KQJ Axx > AK -- > -- xx > -- -- > > West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West does > not comment, and the hand is played out with East winning a trick with a > card he could legally have played to the revoke trick [SA]. Two-trick > penalty. > > West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West asks > East who realises he has revoked, TD called, L63B. Having considered > the position, West now leads a heart and East discards the SA! One > trick revoke, major penalty card makes no difference. > > Of course this is much more likely earlier in the hand with less clear > cards: but the principle is there: the defence have been woken up to the > situation by the illegal question and may now arrange a one-trick > revoke. > OK, as usual you have managed to construct something. I think the revoke penalties are clear, and that the one-trick penalty should suffice. I don't think opponents are damaged by there being only a one-trick penalty in stead of a two-trick one. Further more, I think the "could have known" bits would not apply here. I think the penalty, which is very (IMHO even too) severe, is there just to force players not to ask the questions. I do not think that one counter-example should make us reconsider this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 20:59:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA12554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 20:59:53 +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 UAA12549 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 20:59:45 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199807031059.UAA12549@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:00:54 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA008933650; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:00:50 +0200 Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries In-Reply-To: <3wTauKAdh0m1Ew5f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from David Stevenson at "Jul 2, 98 09:44:13 am" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:00:49 +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: 1011 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Stevenson: > You forget that the offenders have a choice. > > > KQJ Axx > AK -- > -- xx > -- -- > > West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. West does > not comment, and the hand is played out with East winning a trick with a > card he could legally have played to the revoke trick [SA]. Two-trick > penalty. > > West leads the SK and East revokes, discarding a diamond. I have an example which I deem more from this world: W S AKJ E S Qxx, plus a small club hidden among his spades. West leads the S A, and E discards a club. Later, not realizing that he revoked on the first S E wins a trick with the SQ. Two-trick penalty. West leads the S A, and E discards a club. West asks East who realizes he has revoked, TD called, L63B. Now E unblocks the SQ on the SK, and W wins the third S trick with the J. One-trick penalty. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 21:08:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA12610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 21:08:17 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA12605 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 21:08:11 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-203.uunet.be [194.7.13.203]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA02956 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:09:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <359CB25C.9661A18@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 12:28:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Fifth Friday - july 1998 - announcement X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The month of July has five fridays. So we play a fifth friday simultaneous tournament on the 31st. 6 clubs have competed in the last session : AU - Hobart AU - Sydney BE - Antwerpen GB - Bristol RU - Moscow US - Southern Pines If your club has a regular tournament on friday, feel free to join us. There are no fees (or prizes) and no special organisational requirements (other than the duplication of the boards that we will all play). You can visit the fifth friday homepage : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html e-mail me to join. Full entry forms and conditions will follow shortly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 21:22:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA12657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 21:22:29 +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 VAA12652 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 21:22:20 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 12:23:51 +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 MAA15100 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 12:21:16 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Short term UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980702235712.007ba9b0@cshore.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:19:13 +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 Bill Segraves wrote: [snip] > In the originally proposed case, it was explicitly acknowledged that > obtaining the extra thinking time was likely to be of advantage. > > 73C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his > partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, > special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid > taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. > > Since the information that pard was out was unauthorized ("from a .... > hesitation") until such time as partner actually showed out, it is a > violation of 73C to fail to "avoid taking *any* advantage". It seems that > if our correspondent wishes to follow the letter of the law, he should do > his best, *until* pard plays, to avoid considering lines other than the > ones he would consider if pard's delay were manifestly caused by a coffee > spill rather than consideration of a discard. If this seems silly and/or > impractical to some, I do not disagree, but I believe it is technically > correct. Yes, this seems right. And technically it is not *making* the deceptive play that is a violation of L73C (since when you make the play you do not have UI available), but *thinking about it* before partner shows out! [snip] > In the former case, I am impressed that the poster was so introspective > about his ethical obligations, [snip] It was a purely hypothetical case. Playing recently, my partner did hesitate when about to show out. I idly registered that I had UI, but it didn't matter since it would become AI as soon as partner played. Then it occurred to me that there could be situations, such as the one I contructed, where it *did* matter. Maybe if I'd been concentrating on the bridge instead, then I would have come up with the brilliant deceptive play! Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 3 23:23:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 23:23:19 +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 XAA13067 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 23:23:13 +1000 Received: from client0977.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.9.119] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ys5pX-0004Pr-00; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 14:24:48 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 14:24:24 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda685$e5698180$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: Richard Bley To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 22 June 1998 09:16 Subject: Re: Agreements after insufficient bid. >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? ++++ Did you get an answer? In Europe the E.B.L. would regulate only its own international competitions. NBOs would regulate within their own territories, so we could have as many as 44 differing national regulations on the subject within Europe. Plus of course the EBL: this body now adopts, to the best of my knowledge, the WBF systems policy and allied regulations; I have been browsing in these and I have not identified any direct treatment of the question so it seems that provided players set out the "full extent" of these competitive arrangements on CCs and supplementary sheets (space very limited for some events) and alert - as a call with an unexpected meaning - there would not appear to be any ban on such methods. However, the disclosure requirements will present high hurdles and it will not surprise me if I have overlooked a condition that has the effect of killing any such method. Anyway the point is that questions of what you may play are regulated, not treated in the law book itself, and you need to look at convention card regulations as well as system policies to discover what limitations there are. There are numerous ways in which schemes can be scotched. ~~~~ Grattan ~~~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 4 00:03:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:03:17 +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 AAA13200 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:03:10 +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 KAA28811 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA11566; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807031404.KAA11566@freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >OK, as usual you have managed to construct something. > >I think the revoke penalties are clear, and that the one-trick penalty >should suffice. > >I don't think opponents are damaged by there being only a one-trick >penalty in stead of a two-trick one. > >Further more, I think the "could have known" bits would not apply here. > >I think the penalty, which is very (IMHO even too) severe, is there just >to force players not to ask the questions. I do not think that one >counter-example should make us reconsider this. > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > I think you are forgeting where this ruling is taking place. The ruling of a revoke penalty applies in jurisdictions that forbid asking whether or not partner has a card in the suit played. Now, a player in this area would have been "brought up" knowing that this question is illegal; this player would be fully aware that asking would create a 1 trick revoke penalty. The only reason it would help to ask, therefore, would be when asking could prevent a 2 trick revoke penalty. Is a player permitted to break the Law, even when he is willing to pay the penalty? L72B2: Intentional A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay. Now, I'm not saying that the Law is absolute. If a player were visiting London from Palookaville, USA, and were to ask "No more, partner?" a case could be made that leniency is called for. A duplicate novice might also get away with it--once. Any experienced player, however, should be required to follow the Laws and regulations. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 4 00:22:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:22:00 +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 AAA15516 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:21:45 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-135.access.net.il [192.116.204.135]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id RAA29314; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 17:20:29 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <359CE9A7.94F4D948@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 17:24:39 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Segraves CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. References: <3.0.5.32.19980628224641.007eb720@cshore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Bill Law 73A refers to communication between partners ONLY , during the period of one board consummation = auction and play. During this period the partners are not allowed to speak , move , grin etc..... but only using the auction's denominations or the cards' . Any other "troubles " between the boards or between the rounds are not included in L73A , but are dealt in the other Laws dealing wit conduct , etiquette , proper manners etc. Dany Bill Segraves wrote: > > 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 Sat Jul 4 02:04:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 02:04:23 +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 CAA15840 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 02:04:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ys8LK-0005jN-00; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:05:48 +0000 Message-ID: <4jf1cwAF1Pn1EwBL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:48:21 +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: <538pf5Asjjl1EwR+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > "Can declarer change his club king?" Rusty Court wrote: >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. Since my last summary some people have argued that the club king is a played card, played to that trick, and thus cannot be changed. I find this argument totally lacking in merit. Of course it is a played card, played to that trick, but so is a lead out of turn by declarer, by a defender, or a play out of turn by a defender, but these may certainly be withdrawn per L55, L56 and L57. The main argument that has appeared is that the POOT of the CK is not an infraction, and thus may be not be withdrawn under L47B. > "Is the play of the club king legal?" Is "illegal" defined in the Laws? David Martin wrote: >Michael wrote: >> So, every "infraction of law" is the breaking of a law. So what is >> the breaking of a law that isn't an infraction? Surely >> failing to follow correct procedure is breaking the law that states >> what correct procedure is? Or are there laws that can be broken >> and laws that can't, even by not doing what the law says to do? > ######### Yes, there are such laws. This is precisely the point that > I and others are making. The purpose of some laws is *merely to > define* correct procedure and these laws use specific language to > indicate that this is what they are doing. To fail to follow such > laws is an irregularity but is in *no way wrong* and therefore neither > illegal nor an infraction. Other laws forbid players from doing > something or require them to do something and again specific language > is used to indicate that this is what such laws are doing. To fail to > obey these laws is an infraction (and therefore illegal) and the > language used then tells us exactly how serious the breach is and > hence how much voltage to put in the lightening bolt that will follow. > ########### According to the Scope of the Laws: >A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads >his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any >suggestion that a violation be penalised. When a player "should" do >something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), >his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his >rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. It has been argued that while there is a definition of 'irregularity' in the Law book there is no definition of 'infraction of Law', but this is wrong. It may not appear in the 'Definitions' but the above is as much a definition of 'infraction of Law' as it is of 'should'. I am thus convinced that while any Violation of Procedure is an irregularity only some of them qualify as an 'infraction of Law'. L44 is a Procedural-type Law, so failure to follow it is not an 'infraction of Law'. But is it illegal? There is no definition of 'illegal', so consider the following. My dictionary defines 'illegal' as 'contrary to Law'. Would you say it is reasonable to say that failure to follow *a* Law was contrary to Law in general? Perhaps yes! Would you say that 'illegal' and 'infraction of Law' was the same? Perhaps yes! So we have two interpretations, both reasonable. Which do we choose? We all know the instinctive answer to these questions. No-one really wants declarer to be able to change his king. There seems quite a tide of opinion that equates 'illegal' with 'infraction of Law' [several posters have assumed it without comment]. I suggest that we interpret 'illegal' for the purposes of the 1997 Laws as an 'infraction of Law', and define an 'infraction of Law' by reference to the Scope. ***So in my view the play of the club king is not illegal and may not be changed.*** David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: >> Some people think that if you do not follow a Law your action is >> illegal. If the Law book has a different meaning for illegal then I >> believe it should say so. > ######### Agreed, it should say so. ######## >> Why do you assume that an infraction is the same as illegal? > ########### I assume it for two reasons. First, the sense of the use > of the terms infraction and illegal in the context of the laws clearly > suggests to me that they are meant to be the same. Second, from my > understanding of the common usage of such terms in other legal > situations, eg many commercial contracts contain clauses of definition > that are quite different in nature from the penalty clauses contained > in the same contacts. ######### I wrote previously: > 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. The logic is the same, but the circumstances have changed: we now have a convincing argument that the club king is not illegal. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 4 02:04:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 02:04:22 +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 CAA15839 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 02:04:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ys8LN-0005jO-00; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:05:51 +0000 Message-ID: <6D$1U0AH2Pn1EwiY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:49:27 +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 Grattan wrote: >+++ 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 +++ I am happy that this defines 'infraction'. Now we need a definition of 'illegal' as an 'infraction of Law' as against 'contrary to any Law', an alternative definition that leads to a completely different conclusion. ---------- Marvin L. French wrote: >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. This is too simple. Does it does it not mean contrary to any Law of any sort? The Scope suggests not - and an 'illegal action' is not unambiguous! >As I see it, by stating penalties when defenders do not follow L44, >L54 & L56 turn what would otherwise be a mere irregularity into an >illegal action. There is no law that does the same for declarer's >simultaneous play from both hands, so it is not illegal. Perhaps the relevant Laws could be cleaned up, then. L56 does not give the right to retract such a card: it is an inference. Similarly with L45E2. The trouble is that if we use L47B to allow retraction in these cases, why not in our case? ---------- David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: >> To put it another way, there seems to be a suggestion that >> declarer's play out of turn is legal. OK, what determines which >> leads/plays/calls out of turn are legal, and which illegal? > ####### Specific laws covering each illegal case. ######### Having accepted that, we need to clean up L56 and L45E2 then. -- 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 Jul 4 05:38:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 05:38:11 +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 FAA16297 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 05:38:05 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA00760 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:46:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980703154026.0068d0d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:40:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980702181316.1b0fa994@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:13 AM 7/3/98 +1000, Robert wrote: >It is a possibility that some pairs might develop a "system" about asking >and not asking that is ILLEGAL but impossible to catch, or at least very >hard to catch. > >An idea of using asking illegal can be in cases like this > > >Declarer pulls the trump and lets say trump are breaking 2-3 a fairly >normal event i think :) > >when declarer plays the 3rd round of trump the hand with 2 trumps are going >to show out and be forced to make a pitch in another suit > >Lets say they play this pitch as attitude in pitched suit. The player with >3trumps can now ask none?? or avoid asking > >by asking he can tell i have something in this suit as well not asking >would deny the same. And I personally thinks it would be almost impossible >to catch a pair doing this since they might very well have a system that >lets the meaning of the asking change depending on if for example the board >is an odd number, we being vul, my RHO is female, you name it. > > >Forbidding askings about revoke would stop the pairs that do this in an >effort to gain an edge other pairs don't have. Forbidding asking about revokes would mean that the pairs that do this (if there really are any) would have to scratch their ears or pick up their pencils (or almost anything else) instead. While Robert might consider secret illegal signalling systems a problem in need of regulatory attention, I think it's a bit remote from anything zones need (or ought) to consider in determining their L61B option. Or have we merged this with the brief and unlamented "should Bridge software let players revoke?" thread? 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 Jul 4 16:46:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 16:46:08 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA17300 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 16:46:00 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-197.uunet.be [194.7.9.197]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA18806 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 08:47:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <359DCFC4.2FB0CD08@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 08:46:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Insufficient Claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can I post an easy one as well ? Last night I was playing 3NT with : Kx Qxxxx x Jxx Ax A AKQ987 Kxxx (and the x's were really small !!) Lead a small club, for jack, queen, and king. I cash AKQ of diamonds, and they split 3-3. Now I show my hand, saying : "nine - six diamonds, two aces, and the king of spades". Do I get 430 or 400 ? I notice my error straight away, but what if I only realise it - after a score of 400 has been entered - after the start of the next board - after the start of the next round - after the tournament - this morning ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 4 19:17:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 19:17:39 +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 TAA17524 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 19:17:32 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA26902; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 01:19:09 -0800 Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 01:19:09 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient Claim In-Reply-To: <359DCFC4.2FB0CD08@village.uunet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Herman De Wael wrote: > Can I post an easy one as well ? > > Last night I was playing 3NT with : > > Kx > Qxxxx > x > Jxx > > Ax > A > AKQ987 > Kxxx (and the x's were really small !!) > > Lead a small club, for jack, queen, and king. > I cash AKQ of diamonds, and they split 3-3. > Now I show my hand, saying : "nine - six diamonds, two aces, and the > king of spades". > > Do I get 430 or 400 ? > > I notice my error straight away, but what if I only realise it > - after a score of 400 has been entered > - after the start of the next board > - after the start of the next round > - after the tournament > - this morning ? Here's one opinion, admittedly from someone neither a laws shark nor an expert player. Regardless of what total number of tricks you claim you are getting, you have stated a line of play and should be held to it -- I see no room in the '6 diamonds, twoa ces, and SK' statement for a rational line that fails to take the first ten tricks on this hand. You get 430. Furthermore, I think that I as a director should give you 430 provided the facts come to light (and, presumably,your opponents do not dispute the facts you presented) before the expiry of the correction period - typically 30min after the recap sheet is available to players. And, I might add, an ethical opponent should also be happy to give you 430. Just out of curiousity -- does anyone visualize circumstances under which we would ever give a score of +430/-400 or +400/-430? I think 430 to both sides is always the technically correct ruling, but if you did not notice your error but one of your opponents approached me to make the correction I might be tempted by +430/-400 as a sort of 'active ethics reward'. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 5 04:29:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 04:29:23 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20988 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 04:29:16 +1000 Received: from zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA17654 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 14:30:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807041830.OAA00027@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <359DCFC4.2FB0CD08@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Sat, 04 Jul 1998 08:46:28 +0200) Subject: Re: Insufficient Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > Lead a small club, for jack, queen, and king. > I cash AKQ of diamonds, and they split 3-3. > Now I show my hand, saying : "nine - six diamonds, two aces, and the > king of spades". > Do I get 430 or 400 ? I would rule under Law 71A. By claiming nine tricks, you conceded the other four, including a trick you had already won. This is thus subject to correction until the correction period expires, which would normally be 30 minutes after the scores are posted. -- 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 Jul 5 05:33:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 05:33:54 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21130 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 05:33:49 +1000 Received: from zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.150]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18543 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 15:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 15:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807041935.PAA00977@zoloft.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Confusing heading Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's one correction for the next edition of the Laws: I had never looked at Law 57A (premature play by a defender) in detail before, but it came up at the club last week, and the director got it wrong. I then discovered that I had been misled by the headings, although the director was still wrong. [Declarer] may: 1. Highest Card require offender's partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or 2. Lowest Card require offender's partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or 3. Card of Another Suit forbid offender's partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. The heading of 57A3 suggests that declarer could require a suit, and should read "Forbid another suit". From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 5 06:21:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 06:21:43 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21217 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 06:21:38 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA16580 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807042022.NAA16580@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Confusing heading Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 13:18:17 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Grabiner wrote: > > Here's one correction for the next edition of the Laws: > > I had never looked at Law 57A (premature play by a defender) in detail > before, but it came up at the club last week, and the director got it > wrong. I then discovered that I had been misled by the headings, > although the director was still wrong. > > [Declarer] may: > 1. Highest Card > require offender's partner to play the highest card he holds > of the suit led, or > 2. Lowest Card > require offender's partner to play the lowest card he holds of > the suit led, or > 3. Card of Another Suit > forbid offender's partner to play a card of another suit > specified by declarer. > > The heading of 57A3 suggests that declarer could require a suit, and > should read "Forbid another suit". For the sake of parallel construction, how about "No Card of Another Suit"? We should collect heading suggestions for the next go-round. My nominations: L20 REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS should be REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF AUCTION, to stress that it is auctions, not calls that are normally reviewed and explained. L20F. Explanation of Calls should be Explanation of Auction, for the same reason. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 5 21:54:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:54:48 +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 VAA23029 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:54:41 +1000 Received: from client85e8.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.85.232] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ysnP1-0003rm-00; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 12:56:19 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 12:58:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda80c$2bd07e80$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 July 1998 17:28 Subject: Re: Declarer plays from both hands >Grattan wrote: > >>+++ 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 +++ > > I am happy that this defines 'infraction'. Now we need a definition >of 'illegal' as an 'infraction of Law' as against 'contrary to any Law', >an alternative definition that leads to a completely different >conclusion. > ++++ [ Good progress indeed! Now my chain of thought requires me to raise just one more question:- From Law 16C we know in what circumstances it is authorized to substitute a different card for a withdrawn card in the case of "an infraction". Where in the laws will I find a parallel authorization for substitution of a different card for a card withdrawn in the case of an irregularity which is not an infraction? ~~~ Grattan ~~~ ] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 6 00:37:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:37:04 +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 AAA25551 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:36:57 +1000 Received: from modem88.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.216] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 1.92p5 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yspw3-000364-00; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 15:38:36 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Short term UI Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 15:37:51 +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 whose cat has nine tails. --------- > From: Bill Segraves > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Short term UI > Date: 03 July 1998 04:57 > \X/ > >I think you are perfectly entitled to use the information gained > >during the play which has told you to lead a club. Is there any > >disagreement? > > So yes, there is potentially disagreement. Not *perfectly* entitled if the > UI has potentially drawn special attention to certain information gained > during the play. > \X/ +++ [ OK, this appears ethically correct; the Director has no easy time since the player will demonstrate the case for the successful action which is made by the subsequent play and I think the intention would be to allow the action if that demonstration is convincing. The criterion for the Director is, I think, that of the 'reasonable possibility' in Law 84E; but a technical problem may then arise since if we look at what Law 16 actually says we note that there is no mention of information subsequently obtained - it simply forbids the choice of an action that could have been suggested over another by the extraneous information, regardless apparently of what the player may have learned since the illicit information was conveyed. In my experience the practice has been to allow that the player is acting upon the later information, which seems sensible where no doubt exists, but I am less than convinced this is actually as the law reads whether in 16A or in 73F1. ~Grattan~] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 6 08:22:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:22:32 +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 IAA27008 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:22:24 +1000 Received: from default (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA03437 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:24:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199807052224.AAA03437@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 00:25:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Insufficient Claim Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "G. R. Bower" wrote: > Furthermore, I think that I as a director should give you 430 provided the > facts come to light (and, presumably,your opponents do not dispute the > facts you presented) before the expiry of the correction period - > typically 30min after the recap sheet is available to players. Yes. The short answer is L79C. > And, I > might add, an ethical opponent should also be happy to give you 430. > > Just out of curiousity -- does anyone visualize circumstances under which > we would ever give a score of +430/-400 or +400/-430? I think 430 to > both sides is always the technically correct ruling, but if you did > not notice your error but one of your opponents approached me to make the > correction I might be tempted by +430/-400 as a sort of 'active ethics > reward'. Resist the temptation. The opponent has to concede 430 as per L72A2. It is difficult to award good ethics by disregarding the saem concept. > > Gordon Bower > > -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 6 08:59:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:59:58 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27054 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:59:49 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ysxmd-0002rt-00; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:01:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:57:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Bangor is in Caernarfon MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Of course, these funnies we discuss never turn up, as some people are fond of telling me! Remember the thread about the claim when someone had revoked? Well, over the weekend at the Bangor Swiss Pairs held in Caernarfon [two Welsh towns about ten miles apart] I had: AJx -- -- Kxx A -- -- -- -- -- x T Txxx -- -- KJx Declarer, in a club contract, cashed the CA from dummy, discarding a spade. Seeing he had apparently run out of trumps, and she had only trumps left, East claimed, and South contested it! ----------- Some time later, my wife was called to the table, where a club suit had been as follows [in no-trumps]: 97 QJxx 6x AKT8x The opening lead was the Cx: declarer confusedly played next from his own hand, playing the ace. After this was realised, West ruled [she is married to a TD!] and said the Ace must be played, so the first trick eventually went C x 7 x A. At the end of the hand, dummy [another TD himself] called Liz over. He had not called before because he was dummy! ----------- While I would not say that either of these was completely easy I believe we know the answer here because of our discussions. The third one had me puzzled, and because I still have some doubts I shall give it a thread of its own "When does the auction end and the play begin?" -- 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 Jul 6 08:59:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:59:57 +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 IAA27055 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:59:49 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ysxmg-0002sI-00; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:01:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 22:37:26 +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: <01bda80c$2bd07e80$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >> I am happy that this defines 'infraction'. Now we need a definition >>of 'illegal' as an 'infraction of Law' as against 'contrary to any Law', >>an alternative definition that leads to a completely different >>conclusion. >++++ [ Good progress indeed! Now my chain of thought >requires me to raise just one more question:- > From Law 16C we know in what circumstances >it is authorized to substitute a different card for a withdrawn >card in the case of "an infraction". > Where in the laws will I find a parallel authorization >for substitution of a different card for a card withdrawn in >the case of an irregularity which is not an infraction? Err - ahh. When do you want to? If you can give me an example perhaps I can answer the 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 Mon Jul 6 08:59:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:59:59 +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 IAA27056 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:59:51 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ysxmd-0002ru-00; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:01:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:05:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: When does the auction end and the play begin? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bangor Swiss Pairs in Caernarfon, Wales, UK. Declarer plays in 3NT after a complicated auction, and goes three off. "-300", she announces. "No," says an opponent, "you were doubled." "No, I wasn't," she says indignantly, I would have bid 4S if I had been. Right. The facts were: 3NT was doubled, her partner was quite clear about it. However, it is agreed she did not see it, because she did not call. It is agreed that after 3NT Dbl pass pass neither the opponents nor her partner bothered with the fact that she did not call, but just led and put dummy down respectively. So, even though there was no third pass the hand was played to a conclusion. Assume for argument's sake that you accept she would possibly/probably have bid 4S, and that even if doubled it will only go two off for -500, what do you 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 Mon Jul 6 09:49:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:49:06 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27181 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:49:00 +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 TAA12161 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 19:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 19:49:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807052349.TAA19157@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:05:22 +0100) Subject: Re: When does the auction end and the play begin? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Bangor Swiss Pairs in Caernarfon, Wales, UK. Declarer plays in 3NT > after a complicated auction, and goes three off. "-300", she announces. > "No," says an opponent, "you were doubled." "No, I wasn't," she says > indignantly, I would have bid 4S if I had been. > Right. The facts were: 3NT was doubled, her partner was quite clear > about it. However, it is agreed she did not see it, because she did not > call. It is agreed that after 3NT Dbl pass pass neither the opponents > nor her partner bothered with the fact that she did not call, but just > led and put dummy down respectively. So, even though there was no third > pass the hand was played to a conclusion. The auction was not over at the time of the opening lead, and had someone called attention to that infraction at the time, the usual laws would have applied (major penalty card, premature leader barred for one round). I would say that dummy, who was aware that the auction was not over, condoned the premature lead when she picked up her bidding cards and put her hand down. There's no specific law on this, but this seems to be analogous to a play after a lead out of turn. At that point, the auction was over, and the bids which had been made stood. The score should be -800. The alternative is to say that the auction was not over at the time, and dummy's thirteen exposed cards were thus governed by the same laws. This would bar declarer for one round, and the barred declarer can be assumed to have passed. The opening leader must lead her major penalty card, and dummy's thirteen exposed cards become exposed legally. This leads to the same result. Declarer is in the same situation as if she had missed any other call. If her partner had bid 3NT, for example, and she hadn't noticed RHO's double and had passed rather than correcting to 4S, the hand would have been played in 3NTx. Thus this ruling seems to be a reasonable penalty for the mistake, and I wouldn't adjust to -500 to restore equity in the actual situation. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 6 11:13:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:13:57 +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 LAA27332 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:13:51 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yszsP-0000vn-00; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 01:15:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 02:14:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: When does the auction end and the play begin? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Bangor Swiss Pairs in Caernarfon, Wales, UK. Declarer plays in 3NT >after a complicated auction, and goes three off. "-300", she announces. >"No," says an opponent, "you were doubled." "No, I wasn't," she says >indignantly, I would have bid 4S if I had been. > > Right. The facts were: 3NT was doubled, her partner was quite clear >about it. However, it is agreed she did not see it, because she did not >call. It is agreed that after 3NT Dbl pass pass neither the opponents >nor her partner bothered with the fact that she did not call, but just >led and put dummy down respectively. So, even though there was no third >pass the hand was played to a conclusion. > > Assume for argument's sake that you accept she would possibly/probably >have bid 4S, and that even if doubled it will only go two off for -500, >what do you do? > It seems to me that during the auction [L17E - it is NOT complete] LHO exposed a card, "dummy" exposed 13 cards, RHO exposed a card, and "declarer" exposed a card. Everyone then cheerfully exposed cards for a while until the whole deck had been exposed [L24C applies]. At the point at which dummy exposed his second card declarer was banned from calling and must pass at her next turn to call. She cannot therefore bid 4S. Whilst she made no call till the end of "play" of the hand she can now say pass. That concludes the auction. It would be a nonsense to apply 13 penalty cards to each defender and have declarer picking over each of the defnder's hands, so I think I need to award an adjusted score. Fortunately I know what the result on the hand will be if it is to be played by these people and I adjust to that. Result stands -- 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 Jul 6 18:10:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA28172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:10:53 +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 SAA28167 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:10:46 +1000 From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk Received: from (mamos.demon.co.uk) [158.152.129.79] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yt6Nl-0001a2-00; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:12:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 07:31:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Can ....... of worms? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RTFLB There's a story about Admiral Nelson (Sorry to mention him for any French readers - OK OK don't mention the World Cup - Mike declares BLML a football free-zone) - a story of how he ignored his superiors' orders by putting his telescope to his blind eye (Battle of Copenhagen ???) probably offended my Danish readers as well now - I bet Grattan or David Burn knows which battle - anyway when the new Lawbook was published last year I decided to adopt an similar approach to Law 25B However ..... A simple little problem Screen 1C : 2D X P ? : 1C opener now asks screenmate "What's your partner's 2D bid?" Player who has passed thinks this is a strange question because he has misseen the 1C bid and thought that the opening bid was 1S - he now realises his mistake - (2D shows majors) and calls the TD (me) and says "Can I change my bid? 1 What do you tell him? You might think this is easy 2 What do you tell his LHO? The form of scoring is imps - it's a league format with scoring over the season by net imps 3 What do you tell the guys on the other side of the screen? It is possible that they may have noticed a bit of a delay and the fact that the three of us have visited the corridor for ten minutes (Actually one answer will do for all three questions :) My first shot was "Would you like to play the next board while I go away and think about this one - oh and RTFLB " :) ) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 6 23:56:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 23:56:51 +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 XAA28950 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 23:56:43 +1000 Received: from (mamos.demon.co.uk) [158.152.129.79] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ytBmg-00018U-00; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:58:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:57:22 +0100 To: John Probst Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: When does the auction end and the play begin? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >> Bangor Swiss Pairs in Caernarfon, Wales, UK. Declarer plays in 3NT >>after a complicated auction, and goes three off. "-300", she announces. >>"No," says an opponent, "you were doubled." "No, I wasn't," she says >>indignantly, I would have bid 4S if I had been. >> >> Right. The facts were: 3NT was doubled, her partner was quite clear >>about it. However, it is agreed she did not see it, because she did not >>call. It is agreed that after 3NT Dbl pass pass neither the opponents >>nor her partner bothered with the fact that she did not call, but just >>led and put dummy down respectively. So, even though there was no third >>pass the hand was played to a conclusion. >> >> Assume for argument's sake that you accept she would possibly/probably >>have bid 4S, and that even if doubled it will only go two off for -500, >>what do you do? >> >It seems to me that during the auction [L17E - it is NOT complete] I agree with this much Is the auction over yet?? - presumably only David knows if the lady concerned ever did pass :) >LHO >exposed a card, "dummy" exposed 13 cards, RHO exposed a card, and >"declarer" exposed a card. Everyone then cheerfully exposed cards for a >while until the whole deck had been exposed [L24C applies]. At the point >at which dummy exposed his second card declarer was banned from calling >and must pass at her next turn to call. She cannot therefore bid 4S. >Whilst she made no call till the end of "play" of the hand she can now >say pass. That concludes the auction. > >It would be a nonsense to apply 13 penalty cards to each defender I don't quite follow this - if it's not nonsense to say LHO exposed a card - dummy 13 etc ie applying the letter of the law in these cases and saying "declarer must pass 3NTx - why do you decide now John that you can award an assigned adjusted score on the board - where is the justification for this act of arbtrariness in the Law Book (anyway Declarer was playing 3NT not 3NTx - it might not be the same) > and >have declarer picking over each of the defnder's hands, so I think I >need to award an adjusted score. Fortunately I know what the result on >the hand will be if it is to be played by these people and I adjust to >that. > > >Result stands Wot result??? there is no result we haven't been playing bridge - the auction is still on > > I know what I'd rule - all 4 players are at fault - Declarer for not paying attention - the other three for not ensuring correct procedure had been followed - 12A2 would be good enough for me - i'd probably give 50% each - both sides are partially at fault 'cos the other side have some blame also - they'd be happy and we'd get back to playing bridge (Haven't I heard of a similar sort of incident playing with screens - where a double dropped off the tray and bids were picked up without players knowing what the contract was on one side of the screen and the players on the other side not knowing that the auction hadn't finished ???) on the other hand the next time I'm doubled by LHO in a dubious contract and there are two passes, I'll just scratch my beard and look helpless and hopefully LHO will lead, partner will put the dummy down with his usual sigh and the nice Mr Stevenson will come along and cancel the board :) (My long suffering partner hasn't forgiven me for a Michael's cue-bid at Game all over 1 Spade holding xx K10xxxx A9xxx void where the next hand held 7 Hearts and I went for 1100 - it might have worked in that auction) (If you ask him now if he play's Michael's cue-bids he responds indignantly "No one plays them like Michael!") Mike :) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 00:51:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 00:51:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01474 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 00:51:40 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18118 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16806; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:53:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:53:23 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807061453.KAA16806@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Confusing heading X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > The heading of 57A3 suggests that declarer could require a suit, and > should read "Forbid another suit". And perhaps the text should say "any one suit specified by declarer," or something to that effect. Another question: does declarer pick one of the three options before or after knowing whether the opponent is going to follow suit? For example, declarer says "Play your highest," but the defender is out. Does declarer then get to specify a suit not to be discarded, or has the penalty already been paid? Whatever the answer is, the future text should probably make it clearer than it is now. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 01:24:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:24:52 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA01601 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:24:44 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA08451 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:25:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008425; Mon Jul 6 10:25:25 1998 Received: by har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDA8D0.4F2C2900@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:22:07 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDA8D0.4F2C2900@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: L63B: illegal revoke enquiries Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:49:16 -0400 Encoding: 43 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The laws specifically empower zonal organisations to allow defenders to enquire if partner has revoked. The ACBL has chosen to allow this. The same applies in Aus/NZ. This is in no way improper in these zones, and actually quite useful in eliminating many of the complexities of revoke situations. The players want it, the laws and the zonal and sponsoring orginisations permit it. Let it be. I would not presume to go to England and insist they change their option on this...for you to come into ACBL territory from parts unknown and insist on millions of players changing to suit you appears a trifle presumptuous. I will grant that you have reasons for prefering that defenders not be allowed to enquire. But the nearly demented fear that this will be used as a system to cheat smacks more of paranoia than of bridge. Adam has already posted clearly on this aspect. As to the original thread, perhaps a modification of Law to make the revoke penalty always 2 tricks upon enquiry where such is not permitted by the ZO might be a help. Or we could simplify considerably by just making an established revoke a two trick penalty, period, the way it was for years. The game flourished then. It's not elegant, nor is it ideal, but it is simple. After all, nobody told you to revoke! Follow suit and it's a penalty you never need pay. :-) Robert Nordgren wrote: But think getting an automatical 2 trick penalty on a revoke that shows up when opps asks each other is something we will not see in ACBL-land in this millenium I think. It is still not a singel tournament without you having opps violating L73A1 In my opinion L73A1 is saying asking pd "live" questions is prohibited, since you are only allowed to ask with the bids made and cards played. And i do not see anywhere in that law a statement like or thru spoken questions asked in public Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 02:14:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 02:14:58 +1000 Received: from strato-fe0.ultra.net (strato-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.190]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01868 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 02:14:53 +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 MAA29058 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 12:16:33 -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-1998Jul06.120000.1189.228518; Mon, 06 Jul 1998 12:05:43 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998Jul06.120000.1189.228518@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, 06 Jul 1998 12:05:43 -0600 Subject: No Subject Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ACBL specific question here. Playing at Sturbridge over the weekend, we played against a "Precision" pair. The following auction ensued. Opponents bidding throughout 1C! - 1N! 2C! - 2S! 3N! Alerts explained as 1C = 16+ 1N = Denies a five card major 2C = Stayman 2S = Denies a 4 card major 3N = Natural Partner assumed that defender held spades <= 3 and defended accordingly. Declarer turned out to have four spades and we blew a trick on defense, allowing the contract to make. When questioned about the fourth spade, declarer responded "I psyched" Dummy: K, Jxxx, AKJx, AQxx Declarer: J8xx, Q, Qxxx, Kxxx The ACBL regulation governing psychics of convention bids are The precise ACBL regulations governing this type of psychic bid is regulated by the following clause in the General Convention Chart. Under Disallowed #2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids, and/or conventional responses there-to. Psyching conventional responses to natural openings that are less than 2NT. Question for the mailing list. Does the ACBL regulation govern conventional responses that do not occur on the first round of the auction? Is a sequence like 1C! - 1H! (showing spades) 1N! = relay where the entire sequence is convention different than 1C! - 1H = hearts 2H = Trump asking bid where the initial 1H response is a not a conventional bid? Richard For the record, we did not bother to appeal, but I would like to get some clarification on this issue. For the record, we didn't bother appealing, but I'd like to get this matter straight in my head for the next time. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 02:55:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 02:55:07 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01944 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 02:54:59 +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 MAA28424 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 12:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 12:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807061656.MAA02179@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199807061453.KAA16806@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Confusing heading Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: David Grabiner >> The heading of 57A3 suggests that declarer could require a suit, and >> should read "Forbid another suit". > And perhaps the text should say "any one suit specified by declarer," > or something to that effect. > Another question: does declarer pick one of the three options before or > after knowing whether the opponent is going to follow suit? For > example, declarer says "Play your highest," but the defender is out. > Does declarer then get to specify a suit not to be discarded, or has > the penalty already been paid? Whatever the answer is, the future text > should probably make it clearer than it is now. This one is fairly clear, because Law 57B says specifically, "When offender's partner is unable to comply with the penalty selected by declarer, he may play any card, as provided in Law 59." This implies that declarer must be able to choose a penalty with which it is impossible to comply. (In theory, the penalty could be, "Don't play a heart," when all offender's partner holds are hearts, but there is no suggestion anywhere that declarer would then be allowed to impose any penalty.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 03:24:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 03:24:06 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA02038 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 03:23:54 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA27744 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:25:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: No Subject In-Reply-To: <1998Jul06.120000.1189.228518@azure-tech.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Richard Willey wrote: > > ACBL specific question here. [snip] > > The precise ACBL regulations governing this type of psychic bid is > regulated by the following clause in the General Convention Chart. > > Under Disallowed > #2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids, and/or > conventional responses there-to. > > Psyching conventional responses to natural openings that are less than > 2NT. > > Question for the mailing list. > > Does the ACBL regulation govern conventional responses that do not occur > on the first round of the auction? My understanding, mainly based on the wording used, is that you can commit whatever psych you like after the first round of bidding. I think the word "opening" was used quite deliberately. Chyah, could we have the authority's version please? -- Richard Lighton |"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial (lighton@idt.net)| atomic globule. Consequently my family pride is something Wood-Ridge NJ | inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (The Mikado) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 03:37:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 03:37:32 +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 DAA02084 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 03:37:25 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcmic.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.76]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07727 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980706133811.00e30ef0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 13:38:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: No Subject In-Reply-To: <1998Jul06.120000.1189.228518@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 7/6/98 -0600, Richard wrote: > >ACBL specific question here. >Playing at Sturbridge over the weekend, we played against a "Precision" >pair. >The following auction ensued. > >Opponents bidding throughout > >1C! - 1N! >2C! - 2S! >3N! > >Alerts explained as > >1C = 16+ >1N = Denies a five card major >2C = Stayman >2S = Denies a 4 card major >3N = Natural > >Partner assumed that defender held spades <= 3 and defended accordingly. >Declarer turned out to have four spades and we blew a trick on defense, >allowing the contract to make. >When questioned about the fourth spade, declarer responded "I psyched" > >Dummy: >K, Jxxx, AKJx, AQxx > >Declarer: >J8xx, Q, Qxxx, Kxxx > >The ACBL regulation governing psychics of convention bids are > >The precise ACBL regulations governing this type of psychic bid is >regulated by the following clause in the General Convention Chart. > >Under Disallowed >#2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids, and/or >conventional responses there-to. > >Psyching conventional responses to natural openings that are less than >2NT. > >Question for the mailing list. > >Does the ACBL regulation govern conventional responses that do not occur >on the first round of the auction? Not if plain English is any reliable guide. Whether or not the ACBL intended to allow this type of psych, the wording of the above-cited regulation quite clearly applies only to first-round actions. On a slightly different matter, I don't believe your opponent. He didn't psych, he simply forgot his methods and was either too proud to admit it or uncertain about the legal implications of UI/MI that might flow from an admission of a bungled method. If I were asked, I would like to see some documentary evidence to support the explanation of "denies 4 spades", and lacking same, would be inclined to rule 3NT down 1 (depending, of course, on the rest of the hand and the defense). Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 04:10:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 04:10:37 +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 EAA02201 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 04:10:31 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ytFkD-0004Ne-00; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:12:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 16:45:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Confusing heading In-Reply-To: <199807061453.KAA16806@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 Grabiner >> The heading of 57A3 suggests that declarer could require a suit, and >> should read "Forbid another suit". > >And perhaps the text should say "any one suit specified by declarer," >or something to that effect. > >Another question: does declarer pick one of the three options before or >after knowing whether the opponent is going to follow suit? For >example, declarer says "Play your highest," but the defender is out. >Does declarer then get to specify a suit not to be discarded, or has >the penalty already been paid? Whatever the answer is, the future text >should probably make it clearer than it is now. I do not see any lack of clarity. "... the card ... penalty card, and declarer selects ..." It says he selects, so he selects. Of course, it would be nice if he could play a few more cards before selecting a penalty, but I really don't think it needs to say that he can't in this or any other situation. Having said "play your highest", if the oppo has not got one, then L59 says he can play anything. -- 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 Jul 7 04:44:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 04:44:49 +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 EAA02354 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 04:44:35 +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 LAA26222 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA27842; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:48:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:48:24 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199807061848.LAA27842@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: That Old Black Magic? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had to hear an appeal last week at Bridge Week. (Actually, three of them, but this is the only one that I found interesting.) None vul, IMPs, Flight A Swiss North J10xx Kxx KJxx Q10 West East KQ9xx xx AQ10xxx Jxx x Axx x 9xxxx South Ax 8 Q105xx AKJxx West North East South 1H Pass 1NT 2D 2S Pass 3H 4C 4H 5D Dbl All pass Opening lead: HA. Result: N/S + 550 E/W are a Flight A pair, but not a good one. N/S are a Flight C pair, perhaps with more masterpoints than usual. West forgot to announce 1NT; it was forcing. South asked and was answered. After West's 2S bid, North asked, "does that show extra values?" North hestitated very briefly and passed. No "break in tempo" was alleged. East/West contended that North's questioning showed interest in the auction, encouraging South to bid a marginal 4C. The committee was split 2 and 1. The majority opinion was that passing rather than bidding 4C was not a logical alternative and thus the 4C bid was allowed. They did feel, however, that UI was transmitted by the questions. The minority opinion was mine. The committee allowed the result to stand. Minority view: On the face of it, I would normally not consider North's behavior to have transmitted UI and therefore allowed South's actions to be unconstrained. Passing 4C is clearly a logical alternative (I'd pass---once I've fixed myself by failing to bid 2NT on the previous round, I'd stay fixed rather than risk 1400 when they might be stopping in 3H down); I think it's not even close, but it's irrelevant if there was no UI demonstrably suggesting action. The problem is that North had a clear 3D bid. The N/S auction just smacks of Black Magic (OBM). No one would fail to bid 3D *unless* they had another way to show the values for a raise. I'm convinced that's what happened. Such tactics are not be allowed, so an adjustment is appropriate. On the other hand, was anyone damaged? In a funny way, I think there was no gain from the use of OBM. If N/S were not playing OBM, North would raise to 3D, South would bid 4C, and North would bid 5D, achieving the same result as they actually did. Only because they had the OBM raise in their arsenal did North not actually have to make it. In order to achieve equity in the long run, is it really necessary to adjust the score here? Upon reflection, I think so, because we shall not be able to adjust when South was in there on air, got an OBM raise and didn't have to go for 800 in 3D whacked. Anyway, this might be an interesting point from a technical view---did the question *demonstrably* suggest 4C over passing? That's a tough call---without seeing North's hand, I'd say that it surely did not. Does the fact that North was probably *trying* to communicate UI affect a possible adjustment? Can we assume intent from North's cards? I don't know the answer to this, and since I had already spent parts of 2 hours trying to convince the other committeemembers that there was an issue, to no avail, N/S got away with their action. I'd guess that very few committees would adjust the score in this case. What do you all think? --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 08:00:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 08:00:55 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02857 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 08:00:48 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA28317 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17147; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:02:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:02:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807062202.SAA17147@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: No Subject X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) > Under Disallowed > #2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids, and/or > conventional responses there-to. > > Psyching conventional responses to natural openings that are less than > 2NT. > > Question for the mailing list. > > Does the ACBL regulation govern conventional responses that do not occur > on the first round of the auction? Not that I can tell. Any psych seems legal after the opening bid and response. The question I'd be interested in is what evidence the other pair presented that their agreement was indeed as explained and not something like normal Stayman. Remember the phrase "absent evidence to the contrary" in L75D footnote. Was their agreement really written on their convention card? Or did they have written system notes? Or was there other evidence besides their testimony, which would normally be given very little weight in a misinformation case? That is to say, I don't think you will (or should) get anywhere objecting to a psych, but they seem to be on shaky ground on a straightforward misinformation basis. What did the TD do and say? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 10:49:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:49:33 +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 KAA03150 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:49:25 +1000 Received: from client267a.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.122] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0ytLyL-0007nq-00; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:51:06 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re:Can....... of worms? Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 01:42:44 +0100 Message-ID: <01bda940$27857260$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: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, July 06, 1998 10:00 AM Subject: Can ....... of worms? >RTFLB > >There's a story about Admiral Nelson (Sorry to mention him for any >French readers - OK OK don't mention the World Cup - Mike declares BLML >a football free-zone) - a story of how he ignored his superiors' orders >by putting his telescope to his blind eye (Battle of Copenhagen ???) >probably offended my Danish readers as well now - I bet Grattan or David >Burn knows which battle - anyway when the new Lawbook was published last >year I decided to adopt an similar approach to Law 25B I was glad I hadn't done that when a similar request came up at the Lady Milne this year. > >However ..... > >A simple little problem > > Screen > 1C : 2D X >P ? : > > >1C opener now asks screenmate "What's your partner's 2D bid?" >Player who has passed thinks this is a strange question because he has >misseen the 1C bid and thought that the opening bid was 1S - he now >realises his mistake - (2D shows majors) and calls the TD (me) and says >"Can I change my bid? > >1 What do you tell him? Apart from "Spades are the black pointed ones?" I tell him that he may change his bid under Law 25B. That his LHO will be given the option of accepting the new bid. That if LHO opts not to do so he may still change his bid to any legal bid, but that if he does so his side cannot achieve more than 40% on the board. If he then decides to let his original Pass stand his partner is silenced for one round. In view of the presence of screens I do not wax lyrical about Law 10C and illegal consultation. However I think that this is the converse of the normal screen test. It is easier to pretend there are no screens. The info must be given to both sides. If he now decides not to offer a change his Pass stands, and the fact that he contemplated a change is UI to his pard. > >You might think this is easy > >2 What do you tell his LHO? I don't tell him why he wants to change his bid (even I did not need to know) just that he had made the request and was considering his options. I wait for him to decide if he is going to change his Pass and then I repeat to LHO his option of accepting the change and the effect on the other partnership if he does not. > >The form of scoring is imps - it's a league format with scoring over the >season by net imps The mathematics are probably far too comlpicated for me. If it's not in the White book I'll have to phone Mike Amos!! > >3 What do you tell the guys on the other side of the screen? If he offers a change of bid I tell them what has happened. One needs to know if he is either silenced for one round or if he is playing for 40% max. The other is entitled to have any AI which has become available to the partnership. (As tho' there were no screens) Law 16 (info from withdrawn calls) > >It is possible that they may have noticed a bit of a delay and the fact >that the three of us have visited the corridor for ten minutes Have I missed something. Why did it take so long? I hope you didn't give them a Slow Play warning Mike > >(Actually one answer will do for all three questions :) My first shot >was "Would you like to play the next board while I go away and think >about this one - oh and RTFLB " :) ) If I'm limited to one answer "Everything except Why" Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 7 20:40:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:40:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA04148 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:39:27 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ytVBE-0003B5-00; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:41:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 02:49:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: <199807061848.LAA27842@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >I had to hear an appeal last week at Bridge Week. >(Actually, three of them, but this is the only one >that I found interesting.) > >None vul, IMPs, Flight A Swiss > > North > J10xx > Kxx > KJxx > Q10 > > West East > KQ9xx xx > AQ10xxx Jxx > x Axx > x 9xxxx > South > Ax > 8 > Q105xx > AKJxx > > West North East South > 1H Pass 1NT 2D > 2S Pass 3H 4C > 4H 5D Dbl All pass > >Opening lead: HA. >Result: N/S + 550 > >E/W are a Flight A pair, but not a good one. N/S >are a Flight C pair, perhaps with more masterpoints >than usual. > >West forgot to announce 1NT; it was forcing. South >asked and was answered. After West's 2S bid, North >asked, "does that show extra values?" North hestitated >very briefly and passed. No "break in tempo" was alleged. > >East/West contended that North's questioning showed >interest in the auction, encouraging South to bid a >marginal 4C. Correct. >The committee was split 2 and 1. The majority opinion >was that passing rather than bidding 4C was not a logical >alternative and thus the 4C bid was allowed. They did >feel, however, that UI was transmitted by the questions. >The minority opinion was mine. The committee allowed >the result to stand. > >Minority view: On the face of it, I would normally not >consider North's behavior to have transmitted UI and therefore >allowed South's actions to be unconstrained. You consider that North would be just as likely to ask about the 2S bid if holding xxx xxx xxx Qxxx ? I don't. I don't care about all the taradiddle that I have seen over a couple of years of reading RGB [some of it repeated here]. I am convinced that a player who has no interest whatever in the auction is less likely to ask a question about it than one who has an interest. Thus UI is available to South: North has a hand that is not totally bereft of features of interest. > Passing 4C is >clearly a logical alternative (I'd pass---once I've fixed >myself by failing to bid 2NT on the previous round, I'd stay >fixed rather than risk 1400 when they might be stopping in >3H down); I think it's not even close, but it's irrelevant if >there was no UI demonstrably suggesting action. The problem >is that North had a clear 3D bid. The N/S auction just smacks >of Black Magic (OBM). No one would fail to bid 3D *unless* they >had another way to show the values for a raise. I cannot believe you said this. it is just not true. You will never understand the reasons why people make calls that seem absurd to you. Just look at MSC in TBW and tell me how many of the calls chosen by experts you consider *completely* *ludicrous*. Do you think they are cheating on MSC? If you gave the North hand to a group of 100 players you would get at least one who would pass. Why? I don't know! But someone would. Now the person at the Appeal may have been _that_ one. An attitude of this level of suspicion is deleterious to the game and wholly inaccurate. Note it is primarily the level that worries me. If you think that the pass over 2S is strange enough to be noticed, a record of the hand made, explanations asked for and so on, well maybe. But an assertion of >No one would fail to bid 3D *unless* they >had another way to show the values for a raise. is way over the top for this action. > I'm convinced >that's what happened. Such tactics are not be allowed, so an >adjustment is appropriate. On the other hand, was anyone >damaged? In a funny way, I think there was no gain from the >use of OBM. If N/S were not playing OBM, North would raise >to 3D, South would bid 4C, and North would bid 5D, achieving >the same result as they actually did. Only because they had >the OBM raise in their arsenal did North not actually have to >make it. In order to achieve equity in the long run, is it >really necessary to adjust the score here? Upon reflection, >I think so, because we shall not be able to adjust when South >was in there on air, got an OBM raise and didn't have to go for 800 >in 3D whacked. I have little clue what you are talking about here. >Anyway, this might be an interesting point from a technical >view---did the question *demonstrably* suggest 4C over passing? >That's a tough call---without seeing North's hand, I'd say that >it surely did not. Certainly the question does, It shows an interest in the hand, which means that if South calls he knows that dummy will not be totally without features. This suggests bidding over passing - demonstrably so. > Does the fact that North was probably *trying* >to communicate UI affect a possible adjustment? Can we assume >intent from North's cards? I don't know the answer to this, and >since I had already spent parts of 2 hours trying to convince the >other committeemembers that there was an issue, to no avail, N/S >got away with their action. I'd guess that very few committees >would adjust the score in this case. What do you all think? I think the other two members of the Committee were correct in not following the line of severe ethical wrongdoing. I think you are predicating a case on a severe absence of evidence. As far as the ruling on the hand is concerned, I believe all three of you are wrong since Pass is an LA: anyone who does not consider passing as an alternative to bidding at the 4-level at imps with no guaranteed fit and both opponents bidding is out to lunch. I would give E/W 420. -- 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 Jul 7 22:43:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 22:43:18 +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 WAA04469 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 22:43:11 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:44:44 +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 NAA05617 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:41:12 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: <199807061848.LAA27842@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:39:08 +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 Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > I had to hear an appeal last week at Bridge Week. > (Actually, three of them, but this is the only one > that I found interesting.) > > None vul, IMPs, Flight A Swiss > > North > J10xx > Kxx > KJxx > Q10 > > West East > KQ9xx xx > AQ10xxx Jxx > x Axx > x 9xxxx > South > Ax > 8 > Q105xx > AKJxx > > West North East South > 1H Pass 1NT 2D > 2S Pass 3H 4C > 4H 5D Dbl All pass > > Opening lead: HA. > Result: N/S + 550 > > E/W are a Flight A pair, but not a good one. N/S > are a Flight C pair, perhaps with more masterpoints > than usual. > > West forgot to announce 1NT; it was forcing. South > asked and was answered. After West's 2S bid, North > asked, "does that show extra values?" North hestitated > very briefly and passed. No "break in tempo" was alleged. > > East/West contended that North's questioning showed > interest in the auction, encouraging South to bid a > marginal 4C. > > The committee was split 2 and 1. The majority opinion > was that passing rather than bidding 4C was not a logical > alternative and thus the 4C bid was allowed. I agree with you that this is ludicrous: whether 4C is a LA seems a lot less clear to me than whether passing is. > They did > feel, however, that UI was transmitted by the questions. > The minority opinion was mine. The committee allowed > the result to stand. > > Minority view: On the face of it, I would normally not > consider North's behavior to have transmitted UI and therefore > allowed South's actions to be unconstrained. I disagree. There is a geographical difference in the approach to asking questions during the auction: the EBU advise you not to ask questions unless you need to know the answer, and hence virtually every question conveys UI; my understanding of the US approach is that asking about an alerted bid is routine for many players and so does not convey any UI. Personally I like the US approach here, but this case seems different, since I find it hard to believe that anybody *routinely* asks whether their opponents' reverses show extra values in the middle of the auction. I think the question demonstrably suggests that North is trying to judge whether his side is outgunned, and is therefore likely to have a hand that he regards as borderline for competing. > Passing 4C is > clearly a logical alternative (I'd pass---once I've fixed > myself by failing to bid 2NT on the previous round, I'd stay > fixed rather than risk 1400 when they might be stopping in > 3H down); I think it's not even close, but it's irrelevant if > there was no UI demonstrably suggesting action. The problem > is that North had a clear 3D bid. The N/S auction just smacks > of Black Magic (OBM). No one would fail to bid 3D *unless* they > had another way to show the values for a raise. I'm convinced > that's what happened. Such tactics are not be allowed, so an > adjustment is appropriate. On the other hand, was anyone > damaged? In a funny way, I think there was no gain from the > use of OBM. If N/S were not playing OBM, North would raise > to 3D, South would bid 4C, and North would bid 5D, achieving > the same result as they actually did. Only because they had > the OBM raise in their arsenal did North not actually have to > make it. In order to achieve equity in the long run, is it > really necessary to adjust the score here? Upon reflection, > I think so, because we shall not be able to adjust when South > was in there on air, got an OBM raise and didn't have to go for 800 > in 3D whacked. If you find that NS broke the laws on UI, it is surely irrelevant whether they could have achieved the same result without breaking them. They are penalized for breaking the laws, not for improving their result. > Anyway, this might be an interesting point from a technical > view---did the question *demonstrably* suggest 4C over passing? > That's a tough call---without seeing North's hand, I'd say that > it surely did not. Does the fact that North was probably *trying* > to communicate UI affect a possible adjustment? Can we assume > intent from North's cards? I don't know the answer to this, and > since I had already spent parts of 2 hours trying to convince the > other committeemembers that there was an issue, to no avail, N/S > got away with their action. I'd guess that very few committees > would adjust the score in this case. What do you all think? > --Jeff I don't think you're right to read anything sinister into the NS actions. Maybe the question was a deliberate attempt to show some values, but the evidence is far from conclusive. Your description suggests they were poor players. In my experience, such players are often very confused when they bid, and when they take advantage of UI it is because they are not good enough to analyze where their feeling that they ought to bid/double/pass has come from. I suspect that what went through North's mind before he asked the question was something like: "If I bid 3D, they'll just bid 3H or 3S, and they'll probably make it. But maybe 2S will be passed out and we can make 3D. I wonder how strong West is. Does 2S show a good hand?" Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 02:47:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 02:47:45 +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 CAA07491 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 02:47:36 +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 JAA03032 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 09:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA29728; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 09:51:45 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 09:51:45 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199807071651.JAA29728@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? Jeremy Rickard wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |> I had to hear an appeal last week at Bridge Week. |> (Actually, three of them, but this is the only one |> that I found interesting.) |> |> None vul, IMPs, Flight A Swiss |> |> North |> J10xx |> Kxx |> KJxx |> Q10 |> |> West East |> KQ9xx xx |> AQ10xxx Jxx |> x Axx |> x 9xxxx |> South |> Ax |> 8 |> Q105xx |> AKJxx |> |> West North East South |> 1H Pass 1NT 2D |> 2S Pass 3H 4C |> 4H 5D Dbl All pass |> |> Opening lead: HA. |> Result: N/S + 550 |I agree with you that this is ludicrous: whether 4C is a LA |seems a lot less clear to me than whether passing is. I think it's quite clear that 4C and pass are LAs. Having concealed AKJxx in a good hand thus far in the auction, most would consider bidding it; some would surely seriously consider bidding. Indeed, I'm sure that some would consider passing silly; I have two examples. |> Minority view: On the face of it, I would normally not |> consider North's behavior to have transmitted UI and therefore |> allowed South's actions to be unconstrained. | |I disagree. There is a geographical difference in the approach to |asking questions during the auction: the EBU advise you not to ask |questions unless you need to know the answer, and hence virtually every |question conveys UI; my understanding of the US approach is that asking |about an alerted bid is routine for many players and so does not convey |any UI. Personally I like the US approach here, but this case seems |different, since I find it hard to believe that anybody *routinely* |asks whether their opponents' reverses show extra values in the middle |of the auction. I think the question demonstrably suggests that North |is trying to judge whether his side is outgunned, and is therefore |likely to have a hand that he regards as borderline for competing. I am not so sure. Remember, E/W failed to announce the forcing 1NT. North might have been wondering, "what else are they not telling us?" Moreover, is it not possible that the question suggests that North is loaded in the majors, wanting to know if 2S was forcing to learn whether he can get a piece of something higher? "Demonstrably" is not clear to me. Oddly, it was clear to the other two committeemembers. |If you find that NS broke the laws on UI, it is surely irrelevant |whether they could have achieved the same result without breaking them. |They are penalized for breaking the laws, not for improving their |result. One may be penalized for breaking the laws, but that has very little to do with this case. E/W get redress when a laws infraction damages them. Were E/W damaged? A normal auction would get N/S to 5D. Depending on the tempo of the auction, E/W might save in 5H, might double 5D, or might let them play undoubled. 5D might make or go down one. E/W were not in a substantially different situation than if the bidding had gone 1H Pass 1NT* 2D 2S 3D 3H 4C 4H 5D ? My theory question is, "is this relevent?" |I don't think you're right to read anything sinister into the NS |actions. Maybe the question was a deliberate attempt to show some ... I'm not. I don't think there was any intent whatsoever to cheat. In fact, I'm 100% certain that N/S had no clue that they were transmitting or using UI. I know a pair around here who use OBM constantly and have no clue that they are doing it. They have about 15,000 ACBL masterpoints between them, I think. They'll swear up and down that there were no hesitations and that their action was the only one possible systemically and that they play that double as "action," not penalties, and so on. As far as I can tell, they fully believe what they are saying. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 03:02:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 03:02:33 +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 DAA07539 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 03:02:27 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09745; 7 Jul 98 10:03 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Jul 1998 02:49:44 PDT." Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 10:03:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9807071003.aa09745@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > You consider that North would be just as likely to ask about the 2S > bid if holding > > xxx > xxx > xxx > Qxxx ? > > I don't. I don't either, but . . . > I don't care about all the taradiddle that I have seen over a couple > of years of reading RGB [some of it repeated here]. I am convinced that > a player who has no interest whatever in the auction is less likely to > ask a question about it than one who has an interest. Thus UI is > available to South: North has a hand that is not totally bereft of > features of interest. Since I'm responsible for a portion of the taradiddle, I guess I have to step in here and defend my faith. While I think asking *this* particular question about this particular 2S bid sounds like showing interest in the auction, I believe it causes problems to generalize it to all questions the way you seem to have done. Some players only ask questions when they have an interest in the auction. They thus transmit UI no matter what they do---if they don't ask a question in a case where they can't really be expected to know what's up, they transmit the UI that they have no interest in the auction. Some players try to ask questions more consistently, whether or not the answer will affect their subsequent calls, and thus avoid transmitting UI. The trouble is, when you presume that asking questions shows interest and therefore transmits UI, this approach punishes those who try to ask questions more consistently, even though your presumption is probably right in the majority of cases. So the effect is to punish those who try to avoid transmitting UI and not those who don't avoid it, and to discourage behavior (i.e. consistent mannerisms) that we really should be encouraging. So while assuming that everyone who asks a question is more likely to have an interest in the auction may work most of the time, its perverse effect on the Good Guys who try to be ethical is, I believe, sufficient reason to try to come up with a different approach. I can accept that, in order to catch all the people breaking the law, you may have to throw a wide enough net to catch a few people who are within the law. But if so, it's preferable to catch those who are barely within the law, trying to get as close to the line as they can without crossing it---NOT those who are above reproach who try to follow the law as well as possible. Anyway, none of this is relevant to the case at hand. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 03:28:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 03:28:31 +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 DAA07607 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 03:28:16 +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 KAA12801 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA29770; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:32:27 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:32:27 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199807071732.KAA29770@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? David Stevenson wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |>I had to hear an appeal last week at Bridge Week. |>(Actually, three of them, but this is the only one |>that I found interesting.) |> |>None vul, IMPs, Flight A Swiss |> |> North |> J10xx |> Kxx |> KJxx |> Q10 |> |> West East |> KQ9xx xx |> AQ10xxx Jxx |> x Axx |> x 9xxxx |> South |> Ax |> 8 |> Q105xx |> AKJxx |> |> West North East South |> 1H Pass 1NT 2D |> 2S Pass 3H 4C |> 4H 5D Dbl All pass |> |>Opening lead: HA. |>Result: N/S + 550 |> |>E/W are a Flight A pair, but not a good one. N/S |>are a Flight C pair, perhaps with more masterpoints |>than usual. |> |>West forgot to announce 1NT; it was forcing. South |>asked and was answered. After West's 2S bid, North |>asked, "does that show extra values?" North hestitated |>very briefly and passed. No "break in tempo" was alleged. |> |>East/West contended that North's questioning showed |>interest in the auction, encouraging South to bid a |>marginal 4C. | | Correct. |>The committee was split 2 and 1. The majority opinion |>was that passing rather than bidding 4C was not a logical |>alternative and thus the 4C bid was allowed. They did |>feel, however, that UI was transmitted by the questions. |>The minority opinion was mine. The committee allowed |>the result to stand. |> |>Minority view: On the face of it, I would normally not |>consider North's behavior to have transmitted UI and therefore |>allowed South's actions to be unconstrained. | | You consider that North would be just as likely to ask about the 2S |bid if holding | | xxx | xxx | xxx | Qxxx ? | | I don't. Consider North's holding QJ108x KJ98x x xx. Perhaps she might ask about 2S? Perhaps this hand does not demonstrably suggest bidding over passing; 4C would be a bloodbath, as would be 3S. I'd judge that the difference would probably be only about 3000 points. | I don't care about all the taradiddle that I have seen over a couple |of years of reading RGB [some of it repeated here]. I am convinced that |a player who has no interest whatever in the auction is less likely to |ask a question about it than one who has an interest. Thus UI is |available to South: North has a hand that is not totally bereft of |features of interest. Fine, but that's why the new laws say "demonstrably." Personally, unless I had played with this particular North, I wouldn't know what the interest in 2S was. I would guess that it's more likely that one of my partners would hold the 5512 defensive mountain than a hand that is a normal 3D raise. Most likely, actually, if one of my partners asked, he'd've just been irritated that the opponents weren't alerting when they ought to, so he'd be making a pest of himself in order to get them to realize that failing to alert at his table was going to be more trouble than alerting. This is yet another possible reason, again, in my opinion, more likely than his concealing support and values. *It's only after we see North's hand* that we conclude that the interest in the auction is support for partner. |> Passing 4C is |>clearly a logical alternative (I'd pass---once I've fixed |>myself by failing to bid 2NT on the previous round, I'd stay |>fixed rather than risk 1400 when they might be stopping in |>3H down); I think it's not even close, but it's irrelevant if |>there was no UI demonstrably suggesting action. The problem |>is that North had a clear 3D bid. The N/S auction just smacks |>of Black Magic (OBM). No one would fail to bid 3D *unless* they |>had another way to show the values for a raise. | | I cannot believe you said this. it is just not true. You will never |understand the reasons why people make calls that seem absurd to you. |Just look at MSC in TBW and tell me how many of the calls chosen by |experts you consider *completely* *ludicrous*. Do you think they are |cheating on MSC? You are right; this was an overstatement on my part. Ignore the last sentence. The rest of the paragraph is the issue. I think the questioning by North at most marginally suggests action, certainly not "demonstrably." It's only after I see North's hand that I have a problem. As far as MSC goes, frankly, I think very few of the calls chosen are ludicrous. Some are errors, some are idiosyncratic struggles in difficult positions, but almost none are ludicrous. Passing 2S is, however, ludicrous. | If you gave the North hand to a group of 100 players you would get at |least one who would pass. Why? I don't know! But someone would. Now |the person at the Appeal may have been _that_ one. I doubt it. Only 100? Want to take a poll? I bet you get more 4D answers than passes. I tried to ask Ms. North *why* she passed and couldn't get a conclusive answer. She was somewhat confused about the committee situation, which, to be fair, is more reasonable than normal, since it was held between matches at a swiss teams event with zillions of people milling around, lots of noise, a disorganized committee, etc. |>Anyway, this might be an interesting point from a technical |>view---did the question *demonstrably* suggest 4C over passing? |>That's a tough call---without seeing North's hand, I'd say that |>it surely did not. | | Certainly the question does, It shows an interest in the hand, which |means that if South calls he knows that dummy will not be totally |without features. This suggests bidding over passing - demonstrably so. I think you are flat-out wrong here. I'd guess that either of my two guesses as to why someone might ask about 2S are more likely than a hand that will making bidding safer. (Either North has the majors nutted or is just irritated with the opponents' failure to announce 1NT.) I don't even assert that South read the questions as encouragement to bid on; my experience with this sort of stuff is that the perpetrators never have any clue why they do these things. In this case, South never considered bidding 2NT at her first turn, and never considered passing 3H. | I think the other two members of the Committee were correct in not |following the line of severe ethical wrongdoing. I think you are |predicating a case on a severe absence of evidence. As far as the |ruling on the hand is concerned, I believe all three of you are wrong |since Pass is an LA: anyone who does not consider passing as an |alternative to bidding at the 4-level at imps with no guaranteed fit and |both opponents bidding is out to lunch. I would give E/W 420. I'm impressed. How can you believe my ruling is wrong when I never gave one? The reason why I'm posting this hand is that I don't know the answer. Fail to show me North's hand and I'd rule "result stands, possible frivolous appeal penalty." Show me North's hand and suddenly there's an issue. I think your confidence is too double-dummy. You know why North had interest in the auction becuase you've seen her hand. Place yourself, instead, in South's position. Let's say you didn't know your partner. She says out loud, "I have interest in this auction." What do you think she has? Diamond support and values? Seems unlikely to me; she'd bid 3D. The majors stacked behind a strong bidder? Could be. Imagine that North was actively trying to cheat in such a position. What message would he want to send the most? I think the answer is, "don't get in my way; I want to double them when they stop bidding. I don't care how many diamonds you have." No, in a vacuum, I think there's no question that North's behavior did not demonstrably suggest South's action over other LAs. The problem only occurs because North's HAND extremely strongly suggests South's bidding over passing. And therein lies a difficult ruling. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 03:54:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 03:54:43 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07695 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 03:54:33 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA14782 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17710; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:56:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:56:14 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807071756.NAA17710@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > No, in a vacuum, I think there's no question that North's > behavior did not demonstrably suggest South's action over > other LAs. The problem only occurs because North's HAND > extremely strongly suggests South's bidding over passing. > And therein lies a difficult ruling. I agree with most of what Jeff says. In particular, I don't see any hint of a L16A violation here. Pass is most certainly a LA, but North's question hardly suggests bidding over passing. No, the issue isn't L16A, it is L73B1. There is no question of cheating, as a few people might infer, but there is a very definite question of redress for an infraction. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 08:16:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 08:16:55 +1000 Received: from clmout3.prodigy.com (clmout3-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08752 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 08:16:48 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout3.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA28426 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 18:14:36 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id SAA02618 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 18:13:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199807072213.SAA02618@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 18:13:28, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL and Artificial Psyching Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I put in the phone call to headquarters and the response from the tournament department is that You cannot psyche artificial openings or artificial responses to that artificial opening, but this only applies to the first round of bidding. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 11:58:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:58:44 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09292 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:58:37 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ytjWr-0002tT-00; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 02:00:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 00:40:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: <199807071732.KAA29770@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >Consider North's holding QJ108x KJ98x x xx. Perhaps >she might ask about 2S? Perhaps this hand does not >demonstrably suggest bidding over passing; 4C would >be a bloodbath, as would be 3S. I'd judge that the >difference would probably be only about 3000 points. So? >Fine, but that's why the new laws say "demonstrably." >Personally, unless I had played with this particular >North, I wouldn't know what the interest in 2S was. >I would guess that it's more likely that one of my >partners would hold the 5512 defensive mountain than >a hand that is a normal 3D raise. Most likely, actually, >if one of my partners asked, he'd've just been irritated >that the opponents weren't alerting when they ought to, >so he'd be making a pest of himself in order to get them >to realize that failing to alert at his table was going >to be more trouble than alerting. This is yet another >possible reason, again, in my opinion, more likely than >his concealing support and values. I have no sympathy whatever to people who think the Laws do not apply to them. If he is asking questions for the sake of upsetting his opponent and to deal with an irregularity then the more he gets ruled against the better. He is not the Director: he should not take over the actions of the Director: he should never take an action for the sake of upsetting opponents whatever the provocation. if your partner thinks he is above the Laws of the game, why are we bothering with him? It is time your partner learnt that failure of opponents to follow procedure does not absolve him from acting in a reasonable or legal way. > *It's only after we >see North's hand* that we conclude that the interest in >the auction is support for partner. Don't you dare say "we": it is you that believe that: I don't, and I object to this strongly. You know perfectly well that in my view this argument is not true. >| If you gave the North hand to a group of 100 players you would get at >|least one who would pass. Why? I don't know! But someone would. Now >|the person at the Appeal may have been _that_ one. > >I doubt it. Only 100? Want to take a poll? I bet you >get more 4D answers than passes. So what? I said you would get one pass, not a majority. I expect you would get more 4D bids than passes - and it does not alter my argument one iota. It is true but completely irrelevant. >| Certainly the question does, It shows an interest in the hand, which >|means that if South calls he knows that dummy will not be totally >|without features. This suggests bidding over passing - demonstrably so. > >I think you are flat-out wrong here. I'd guess that >either of my two guesses as to why someone might ask >about 2S are more likely than a hand that will making >bidding safer. (Either North has the majors nutted >or is just irritated with the opponents' failure to >announce 1NT.) I think you are wrong. I am not interested in the unethical North with no interest in the Proprieties, and in my view players who ask otherwise produce useful dummies. > The reason why I'm posting this >hand is that I don't know the answer. Fail to show me >North's hand and I'd rule "result stands, possible frivolous >appeal penalty." Show me North's hand and suddenly there's >an issue. Fine: but don't suggest that I would. Fail to show me North's hand and I would bet that it has some useful features. >No, in a vacuum, I think there's no question that North's >behavior did not demonstrably suggest South's action over >other LAs. The problem only occurs because North's HAND >extremely strongly suggests South's bidding over passing. Experience says 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 Wed Jul 8 12:32:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:32:52 +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 MAA09395 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:32:48 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p11.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.163]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22867 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:34:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980708123854.006bbef4@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 12:38:54 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: confusing heading Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk May I suggest another Law where the heading may be perhaps confusing. Law 45D: Card Misplayed by Dummy If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it...... Two possible situations: 1. Declarer names a card from dummy, but dummy plays the wrong card. 2. Dummy plays a card without waiting for declarer to name it e.g. declarer leading up to the AKQ9xx on the table and dummy automatically plays the ace without waiting for declarer to name a card. In both situations, dummy played a card which declarer did not name, but could one reasonably say that dummy's premature play of the DA was a 'misplay'? Is the Law intended to apply to both situations? If so, the word 'misplayed' is somewhat misleading. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 21:13:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:13:57 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA10058 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:13:50 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:14:56 +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 MAA10749 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:12:17 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: <199807071651.JAA29728@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:10:12 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? > > Jeremy Rickard wrote: [snip] > |If you find that NS broke the laws on UI, it is surely irrelevant > |whether they could have achieved the same result without breaking them. > |They are penalized for breaking the laws, not for improving their > |result. > > One may be penalized for breaking the laws, but that has > very little to do with this case. E/W get redress when > a laws infraction damages them. Were E/W damaged? A normal > auction would get N/S to 5D. Depending on the tempo of the > auction, E/W might save in 5H, might double 5D, or might let > them play undoubled. 5D might make or go down one. E/W were > not in a substantially different situation than if the bidding > had gone > 1H Pass 1NT* 2D > 2S 3D 3H 4C > 4H 5D ? > My theory question is, "is this relevent?" Let me just check that I understand your premises. There was no infraction of L16A because the question about 2S did not "demonstrably" suggest 4C over passing (I'm still not convinced, although I understand your case ... see below). However, NS are (unconscious) practitioners of OBM, and the question infringed L73B1, and presumably the 4C bid infringed L73C. In other words, UI was transmitted and used, but it has to be dealt with under L73 rather than L16A because of undemonstrability. The question is then what (if any) adjusted score should be assigned under L12C2. Is that a fair summary? I think we can agree that if N had passed without asking the question, then it is likely that NS would have stayed out of the bidding and EW would have got a better score. Is it unlikely that, had N not asked the question, he would have passed? I don't think so: if your premise is that NS get by in competitive auctions by using OBM in place of bidding, then it seems reasonably likely that N is not accustomed to raising on hands like this and would pass. Actually, there were two infractions here: the transmission and the use of UI. If the first had occurred but not the second (i.e., N had asked the question and passed, but S had also passed) then EW would certainly have got a better score. What is the practice in awarding adjusted scores in such situations? Do you only consider scores that would be likely if *neither* infraction had occurred? Or also scores that would be likely if only one of them had occurred? Going back to the "demonstrably" question, L16A does not talk about actions that *have* demonstrably been suggested, it talks about actions that *could* demonstrably have been suggested. [I presume this means that it is demonstrable that they could have been suggested, not that it could be demonstrable that they were suggested.] If you think you have enough evidence to rule that NS used UI, is this not a fortiori sufficient to rule that it is demonstrable that North's question could have suggested (to this particular South) 4C over passing? Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 8 22:55:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 22:55:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10292 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 22:54:47 +1000 Received: from (mamos.demon.co.uk) [158.152.129.79] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yttls-0000eM-00; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:56:29 +0000 Message-ID: <0N+78CAMT2o1EwrW@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:23:40 +0100 To: Jeff Goldsmith Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: <199807061848.LAA27842@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199807061848.LAA27842@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes > >I had to hear an appeal last week at Bridge Week. >(Actually, three of them, but this is the only one >that I found interesting.) > >None vul, IMPs, Flight A Swiss > > North > J10xx > Kxx > KJxx > Q10 > > West East > KQ9xx xx > AQ10xxx Jxx > x Axx > x 9xxxx > South > Ax > 8 > Q105xx > AKJxx > > West North East South > 1H Pass 1NT 2D > 2S Pass 3H 4C > 4H 5D Dbl All pass > >Opening lead: HA. >Result: N/S + 550 > >E/W are a Flight A pair, but not a good one. N/S >are a Flight C pair, perhaps with more masterpoints >than usual. > >West forgot to announce 1NT; it was forcing. South >asked and was answered. After West's 2S bid, North >asked, "does that show extra values?" North hestitated >very briefly and passed. No "break in tempo" was alleged. > >East/West contended that North's questioning showed >interest in the auction, encouraging South to bid a >marginal 4C. I just don't understand this appeal committee - EW seem to have a strong case If we conclude that North's question showed interest in the hand (IMHO such questions almost always do) - then it demonstrably suggests action will be preferable to inaction - oppo haven't found a big fit and may not bid game - East may have eight minor cards - I don't have top Diamonds and might lose control if forced to ruff - 4C may or may not be a wise call but Pass is certainly an option some players might choose - as a TD I would cancel 4C and award EW 420 I wouldn't expect an appeal committee to overturn this here in England mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 00:15:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 00:15:35 +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 AAA12740 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 00:15:28 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA00390 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18272; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:17:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 10:17:21 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807081417.KAA18272@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > if your partner thinks > he is above the Laws of the game, why are we bothering with him? Let us remember that Jeff was a member of the AC who heard the case, not at the table where the incident took place. > > *It's only after we > >see North's hand* that we conclude that the interest in > >the auction is support for partner. > > Don't you dare say "we": it is you that believe that: I don't, and I > object to this strongly. I think Jeff's "we" referred to the AC. I also think David is prejudiced by the UK's different approach to asking questions. The incident in question took place in North America (specifically Los Angeles, unless they have moved Bridge Week). > Fail to show me North's hand > and I would bet that it has some useful features. Useful on offense? That is possible, I suppose (It happened, after all!), but without some knowledge of the particular North at the table, I would never guess it in a million years. I really think David has misunderstood the problem (not to mention Jeff's position). If not, I will be quite interested in a demonstration of why North's "useful features" suggest bidding over passing. Why can't North hold a hand with strength in the majors and nothing in the minors? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 03:18:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 03:18:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA13369 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 03:17:52 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ytxsP-0003Ke-00; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 17:19:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 18:18:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: <199807081417.KAA18272@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 >> if your partner thinks >> he is above the Laws of the game, why are we bothering with him? > >Let us remember that Jeff was a member of the AC who heard the case, >not at the table where the incident took place. It is normal to answer questions and comments using the same sort of references to people that the questioner or commenter used. Jeff wrote "Most likely, actually, if one of my partners asked, he'd've just been ..." and it is only normal to refer to "your partner" since that is what Jeff said. >> > *It's only after we >> >see North's hand* that we conclude that the interest in >> >the auction is support for partner. >> >> Don't you dare say "we": it is you that believe that: I don't, and I >> object to this strongly. > >I think Jeff's "we" referred to the AC. I also think David is prejudiced >by the UK's different approach to asking questions. The incident in >question took place in North America (specifically Los Angeles, unless >they have moved Bridge Week). Thanks for the presumption. I would have to be blind, deaf and stupid not to know by this time that there is a different approach to the asking of questions under other jurisdiction, and I stand by my previous comments. >> Fail to show me North's hand >> and I would bet that it has some useful features. > >Useful on offense? That is possible, I suppose (It happened, after >all!), but without some knowledge of the particular North at the >table, I would never guess it in a million years. > >I really think David has misunderstood the problem (not to mention >Jeff's position). If not, I will be quite interested in a >demonstration of why North's "useful features" suggest bidding over >passing. Why can't North hold a hand with strength in the majors and >nothing in the minors? Thanks for the presumption. I don't care whether you play in North America, Greenland, Mars or Togoland: I do not believe that people ask as many questions about the auction with hands that are not going to take action as those that do. Why can't North hold the hand that you say? He can, of course, but I would make a *lot* of money on betting that he hasn't. It is a matter of odds and human nature. I am not suggesting that North will never ask with a hand that does not have useful features for his partner: but the odds favour that he won't. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 05:01:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 05:01:10 +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 FAA13787 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 05:01:04 +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 PAA10452 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18432; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:02:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:02:56 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807081902.PAA18432@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Why can't North hold the hand that you say? He can, of course, but I > would make a *lot* of money on betting that he hasn't. It is a matter > of odds and human nature. I am not suggesting that North will never ask > with a hand that does not have useful features for his partner: but the > odds favour that he won't. Is the change from "useful features" to "useful features for his partner" intentional? Look, North has said "Gee, I have some useful features in this hand, but I don't know what to do. Guess I'll pass." Does anyone disagree that this is what happened in the case Jeff described? Now are these useful features: a) cards in partner's suit, or b) cards in opponents' suits, or c) we cannot tell? David (and at least one other person) seems to be arguing a). Jeff and I think some combination of b) and c) because it would be easy (for almost anyone other than the actual North) to raise with a). So what is the reason for believing a)? Remember, you should be able to _demonstrate_ it if you think L16A should apply. An assertion is not a demonstration. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 05:01:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 05:01:41 +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 FAA13805 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 05:01:32 +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 MAA12220 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id MAA00975; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:05:40 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:05:40 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199807081905.MAA00975@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |>David Stevenson wrote: | |>Consider North's holding QJ108x KJ98x x xx. Perhaps |>she might ask about 2S? Perhaps this hand does not |>demonstrably suggest bidding over passing; 4C would |>be a bloodbath, as would be 3S. I'd judge that the |>difference would probably be only about 3000 points. | | So? Because the laws say "suggested over another." That means that the action suggested is more likely to work than the other. In this case, without seeing North's hand, I think there's a good case for the UI to suggest passing over bidding. What would it sound like if North had asked, "is 2S forcing?" then when assured that it was, passed. It'd sound like he wanted to take a piece of 2S, but figured he might get a chance at the three or four level. In fact, if, at the committee hearing, South had said, "it sounded to me like my partner was asking questions because he was loaded in the majors and wanted to double them. I thought 4C and pass were logical alternatives and that the UI suggested passing over bidding, so I bid," I'd say, "well done," and rule result stands without qualm. Would you, David? The fact that South would have misguessed what his partner had would bother me in that instance, but I'd believe that argument. I do now. And that's why I'm so bothered by the actual North hand. | I have no sympathy whatever to people who think the Laws do not apply |to them. If he is asking questions for the sake of upsetting his |opponent and to deal with an irregularity then the more he gets ruled C'mon, be serious. The hypothetical partner would simply be making the point that he wanted the opponents to alert prompty and properly. Making that point by taking legal actions without calling the director is intended to avoid upsetting the opponents; calling the director and demanding that they alert better would be far more upsetting, as would making some complaint at the table, which could easily escalate into a confrontation. |> *It's only after we |>see North's hand* that we conclude that the interest in |>the auction is support for partner. | | Don't you dare say "we": it is you that believe that: I don't, and I |object to this strongly. You know perfectly well that in my view this |argument is not true. This is a figurative "we," as, I assume, you, Mr. Stevenson, can discern, being a native English speaker. By the way, am I intended to take offense for being accused of being inanimate ("you that") rather than being a person ("you who")? I won't; I'll request that you don't respond angrily or harshly to careless or figurative language, either. |>| If you gave the North hand to a group of 100 players you would get at |>|least one who would pass. Why? I don't know! But someone would. Now |>|the person at the Appeal may have been _that_ one. |> |>I doubt it. Only 100? Want to take a poll? I bet you |>get more 4D answers than passes. | | So what? I said you would get one pass, not a majority. I expect you |would get more 4D bids than passes - and it does not alter my argument |one iota. It is true but completely irrelevant. Because we all know that "some number of players would seriously consider" is a ridiculous criterion, particularly taken literally. Zero is a number. I know many players who would seriouly consider psyching in most problem situations. Does that make a psych a logical alternative? No, of course not. If one in a hundred took an action (and I'm not sure you could find that one, by the way) and ten took a far more agressive action, then perhaps that one was simply an aberration. (Before you impugn my attribution of this hypothetical person---the aberration is statistical, not personal.) If we were to poll 100 players and got these results: 4D 15 3D 84 Pass 1 Would pass be a logical alternative? Doesn't seem like it to me, although the ACBL would claim it was, perhaps...again, using such a criterion, we'd be able to poll until we found someone to support any position. And probably, within reason, could. I think that, even in this case, where an express definition of LA is given, common sense should apply. |>I think you are flat-out wrong here. I'd guess that |>either of my two guesses as to why someone might ask |>about 2S are more likely than a hand that will making |>bidding safer. (Either North has the majors nutted |>or is just irritated with the opponents' failure to |>announce 1NT.) | | I think you are wrong. I am not interested in the unethical North |with no interest in the Proprieties, and in my view players who ask |otherwise produce useful dummies. Aha---perhaps you are starting to reach around to my thinking... It's most often the unethical Norths who have diamonds and ask questions here...the clueless ones have spades. Are you really applying appropriate experience? Sure, we know North has a useful hand. But for what? For spades or for diamonds? Do your players really usually have diamonds in this sort of situation? If so, you need to give them serious ethics and bidding lessons. My experience is that North has spades. She was wondering if 2S might've been artificial or if they were playing a big club and maybe 2S wasn't artificial, but maybe not very strong, or maybe she just didn't understand their system and 2S maybe wasn't forcing. I was surprised by North's hand, becuse I heard the story and the auction first. I gave the same order of evidence to 3 others. They said, "so what? Partner probably has them nutted, but 4C is so silly that I'm not going to bid anyway." Then when they heard partner's hand, their jaws dropped. Maybe I'm not in touch with Flight C questioning, but I was astounded by North's hand. |> The reason why I'm posting this |>hand is that I don't know the answer. Fail to show me |>North's hand and I'd rule "result stands, possible frivolous |>appeal penalty." Show me North's hand and suddenly there's |>an issue. | | Fine: but don't suggest that I would. Fail to show me North's hand |and I would bet that it has some useful features. Please tell me what you'd expect from your Norths. Also add if that sort of occurrance would be common in your area, please. |>No, in a vacuum, I think there's no question that North's |>behavior did not demonstrably suggest South's action over |>other LAs. The problem only occurs because North's HAND |>extremely strongly suggests South's bidding over passing. | | Experience says otherwise. So either your experience doesn't fit this situation well, or my logic doesn't. Given my background, I'd back my logic (of course). If North had had 5512, we'd've not had this issue, so perhaps your experience is colored by which hands you see when the director is called. Maybe the Old Black Magic is more prevalent than I think. If it is in your games, I can see why the EBU (?) has such a heavy-handed policy wrto UI from questioning. Around here, in the Flight A games, we've tried hard to stamp out OBM. I know of only a couple of pairs who practice it all the time. Even those are learning not to do it against me. :) --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 05:50:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 05:50:13 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13915 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 05:50:07 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA12447 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:51:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.66) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012327; Wed Jul 8 14:49:55 1998 Received: by har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDAA87.95EBB000@har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:46:34 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDAA87.95EBB000@har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: That Old Black Magic? Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:38:34 -0400 Encoding: 55 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually, of those on group Jay is most likely to have played in Mars which is not far from Pittsburgh. There, as in much of the U.S. it is not at all unlikely for flight C players to ask questions purely because they don't understand something in the auction. Better Flight C players are ethical enough to always ask when something is unclear, rather than only ask when it seems to reflect their holding. The A flight pair already had a failure to announce on this auction. Inquiry about the meaning of this bid would not be out of line under the circumstances, and does NOT seem to place constraint upon partner's choice of action. I, too, feel that you are influenced by the differing attitudes toward questions during the auction in your venue. While I know you are sincere in your opinion, and most knowledgeable about law and the likely applicability to the group of players you direct, I wonder if you are adjusting your thought process enough to evaluate the actions of a lesser quality pair in an American event where there are differing inferences to be drawn from the posing of an intra-auction question. Please, I am in no way questioning your sincerity...just wondering if you realise at a visceral level how much the difference in mindset is here. This is as major a difference as the more obvious zonal variation of allowing enquiry by defender after partner's revoke. We allow more asking in general over here...and encourage players who are in the dark, especially less seasoned players, to ask questions. (This is a source of much frustration to some folks, vis Marv's multiple posts on the subject. That he finds so little support for NOT asking may be a measure of the degree to which enquiry is both entrenched and sanctioned. I would be interested in his comments on this thread, as the problem cited to some degree makes his point.) With a better pair you might just expect a 3D bid and be done with it. Here they may not be good enough either to find the bid or to be so devious as to hint at it by question and pass. If there IS any black magic it may be unconscious. This type of bid by this calibre of player probably should be recorded as you do your psyches. If something similar hapens frequently, adjustment or even C&E action might be warranted. But here it does not seem right. (On the scene and talking to the players involved my feeling could differ of course. But the AC had just that opportunity.) You sound tense,David. Relax, pet a cat. :-)) Craig Senior ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 1:18 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? (snip) Thanks for the presumption. I would have to be blind, deaf and stupid not to know by this time that there is a different approach to the asking of questions under other jurisdiction, and I stand by my previous comments. (snip) I don't care whether you play in North America, Greenland, Mars or Togoland: I do not believe that people ask as many questions about the auction with hands that are not going to take action as those that do. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 07:03:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:03:54 +1000 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA14031 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:03:48 +1000 Received: from D457300btinternet [195.99.51.77] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yu0Uk-0000s5-00; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:07:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001801bdaaac$41579e80$4d3363c3@D457300btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 21:09:02 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For there to be unauthorised information, there must first be information. What information is conveyed by this dialogue: North: "Does 2S show extra values?" East: "No." North: "In that case, I pass." If North is asking only "EBU-sanctioned" questions, the inference is that he would not have passed has he been told that 2S did show extra values. But this makes no sense. Therefore, my view is that this dialogue conveys no information at all; it appears that North is asking questions in order to hear the sound of his own voice (or, as was suggested, to make his opponents aware of their responsibilities under the alerting regulations). There can be no UI where there is no I, and there would be no case for score adjustment here since there is no infraction of L73 or L16. (There may well be a case for penalising North for asking pointless questions, but that is not the issue.) What of this dialogue: North: "Does 2S show extra values?" East: "Yes." North: "In that case, I pass." Now there is an inference that North would have taken some action had he been told that 2S did not show extras. On the face of it, that action is not at all likely to be a diamond raise (or the introduction of a club suit) - rather, it is likely to be a penalty double, if that is available to North at this point. This information does not suggest to South that 4C is more likely to be successful than a pass of 3H, and 4C should not therefore be disallowed under L16. Unfortunately, Jeff does not tell us what answer North actually received to his question. Probably, however, this does not matter; the 4C bid is permissible in either case. Only if we accept DWS's argument that by "showing interest" in the auction at all, North is informing his partner that another bid from South would not lead to disaster, should we rule against NS under L16 and (or) L73. And in my opinion, this view is over-simplistic to an unacceptable degree. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 07:12:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:12:21 +1000 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14045 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 07:12:07 +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 OAA10503 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA01181; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:16:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:16:15 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199807082116.OAA01181@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "David Burn" wrote: > Unfortunately, Jeff does not tell us what answer North actually > received to his question. Whoops...I didn't? The answer was, "yes." Sorry! --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 14:59:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:59:44 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15007 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:59:37 +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 WAA09352 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 22:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807090500.WAA09352@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 22:00:33 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This case was discussed in the casebook for Dallas (*Dallas: They Fought the Law*, available from the ACBL), but did not appear in the Daily Bulletin of the Dallas NABC, so is not presented on the ACBL website or elsewhere. (And why not?) The case has no technical interest *per se*, involving as it did an obvious illegal use of UI. What interested me were the TD/AC's decisions and the comments of the casebook's panel of experts. Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 13 Mar 1997, second session Board 18 Vulnerability: N/S Dealer: East S- K8 H- A95 D- K8 C- KQ8652 S- AQJT S- 9652 H- 764 H- QJT D- AQ63 D- JT52 C- AT C- J4 S- 743 H- K832 D- 974 C- 973 West North East South (usual directions) P P 1NT X* P 2H P 3C All pass * Alerted: DONT East asked for an explanation of the Alert, South wasn't sure, East said "say no more," South then guessed aloud that the double showed a balanced hand and proceeded to bid 2H, corrected by North to 3C, which scored +110. The N/S agreement was that double showed a one-suited hand. The TD ruled a violation of 16A and assigned avg+ to E/W, avg- to N/S, who appealed. Here again we see the illegal artificial adjustment of score so beloved of ACBL TDs, even at the NABC level. Had there been no appeal, as in the great majority of such cases, the artificial adjustment would have stood. The AC ruled against N/S, but assigned a score of +110 for a 2H contract. Since +110 is what 3C scored, the AC imposed a 1/4 board matchpoint penalty for "making a bid that was likely based on UI." Evidently they could not stomach the idea that the losers of an appeal should benefit from it, getting a normal +110 instead of the avg- given them by the TD. They also gave N/S a lecture. Question No. 1: If a proper assigned score merely restores equity, is it appropriate to impose a PP in order to punish the OS? It sounds right, but I don't know. L90 doesn't read as if PPs of this sort are intended. Question No. 2: If an assigned score turns out to be better for the OS than the actual score, do you assign or let the actual score stand? It's hard to imagine this happening, but it could (e.g., if nine tricks were unavoidable in a heart contract). I wrote "proper assigned score," but IMO the right assignment would have been -100 for 3H down one. It surely was "at all probable" that North would raise hearts if the bid showed what it should show under the N/S understanding. South ought to have East's QJ10 of hearts along with the king, and six-card length, to bid 2H instead of a systemic 2D. If so, North is looking at only three losers off the top, and a 3H bid is actually conservative. One expert agreed with my opinion about assigning a score of -100, but only because he is against PPs and prefers this means of achieving "justice." Right assignment, wrong reasoning. The assignment should be per L12C2, which says nothing about "justice." The widespread but erroneous notion that a result has to be obvious in order to be assigned was expressed by several experts. A prominent UK expert regally opined that the TD's decision was "sensible," because of "problems with the auction and in determining the play." Problems be damned, you work them out and make an assignment! The words "likely" and "probable" in L12C2 do not imply any necessity for rigorous analyses. One expert brought up the possibility of punishing players who use a convention that they do not know and cannot adequately explain. That is a big subject brought up elsewhere, and I won't go into it here. Much of the expert commentary involved indignation that the $50 deposit put up by N-S was not retained. Perhaps the AC took into account the obvious inexperience of N/S, no doubt C players, who perhaps didn't know enough to realize the appeal was without merit. I'm with the AC on that one, if that was their thinking, but where was the screener? A screener should be able to say, "Don't appeal this one, you have no case," and the AC should take that into account when deciding about retaining a deposit. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 9 22:33:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:33:13 +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 WAA15882 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:33:05 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yuFuN-00030Z-00; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:34:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:58:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 In-Reply-To: <199807090500.WAA09352@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: [s] >Question No. 1: If a proper assigned score merely restores equity, is >it appropriate to impose a PP in order to punish the OS? It sounds >right, but I don't know. L90 doesn't read as if PPs of this sort are >intended. It is certainly legal. I think it is a poorish idea because it seems against the rub-of-the-green policy. Consistency is not a bad idea though: if ACs at NABCs always fine in this position it is not too bad. >Question No. 2: If an assigned score turns out to be better for the >OS than the actual score, do you assign or let the actual score >stand? It's hard to imagine this happening, but it could (e.g., if >nine tricks were unavoidable in a heart contract). It is actually quite common. Consider a ruling where 4H is doubled very slowly, and partner unjustifiably pulls to 4S, doubled, one off, and the opposition call the TD. The moment the TD/AC discovers that 4H is not making he/they rule no damage, no adjustment. [s] >The widespread but erroneous notion that a result has to be obvious >in order to be assigned was expressed by several experts. A prominent >UK expert regally opined that the TD's decision was "sensible," >because of "problems with the auction and in determining the play." >Problems be damned, you work them out and make an assignment! The >words "likely" and "probable" in L12C2 do not imply any necessity for >rigorous analyses. I am afraid that this notion is supported by the ACBL officially. For a result to be likely it requires one in three people to find it. Thus there are often hands where there is no "likely" result. I am sure this is a total misunderstanding of L12C2 but I think it may be the source of a lot of confusion over applying AssASs in NAmerica. I have been arguing with one or two of the sensible and senior people in the ACBL [not on BLML, unfortunately] and one of them has argued that L12C1 is a reasonable way to go when there are *no* likely outcomes. -- 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 Jul 10 00:19:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:19:57 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18327 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:19:51 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA26212 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA19007; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:21:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:21:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807091421.KAA19007@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Question No. 1: If a proper assigned score merely restores equity, is > it appropriate to impose a PP in order to punish the OS? More or less. Some would say "discourage them from doing it again" instead of "punish," but I don't see much difference. A PP is proper if the offenders _should have known_ that what they did was wrong. If so, give a PP _whether or not_ you also adjust the score. Even if the offenders were a Flight C pair, South's unwarranted comment seems to merit a PP. Education is important too. > Question No. 2: If an assigned score turns out to be better for the > OS than the actual score, do you assign or let the actual score > stand? If there is no damage, there is no reason for any adjustment. > Much of the expert commentary involved indignation that the $50 > deposit put up by N-S was not retained. Giving a PP and giving back the deposit seem inconsistent at first glance. If the pair should have known to act properly in the first place, surely they should have known the appeal would be frivolous. On the other hand, the AC did change the score (from avg- to +110), so maybe the appeal wasn't frivolous after all. I'd say there's a good case for appealing based solely on the illegal artificial score, so I don't object to giving back the deposit. As Marv says, it's not at all clear what score to assign. You might well place the contract at 3H or even 4H, and it looks to me as though the defenders can win seven tricks on defense. (Whether the line of play required is 'likely' or even 'at all probable' is a good question!) But the AC seems to have been pretty generous to the OS. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 02:25:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 02:25:27 +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 CAA18826 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 02:25:20 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yuJXD-0005aw-00; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:27:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:04:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Another crash! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have installed Office 97. Goody! As a result I have lost my Fax capabilities. The modem is working - just the software isn't. Anyone got some good Fax software? I have lost all my BLML articles. Especially I was going to summarise or comment on the Bangor in Caernarfon one where the contract may have been doubled and the auction never ended. I was also thinking of putting something on my Bridgepage about playing out of order by declarer. I was intending to use quotes from the 70 articles [with permission]. If anyone can send me the articles for these items it would help. -- 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 Jul 10 02:30:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 02:30:32 +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 CAA18887 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 02:30:24 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06899 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:28:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199807091628.LAA06899@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:28:04 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Look, North has said "Gee, I have some useful features in this hand, > but I don't know what to do. Guess I'll pass." Does anyone disagree > that this is what happened in the case Jeff described? > > Now are these useful features: > a) cards in partner's suit, or > b) cards in opponents' suits, or > c) we cannot tell? > > David (and at least one other person) seems to be arguing a). Jeff > and I think some combination of b) and c) because it would be easy > (for almost anyone other than the actual North) to raise with a). > > So what is the reason for believing a)? Remember, you should be able > to _demonstrate_ it if you think L16A should apply. An assertion is > not a demonstration. > Most of the Flight C-quality pairs I encounter never double two-bids unless they have a huge trump stack, and when they do have a huge trump stack they don't wait until the opponents have reached their likely highest level--they smack it as soon as they can. So they would not ask this question and then pass with 'b'. OTOH, they might ask this question with a hand thinking of competing, and then pass when they found out the opponents had extra values [making it, in their minds, more dangerous to bid]. So against the Fl-C pairs I usually encounter, I would expect a good dummy after ask-'yes'-pass. OTOH, a _good_ pair would be much more likely to reason as you did--from a good pair, ask-and-pass might well show a defensive hand. So I'm afraid my ruling in committee would depend in a large part on how good I thought this pair really was. FWIW, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 03:31:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:31:32 +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 DAA19148 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:31:23 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14337 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199807091729.MAA14337@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > | Most of the Flight C-quality pairs I encounter never double > |two-bids unless they have a huge trump stack, and when they do have a huge > |trump stack they don't wait until the opponents have reached their likely > |highest level--they smack it as soon as they can. So they would not ask > > Really? I guess I'm not in touch with flight C. I wish I wasn't, but I am. :) But maybe it's just us cowardly Midwesterners that bid this way. :) > Then again, I remember this story. A friend opened > 2C. LH-LOL asked "is that forcing?" She was told, "yes." > She passed. The bidding proceded a round. She asked if > my friend's bid was forcing. "Yes, m'am." "Then I pass." > Third round, same story. Fourth round, he answered, "no, > that's not forcing." "Then I DOUBLE!" Let's just say _I've_ never had that auction. > |this question and then pass with 'b'. OTOH, they might ask this question > |with a hand thinking of competing, and then pass when they found out the > |opponents had extra values [making it, in their minds, more dangerous to > > Funny...that'd make it safer to bid, as they probably have _I_ know that, and so do you. But they reason the other way--"the opponents have extra values, so they'll either just bid over me or double me and pound me. I'd better hide". > a game and a fit and you won't get another chance, but what > do I know? If 2S was not forcing, then partner is likely > to have extras and can back in, or LHO might bid 3C to play > and you can back in with 3D. If 2S shows extras, that'd never > happen. Shrug...I guess it never occurred to me that someone > might be afraid to bid 3D with that hand because she thought > she was outgunned. That's what I expect from hesitations on this auction [or ask-and-pass] from poor players. > |bid]. So against the Fl-C pairs I usually encounter, I would expect a > |good dummy after ask-'yes'-pass. > > | OTOH, a _good_ pair would be much more likely to reason as you > |did--from a good pair, ask-and-pass might well show a defensive hand. So > |I'm afraid my ruling in committee would depend in a large part on how good > |I thought this pair really was. > > A good player would not ask. If 2S turned out to be weak or > not forcing or whatever, they'd simply call the director and > claim misinformation due to the failure to alert. That's their > best angle, too, since it gives them a true double-shot. Ergo, ask-and-pass shows the players to have been weak, and I rule against them for using UI. :):):) > --Jeff Yours, Grant From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 03:36:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:36:00 +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 DAA19174 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:35:54 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-59.uunet.be [194.7.13.59]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA13291 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 19:37:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35A4FF44.3E4712FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 19:35:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Another crash! X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I have lost all my BLML articles. Especially I was going to summarise > or comment on the Bangor in Caernarfon one where the contract may have > been doubled and the auction never ended. > > I was also thinking of putting something on my Bridgepage about > playing out of order by declarer. I was intending to use quotes from > the 70 articles [with permission]. > > If anyone can send me the articles for these items it would help. > Consider that done. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 03:50:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:50:52 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19209 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:50:45 +1000 Received: from cph41.ppp.dknet.dk (cph41.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.41]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA09084 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 19:52:26 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another crash! Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 19:52:26 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35af0295.6012014@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, 9 Jul 1998 17:04:37 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I have lost all my BLML articles. I've sent David the articles he wanted, so the rest of you need not do so too (unless he has problems reading them, in which case I'm sure we (or at least I) will hear from him again.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 03:59:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:59:48 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19236 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:59:42 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA18202 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807091801.OAA05221@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199807090500.WAA09352@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Question No. 1: If a proper assigned score merely restores equity, is > it appropriate to impose a PP in order to punish the OS? It sounds > right, but I don't know. L90 doesn't read as if PPs of this sort are > intended. The PP should be independent of the adjustment; it should be imposed based on the offense. AC's have a tendency to punish the offenders with a PP whenever there is a significant offense and no adjustment; this is improper. There's even a quote from the AC in such a case (Atlanta case 16): [Basic facts: in the Reisinger, a player who had forgotten to announce upside-down signals after the opening lead, as was required then, announced them when he played a doubleton at trick two] Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there may have been unauthorized information but South would have continued clubs and beaten the contract. The table result, 4S down one, +100 for East-West was allowed to stand. North-South were issued a quarter-board procedural penalty for making their carding announcement at an inappropriate time. Committee ruling excerpt: The Committee believed that the wrong side was forced to bring this case because the directing staff failed to rule for the non-offending side when there was a clear possibility that they were damaged. The Committee decided that there was unintentional unauthorized information available and that continuing a diamond was a logical alternative that some players would have considered. The result was changed to 4S made four, +620 for East-West. The Committee believed this was enough punishment for making the gratuitous comment and the quarter-board procedural penalty was removed. I don't like the last sentence of this ruling. The Committee could have disagreed with the appropriateness of the PP for this infraction (the player was acting in good faith), and cancelled the PP for that reason, but that is not what the Committee did. The ruling suggests that the PP would have been retained if the Committee had not found a LA which would Marvin L. French writes: > Question No. 2: If an assigned score turns out to be better for the > OS than the actual score, do you assign or let the actual score > stand? It's hard to imagine this happening, but it could (e.g., if > nine tricks were unavoidable in a heart contract). The table result stands. Here's a scenario in which it could occur: West may have used UI in passing South's 4H rather than sacrificing in 4S, neither vulnerable. 4H makes four for +420, and the director adjusts to 4Sx down three, +500 for N-S. West appeals, claiming that he would have gone down only two on a squeeze, and the AC agrees that it was not at all probable that this West would miss the squeeze. The table result of +420 should be restored, rather than +300. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 04:28:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:28:22 +1000 Received: from sxhac.compuserve.net (sxhac.compuserve.net [149.174.177.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19365 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:28:15 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from aamta.compuserve.net ([149.174.177.83]) by sxhac.compuserve.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04970.; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 8525663C.0064F067 ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:22:31 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 19:51:33 +0200 Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>The widespread but erroneous notion that a result has to be obvious in order to be assigned was expressed by several experts. A prominent UK expert regally opined that the TD's decision was "sensible," because of "problems with the auction and in determining the play." Problems be damned, you work them out and make an assignment! The words "likely" and "probable" in L12C2 do not imply any necessity for rigorous analyses. << Pardon me, but I just don't get the reasoning. What is the reason and purpose of making up some funny scores (normally without proper knowledge of players strengths, habits and bidding methods), just to avoid an artificial score?! In my experience, players do rather accept an AS than a made-up score. To assign this, it normally needs an appeals comittee with a sufficient playing strength to really analyse the hand and determine the likely outcome. Just my 2c worth, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 05:34:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 05:34:45 +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 FAA19570 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 05:34:39 +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 MAA21321; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807091935.MAA21321@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:34:52 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: [s] > >Question No. 1: If a proper assigned score merely restores equity, is > >it appropriate to impose a PP in order to punish the OS? It sounds > >right, but I don't know. L90 doesn't read as if PPs of this sort are > >intended. > > It is certainly legal. I think it is a poorish idea because it seems > against the rub-of-the-green policy. Consistency is not a bad idea > though: if ACs at NABCs always fine in this position it is not too bad. I see no such consistency. L12C2 includes no provision for ensuring that an OS suffers for committing an irregularity. Evidently the lawmakers thought that assigning "the most unfavorable result at all probable" was sufficient, without a need for meting out further "justice" if that score fails to inflict damage on the OS. ACs seem to think that was an error, that the OS must suffer in some way. They accomplish this in one of two ways when a proper assigned score doesn't do it: Impose a PP, or adjust with a "mixed" artificial/assigned score, "whichever is worse" for the OS, "whichever is better" for the NOS, thereby insuring a bad score for the OS and a good one for the NOS. I see no justification for either policy in the Laws. PPs are legal, all right, but are not intended to be used as an adjustment for the perceived inadequacy of L12C2. The trouble with PPs in UI cases is that there is no way to apply them consistently. There are no guidelines available, so they become entirely subjective. Going through AC cases, you can see that their use is "somewhat arbitrary," as Bart Bramley put it. Supposedly they take into account the seriousness of the offense and the experience of the culprit(s), but should they also take into account the effect of L12C2 on the OS? If PPs are to be imposed on those who violate correct procedure by illegally using UI, IMO they should be applied without regard to the effect of L12C2. To use an analogy, L12C2 involves civil law, PPs involve criminal law. Don't mix the two. > > >Question No. 2: If an assigned score turns out to be better for the > >OS than the actual score, do you assign or let the actual score > >stand? It's hard to imagine this happening, but it could (e.g., if > >nine tricks were unavoidable in a heart contract). > > It is actually quite common. Consider a ruling where 4H is doubled > very slowly, and partner unjustifiably pulls to 4S, doubled, one off, > and the opposition call the TD. The moment the TD/AC discovers that 4H > is not making he/they rule no damage, no adjustment. Okay, now I understand. The TD is under no obligation to adjust the score after an irregularity if he judges that no damage was caused because of it. Going along with the apparent ACBL AC PP policy, however, he might well assign a PP, right? If there is to be consistency, then a PP should not be levied only when damage is done. I hope that the new point system adopted for use at NABCs, supposedly beginning with the Reno NABC, will replace the use of PPs to penalize flagrant UI usage. "Dark Points" will be assigned to players by TDs or ACs for a wide variety of UI and other infractions, including those listed in L74C. Then, whether an infraction does injury or not, appropriate Dark Points are assigned, with a C&E Committee taking action when a player accumulates too many. Incidentally, Dark Points will also be assessed for inadequate discussion of conventions by a partnership. It seems to me that Dark Points are preferable to PPs for UI infractions, as L90 implies PPs are meant for other sorts of offenses, and there is no system for tracking them. The Dark Point system is fully described in the back of the Dallas casebook, but I have seen nothing elsewhere and nothing more recent. Perhaps someone can tell us if it was implemented in Reno, and if so whether it is to be continued? If it is indeed ongoing, the details should be published in the ACBL's *Bridge Bulletin.* Evidently there is no such point system contemplated for regionals and sectionals, but if it works out, why not extend it to those tournaments? Player Reports are so extended, and the point system appears to be much easier to apply. Yes, players know about, and can appeal, any Dark Point assessment. > >The widespread but erroneous notion that a result has to be obvious > >in order to be assigned was expressed by several experts. A prominent > >UK expert regally opined that the TD's decision was "sensible," > >because of "problems with the auction and in determining the play." > >Problems be damned, you work them out and make an assignment! The > >words "likely" and "probable" in L12C2 do not imply any necessity for > >rigorous analyses. > > I am afraid that this notion is supported by the ACBL officially. For > a result to be likely it requires one in three people to find it. Thus > there are often hands where there is no "likely" result. I am sure this > is a total misunderstanding of L12C2 but I think it may be the source of > a lot of confusion over applying AssASs in NAmerica. I have been > arguing with one or two of the sensible and senior people in the ACBL > [not on BLML, unfortunately] and one of them has argued that L12C1 is a > reasonable way to go when there are *no* likely outcomes. > My view is that an AC should be forced to come up with "likely" or "at all probable" outcomes. Say there are three AC members. After discussion, each gives his/her opinion (guess, surmise, whatever you want to call it) of an appropriate assigned score for each side. If there is no majority vote, the AC assigns the middle score. Isn't this procedure much more fair than adjusting to avg+/avg-, which may unduly punish or reward the parties? All "sensible and senior people in the ACBL" should be on BLML. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 05:54:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 05:54:37 +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 FAA19634 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 05:54:31 +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 MAA23443 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807091955.MAA23443@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:55:27 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian Farwig wrote: Marvin French wrote: > > >>The widespread but erroneous notion that a result has to be obvious > in order to be assigned was expressed by several experts. A prominent > UK expert regally opined that the TD's decision was "sensible," > because of "problems with the auction and in determining the play." > Problems be damned, you work them out and make an assignment! The > words "likely" and "probable" in L12C2 do not imply any necessity for > rigorous analyses. << > Pardon me, but I just don't get the reasoning. What is the reason and > purpose of making up some funny scores (normally without proper knowledge > of players strengths, habits and bidding methods), just to avoid an > artificial score?! The reason is that it is required by L12C2. The purpose is to correct an irregularity in a reasonable fashion. Artificial scores are a lot "funnier" than assigned scores, which are meant to reflect realistic possibilities. > > In my experience, players do rather accept an AS than a made-up score. In my experience, that is because they are not aware of the provisions of L12C2. And, of course, both sides love it when a TD assigns avg+ to the NOS and lets the OS keep its good result. This illegal policy pleases everyone, but that doesn't make it right. > To assign this, it normally needs an appeals comittee with a sufficient > playing strength to really analyse the hand and determine the likely > outcome. > Most such assignments are within the abilities of a good TD, and the TD's decision can be appealed to a possibly more-expert AC if the OS feels it is unfair. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 06:45:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 06:45:19 +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 GAA19786 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 06:45:13 +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 NAA29297 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807092046.NAA29297@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:44:15 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior has suggested to me that I publish on BLML the following private e-mail that I sent him. My opinions of C players' ability are based on long experience gathered from the many Stratified pair games that Alice drags me to. ############# Craig, I was going to leap into the fray here, mainly because I was so incensed that Jeff considered that N/S were guilty of deliberate OBM cheating, despite the lack of real evidence. David S. commented well on that, so I decided to keep out of it. C players aren't up to that sort of thing, and for that matter I don't believe N-S were guilty of anything related to UI, at least at the conscious level. The only UI that C players catch is from prolonged hesitations, and even then they either miss the implication or do the wrong thing anyway. I don't think the average C player would do anything but what South did, whether North asked questions or not. North asked a dumb question, probably just to show that he recognized a reverse, then made a bad call (fearing monstrous strength West?), and finally realized that he should bid when partner went to the four level by himself. I find it unbelievable that anyone would think a C player sitting South would be influenced by North's question. To say that South used UI by bidding 4C is to say that South knows all about the dangers of that bid, but C players don't realize such dangers. They see two suits, they bid them. If North had hesitated a while, that would be different. On the related subject of hesitations, it strikes me as unfair that people call the TD when use of hesitation UI by a weak pair may have occurred, considering that most of the hesitations (in bidding and play) by such a pair benefit the other side enormously. Given the alternative of no hesitations by such a pair, or hesitations but no TD calls, I would choose the latter. (Craig was surprised I did not comment on North's questioning of the 2S bid, knowing my strong opposition to such questions) Yes, I picked up right away on North's illegal stupid question. One is supposed to ask for an explanation of the opposing auction (per L20F1), not of a particular bid, and certainly should not ask a pointed question about strength or length shown by an unAlerted bid. Such things are to be expected from C players, since they don't get any instruction about the proprieties. It's when A players do this, especially pros asking for a client's benefit, or BLs hoping for a slip in the explanation, that I get upset. ############## L16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play...", then the partner "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." What is an LA for better players is not necessarily one for a C player. I do not believe that passing was an LA for this South (C) player, if he is typical of the C players I encounter. Everyone seems to be giving C players credit for more awareness than they possess. It's hard enough for them to count points, bid sufficiently in turn, try to remember conventions and understandings, etc., without picking up on all the UI communicated by partner's questions or mannerisms. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 08:48:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:48:59 +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 IAA20018 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:48:52 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yuPWN-0004cv-00; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:50:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:16:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Another crash! In-Reply-To: <35af0295.6012014@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:04:37 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >> I have lost all my BLML articles. > >I've sent David the articles he wanted, so the rest of you need >not do so too (unless he has problems reading them, in which case >I'm sure we (or at least I) will hear from him again.) I forgot how helpful everyone is! My computer is now sinking under BLML articles! Thanks Jesper, Herman, Robin and Niels. Incidentally, I found the original disks for the Fax thingy, so I deleted everything and re-loaded it. This seems to have worked. I hope Word97 is worth it. I needed it for compatibility with Grattan - that makes the mind boggle! -- 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 Jul 10 08:48:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:48:59 +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 IAA20017 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:48:48 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yuPWI-0004cg-00; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: <96LePJAVAUp1EwgK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:11:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: When does the auction end and the play begin? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>David Stevenson writes: >>> Bangor Swiss Pairs in Caernarfon, Wales, UK. Declarer plays in >>> 3NT after a complicated auction, and goes three off. "-300", she >>> announces. "No," says an opponent, "you were doubled." "No, I >>> wasn't," she says indignantly, I would have bid 4S if I had been. >>> >>> Right. The facts were: 3NT was doubled, her partner was quite >>> clear about it. However, it is agreed she did not see it, because >>> she did not call. It is agreed that after 3NT Dbl pass pass neither >>> the opponents nor her partner bothered with the fact that she did >>> not call, but just led and put dummy down respectively. So, even >>> though there was no third pass the hand was played to a conclusion. >>> >>> Assume for argument's sake that you accept she would possibly/ >>> probably have bid 4S, and that even if doubled it will only go two >>> off for -500, what do you do? >David Grabiner wrote: >> The auction was not over at the time of the opening lead, and had >> someone called attention to that infraction at the time, the usual >> laws would have applied (major penalty card, premature leader barred >> for one round). >> >> I would say that dummy, who was aware that the auction was not over, >> condoned the premature lead when she picked up her bidding cards and >> put her hand down. There's no specific law on this, but this seems >> to be analogous to a play after a lead out of turn. At that point, >> the auction was over, and the bids which had been made stood. The >> score should be -800. The trouble with 'analogous to' is twofold. First, different situations do not have analogous Laws necessarily, and it is difficult to work on this basis. Second, can dummy condone anything? This does not fit with the general approach of dummy being a non-participant. >> The alternative is to say that the auction was not over at the time, >> and dummy's thirteen exposed cards were thus governed by the same >> laws. This would bar declarer for one round, and the barred declarer >> can be assumed to have passed. The opening leader must lead her >> major penalty card, and dummy's thirteen exposed cards become exposed >> legally. This leads to the same result. This seems to have merit. L28A seems to suggest that people required to pass do not need to actually pass. >> Declarer is in the same situation as if she had missed any other >> call. If her partner had bid 3NT, for example, and she hadn't noticed >> RHO's double and had passed rather than correcting to 4S, the hand >> would have been played in 3NTx. Thus this ruling seems to be a >> reasonable penalty for the mistake, and I wouldn't adjust to -500 to >> restore equity in the actual situation. You would need a Law to permit it anyway - which one? Mike Amos wrote: >MadDog wrote: >> It seems to me that during the auction [L17E - it is NOT complete] > I agree with this much > > Is the auction over yet?? - presumably only David knows if the lady > concerned ever did pass :) I wasn't the Director: there was this charming lady TD who brought this problem to me confidently. She didn't seem at all impressed when I told her I wasn't sure of the answer! My guess is that there never was another Pass. >> LHO exposed a card, "dummy" exposed 13 cards, RHO exposed a card, and >> "declarer" exposed a card. Everyone then cheerfully exposed cards for >> a while until the whole deck had been exposed [L24C applies]. At the >> point at which dummy exposed his second card declarer was banned from >> calling and must pass at her next turn to call. She cannot therefore >> bid 4S. Whilst she made no call till the end of "play" of the hand >> she can now say pass. That concludes the auction. But she didn't. >> It would be a nonsense to apply 13 penalty cards to each defender > I don't quite follow this - if it's not nonsense to say LHO exposed a > card - dummy 13 etc ie applying the letter of the law in these cases > and saying "declarer must pass 3NTx - why do you decide now John that > you can award an assigned adjusted score on the board - where is the > justification for this act of arbtrariness in the Law Book (anyway > Declarer was playing 3NT not 3NTx - it might not be the same) >> and have declarer picking over each of the defnder's hands, so I >> think I need to award an adjusted score. Fortunately I know what the >> result on the hand will be if it is to be played by these people and >> I adjust to that. Why are we awarding an adjusted score? Which law? >> Result stands > Wot result??? there is no result we haven't been playing bridge - the > auction is still on > > I know what I'd rule - all 4 players are at fault - Declarer for not > paying attention - the other three for not ensuring correct procedure > had been followed - 12A2 would be good enough for me - i'd probably > give 50% each - both sides are partially at fault 'cos the other side > have some blame also - they'd be happy and we'd get back to playing > bridge I think this is legally correct. However .... At the time we decided that while the auction had technically not finished we would accept that the situation had been condoned by declarer. From that we deduce that the play period started and a result was obtained, and there is no Law that permits adjusting it [no, not L12A1: that only applies to NOs, and as Mike points out there were none of those!]. If the play period never did start then I am sure L12A2 applies and A5050 seems routine. I would not say that I am certain about which of these is correct, but I am sure that adjusting to -500 is not an option - no Law to allow that. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 08:49:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:49:14 +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 IAA20030 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:49:08 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yuPWP-0004cf-00; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:50:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:38:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws In-Reply-To: <5d2J1TAPp5X1Ewjg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bbbrooooooooooowwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Evelyn Adam Beneschan Mango David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Mary Buckland Neko, Four foot two Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew, Panda, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Motley Crew Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Joseph, Hershey, Spotty Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Depo, Bridget Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Lily, Baroo Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Bill, Albert, Cleo, Sabrina Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Albert Lochli Killer Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Grant Sterling Panther David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, and MIA is a cat missing in action. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/cat_menu.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 10:05:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:05:38 +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 KAA20206 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:05:31 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26395 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 20:07:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 20:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807100007.UAA09619@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <96LePJAVAUp1EwgK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:11:33 +0100) Subject: Re: When does the auction end and the play begin? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: >>> David Stevenson writes: >>>> Bangor Swiss Pairs in Caernarfon, Wales, UK. Declarer plays in >>>> 3NT after a complicated auction, and goes three off. "-300", she >>>> announces. "No," says an opponent, "you were doubled." "No, I >>>> wasn't," she says indignantly, I would have bid 4S if I had been. >>>> Right. The facts were: 3NT was doubled, her partner was quite >>>> clear about it. However, it is agreed she did not see it, because >>>> she did not call. It is agreed that after 3NT Dbl pass pass neither >>>> the opponents nor her partner bothered with the fact that she did >>>> not call, but just led and put dummy down respectively. So, even >>>> though there was no third pass the hand was played to a conclusion. >>>> Assume for argument's sake that you accept she would possibly/ >>>> probably have bid 4S, and that even if doubled it will only go two >>>> off for -500, what do you do? >> David Grabiner wrote: >>> I would say that dummy, who was aware that the auction was not over, >>> condoned the premature lead when she picked up her bidding cards and >>> put her hand down. There's no specific law on this, but this seems >>> to be analogous to a play after a lead out of turn. At that point, >>> the auction was over, and the bids which had been made stood. The >>> score should be -800. > The trouble with 'analogous to' is twofold. First, different > situations do not have analogous Laws necessarily, and it is difficult > to work on this basis. It seems to be necessary to have some principle when dealin gwith situations not covered by the Laws, but it may not be right here. > Second, can dummy condone anything? This does > not fit with the general approach of dummy being a non-participant. I don't think dummy becomes a dummy until after she puts her hand down. If the wrong defender makes an opening lead, dummy may condone the lead by exposing her hand (Law 54C), or at least if dummy does expose her hand, this condones the lead out of turn. >>> The alternative is to say that the auction was not over at the time, >>> and dummy's thirteen exposed cards were thus governed by the same >>> laws. This would bar declarer for one round, and the barred declarer >>> can be assumed to have passed. The opening leader must lead her >>> major penalty card, and dummy's thirteen exposed cards become exposed >>> legally. This leads to the same result. > This seems to have merit. L28A seems to suggest that people required > to pass do not need to actually pass. But this ruling is probably the correct one. >>> Declarer is in the same situation as if she had missed any other >>> call. If her partner had bid 3NT, for example, and she hadn't noticed >>> RHO's double and had passed rather than correcting to 4S, the hand >>> would have been played in 3NTx. Thus this ruling seems to be a >>> reasonable penalty for the mistake, and I wouldn't adjust to -500 to >>> restore equity in the actual situation. > You would need a Law to permit it anyway - which one? I was thinking of 12C3, but since there was no adjusted score, 12C3 cannot apply even if the SO allows it to be used. The result, whatever it is, was obtained at the table and must stand as such. > Mike Amos wrote: >> MadDog wrote: >>> It would be a nonsense to apply 13 penalty cards to each defender >> I don't quite follow this - if it's not nonsense to say LHO exposed a >> card - dummy 13 etc ie applying the letter of the law in these cases >> and saying "declarer must pass 3NTx - why do you decide now John that >> you can award an assigned adjusted score on the board - where is the >> justification for this act of arbtrariness in the Law Book (anyway >> Declarer was playing 3NT not 3NTx - it might not be the same) I wouldn't rule 13 penalty cards because declarer caused all but the first. The premature opening lead is a penalty card (and if declarer had reopened the auction, making her partner declarer, the premature opening lead would be subject to the usual rules). However, when a card was played from dummy to the premature opening lead, this misled third hand to believe that it was legal to expose a card. This might be important if it had been dummy, rather than declarer, who hadn't made the final pass. In that case, dummy would not be barred from the auction until declarer played an honor to the first trick or played a card to the second trick, but any cards played before the auction was ended by the enforced pass should not be withdrawn as penalty cards. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 12:16:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:16:25 +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 MAA20455 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:16:18 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yuSl5-0002Hf-00; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 02:18:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 03:17:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: When does the auction end and the play begin? In-Reply-To: <96LePJAVAUp1EwgK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <96LePJAVAUp1EwgK@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >>>David Stevenson writes: > >>>> Bangor Swiss Pairs in Caernarfon, Wales, UK. Declarer plays in >>>> 3NT after a complicated auction, and goes three off. "-300", she >>>> announces. "No," says an opponent, "you were doubled." "No, I >>>> wasn't," she says indignantly, I would have bid 4S if I had been. >>>> >>>> Right. The facts were: 3NT was doubled, her partner was quite >>>> clear about it. However, it is agreed she did not see it, because >>>> she did not call. It is agreed that after 3NT Dbl pass pass neither >>>> the opponents nor her partner bothered with the fact that she did >>>> not call, but just led and put dummy down respectively. So, even >>>> though there was no third pass the hand was played to a conclusion. >>>> >>>> Assume for argument's sake that you accept she would possibly/ >>>> probably have bid 4S, and that even if doubled it will only go two >>>> off for -500, what do you do? big snip > > > At the time we decided that while the auction had technically not >finished we would accept that the situation had been condoned by >declarer. From that we deduce that the play period started and a result >was obtained, and there is no Law that permits adjusting it [no, not >L12A1: that only applies to NOs, and as Mike points out there were none >of those!]. > I'm coming round to the view that the play period started when dummy tabled his 2nd card. At that point declarer has no option but to pass. As others suggest L28A leads us that way, although it does not properly apply. Opening leader (if he had had a bid) could have called, as declarer has got to pass. The fact he has no call spoils the use of this law, but guides us. It relies on the fact that someone who *has* to pass means they *have* passed. I don't like the idea of declarer "condoning" and starting the play period however. I do like the idea of letting the result stand if I can find a way to do it. 3Nx - 3. Cheers John > If the play period never did start then I am sure L12A2 applies and >A5050 seems routine. > > I would not say that I am certain about which of these is correct, but >I am sure that adjusting to -500 is not an option - no Law to allow >that. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 10 22:23:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 22:23:11 +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 WAA21319 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 22:23:05 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA17356 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980710082459.006dbd68@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:24:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: References: <199807071651.JAA29728@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:10 AM 7/8/98 +0100, Rickard wrote: >Actually, there were two infractions here: the transmission and the use >of UI. If the first had occurred but not the second (i.e., N had asked >the question and passed, but S had also passed) then EW would certainly >have got a better score. What is the practice in awarding adjusted >scores in such situations? Do you only consider scores that would be >likely if *neither* infraction had occurred? Or also scores that would >be likely if only one of them had occurred? We need to be careful about this: There was only one infraction. Transmission of UI is an inevitable part of the game, not an infraction. It may be considered an infraction not to try to avoid transmitting UI, but not to fail. UI transmitted but not used is not subject to adjudication. 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 Jul 10 23:27:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:27:29 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21487 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:27:22 +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 JAA18553 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980710092918.006dcc64@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:29:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 In-Reply-To: <199807091935.MAA21321@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:34 PM 7/9/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >I hope that the new point system adopted for use at NABCs, supposedly >beginning with the Reno NABC, will replace the use of PPs to penalize >flagrant UI usage. "Dark Points" will be assigned to players by TDs >or ACs for a wide variety of UI and other infractions, including >those listed in L74C. Then, whether an infraction does injury or not, >appropriate Dark Points are assigned, with a C&E Committee taking >action when a player accumulates too many. Incidentally, Dark Points >will also be assessed for inadequate discussion of conventions by a >partnership. That last sentence scares the **** out of me. Where in creation could anyone possibly find an alleged justification in the laws for the notion that players are required to know what they're doing, much less a basis for defining what it means to do so "adequately"? The ACBL would seem to be saying that picking up a partner right before the game starts and entering the event without the time for a full and complete discussion of bidding methods is now a conduct or ethics offense! Or is their intent to merely bar the use of any conventions by pick-up or irregular partnerships? This ludicrous notion could only have come from someone influential in the ACBL who regularly plays in steady, well-prepared partnerships, who isn't satisfied with the competitive advantage this provides and wants to get an even bigger advantage by regulation. How many times will a player be allowed to be confused as to the meaning of his partner's bid before he has to face C&E charges? Why not just bar beginners, or pick-up partnerships, outright? Is this how the ACBL recruits new players to duplicate -- by telling them that they'd better make sure before they come out to play that they won't screw up in their bidding, under threat of being hauled before a C&E committee (where, unlike at a normal AC, they can't be "educated" to the notion that committee action may be justified by some technical infraction even though they haven't deliberately done anything wrong)? Stated plainly, what the ACBL would be saying is that NOT KNOWING HOW TO BID IS CHEATING! I doubt that organized bridge in its current form could survive such an idea being given official sanction. >It seems to me that Dark Points are preferable to PPs for UI >infractions, as L90 implies PPs are meant for other sorts of >offenses, and there is no system for tracking them. The Dark Point >system is fully described in the back of the Dallas casebook, but I >have seen nothing elsewhere and nothing more recent. Perhaps someone >can tell us if it was implemented in Reno, and if so whether it is to >be continued? If it is indeed ongoing, the details should be >published in the ACBL's *Bridge Bulletin.* If this policy was implemented in Reno, it was a well-kept secret. 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 Jul 10 23:48:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:48:52 +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 XAA21584 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:48:43 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:50:25 +0100 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26046 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:48:44 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: That Old Black Magic? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980710082459.006dbd68@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 13:46:41 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:24:59 -0400 Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:10 AM 7/8/98 +0100, Rickard wrote: > > >Actually, there were two infractions here: the transmission and the use > >of UI. If the first had occurred but not the second (i.e., N had asked > >the question and passed, but S had also passed) then EW would certainly > >have got a better score. What is the practice in awarding adjusted > >scores in such situations? Do you only consider scores that would be > >likely if *neither* infraction had occurred? Or also scores that would > >be likely if only one of them had occurred? > > We need to be careful about this: There was only one infraction. > Transmission of UI is an inevitable part of the game, not an infraction. > It may be considered an infraction not to try to avoid transmitting UI, but > not to fail. UI transmitted but not used is not subject to adjudication. In general you're right, of course. But in this case I understood Jeff's theoretical question to be based on the premise that NS were (albeit subconsciously) using questions as a means of communication, and hence the question was an infraction of L73B1. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 01:21:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:21:15 +1000 Received: from glinda.oz.net (glinda.oz.net [208.154.100.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA24231 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:20:55 +1000 Received: from sense-sea-pm2-19.oz.net (sense-sea-pm2-19.oz.net [208.154.96.51]) by glinda.oz.net (8.9.1/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA04781 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807101520.IAA04781@glinda.oz.net> From: "Donald Mamula" Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:22:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980710092918.006dcc64@pop.cais.com> References: <199807091935.MAA21321@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 10 Jul 98, at 9:29, Eric Landau wrote about Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13: > At 12:34 PM 7/9/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: > >have seen nothing elsewhere and nothing more recent. Perhaps someone can > >tell us if it was implemented in Reno, and if so whether it is to be > >continued? If it is indeed ongoing, the details should be published in > >the ACBL's *Bridge Bulletin.* > > If this policy was implemented in Reno, it was a well-kept secret. This was BoD item number 981-03 "Player Offense Points". It was brought to the floor in Reno, and a vote was taken which deferred the matter to the Chicago meeting. If you are interested, you can probably find the specifics in the Reno BoD minutes on the ACBL web site. In addition, if you have feelings on this, one way or the other, please contact your BoD member, who will be voting on this in another week. Also, the Board of Governors has the authority to ask for a reconsideration of BoD actions, so contact your BoG member for their assistance if the BoD doesn't vote in the direction you wish. Remember the old chestnut about cursing the darkness? Contact me if you need assistance in lighting a candle. Don ******************* Donald Mamula Kirkland WA USA mamula@oz.net ******************* From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 12:01:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 12:01:29 +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 MAA26044 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 12:01:24 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p61.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.213]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01508; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 12:03:00 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980710160354.006e9a68@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 16:03:54 +1000 To: From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199807090500.WAA09352@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:00 8/07/98 -0700, you wrote: >This case was discussed in the casebook for Dallas (*Dallas: They >Fought the Law*, available from the ACBL), but did not appear in the >Daily Bulletin of the Dallas NABC, so is not presented on the ACBL >website or elsewhere. (And why not?) > >The case has no technical interest *per se*, involving as it did an >obvious illegal use of UI. What interested me were the TD/AC's >decisions and the comments of the casebook's panel of experts. > >Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 13 Mar 1997, second session >Board 18 >Vulnerability: N/S >Dealer: East > > S- K8 > H- A95 > D- K8 > C- KQ8652 > >S- AQJT S- 9652 >H- 764 H- QJT >D- AQ63 D- JT52 >C- AT C- J4 > > S- 743 > H- K832 > D- 974 > C- 973 > >West North East South (usual directions) > P P >1NT X* P 2H > P 3C All pass > >* Alerted: DONT > >East asked for an explanation of the Alert, South wasn't sure, East >said "say no more," South then guessed aloud that the double showed a >balanced hand and proceeded to bid 2H, corrected by North to 3C, >which scored +110. The N/S agreement was that double showed a >one-suited hand. The TD ruled a violation of 16A and assigned avg+ to >E/W, avg- to N/S, who appealed. > >Here again we see the illegal artificial adjustment of score so >beloved of ACBL TDs, even at the NABC level. Had there been no >appeal, as in the great majority of such cases, the artificial >adjustment would have stood. Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed, I must question the use of the word 'illegal'. My Law 12C2 (Assigned Score) says the scores ' may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total point score prior to matchpointing.' So, whilst the decision may be couched in terms suggesting it is based on Law 12C1, it is not inconsistent with 12C2. Supposing available matchpoints were 20, the ruling could have said that the NOs get 12 matchpoints, and the OS 8 matchpoints. The use of Av+ and Av- clouds the issue. But to assume, because these terms are used, that the TD is acting under Law 12C1 and not 12C2 and is therefore acting illegally seems to me to be an unjustified assumption. Reg. > >The AC ruled against N/S, but assigned a score of +110 for a 2H >contract. Since +110 is what 3C scored, the AC imposed a 1/4 board >matchpoint penalty for "making a bid that was likely based on UI." >Evidently they could not stomach the idea that the losers of an >appeal should benefit from it, getting a normal +110 instead of the >avg- given them by the TD. They also gave N/S a lecture. > >Question No. 1: If a proper assigned score merely restores equity, is >it appropriate to impose a PP in order to punish the OS? It sounds >right, but I don't know. L90 doesn't read as if PPs of this sort are >intended. > >Question No. 2: If an assigned score turns out to be better for the >OS than the actual score, do you assign or let the actual score >stand? It's hard to imagine this happening, but it could (e.g., if >nine tricks were unavoidable in a heart contract). > >I wrote "proper assigned score," but IMO the right assignment would >have been -100 for 3H down one. It surely was "at all probable" that >North would raise hearts if the bid showed what it should show under >the N/S understanding. South ought to have East's QJ10 of hearts >along with the king, and six-card length, to bid 2H instead of a >systemic 2D. If so, North is looking at only three losers off the >top, and a 3H bid is actually conservative. > >One expert agreed with my opinion about assigning a score of -100, >but only because he is against PPs and prefers this means of >achieving "justice." Right assignment, wrong reasoning. The >assignment should be per L12C2, which says nothing about "justice." > >The widespread but erroneous notion that a result has to be obvious >in order to be assigned was expressed by several experts. A prominent >UK expert regally opined that the TD's decision was "sensible," >because of "problems with the auction and in determining the play." >Problems be damned, you work them out and make an assignment! The >words "likely" and "probable" in L12C2 do not imply any necessity for >rigorous analyses. > >One expert brought up the possibility of punishing players who use a >convention that they do not know and cannot adequately explain. That >is a big subject brought up elsewhere, and I won't go into it here. > >Much of the expert commentary involved indignation that the $50 >deposit put up by N-S was not retained. Perhaps the AC took into >account the obvious inexperience of N/S, no doubt C players, who >perhaps didn't know enough to realize the appeal was without merit. >I'm with the AC on that one, if that was their thinking, but where >was the screener? A screener should be able to say, "Don't appeal >this one, you have no case," and the AC should take that into account >when deciding about retaining a deposit. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 13:39:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA26159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:39:57 +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 NAA26154 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:39:52 +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 UAA08841; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 20:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807110341.UAA08841@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Reg Busch" Cc: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 20:39:37 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: about what I wrote: > > > >Here again we see the illegal artificial adjustment of score so > >beloved of ACBL TDs, even at the NABC level. Had there been no > >appeal, as in the great majority of such cases, the artificial > >adjustment would have stood. > > Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed, I must question the use of > the word 'illegal'. My Law 12C2 (Assigned Score) says the scores ' may be > assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total point score prior > to matchpointing.' So, whilst the decision may be couched in terms > suggesting it is based on Law 12C1, it is not inconsistent with 12C2. > Supposing available matchpoints were 20, the ruling could have said that > the NOs get 12 matchpoints, and the OS 8 matchpoints. The use of Av+ and > Av- clouds the issue. But to assume, because these terms are used, that the > TD is acting under Law 12C1 and not 12C2 and is therefore acting illegally > seems to me to be an unjustified assumption. > I'm afraid you've misunderstood L12C2's words concerning how the adjusted score may be assigned. Say you decide to assign a score of 3H making three. You can either enter +140 into the computer along with all the other scores, or if scores are already out you can change the matchpoint results manually to incorporate the effect of this score. You are not assigning matchpoints, you are calculating matchpoints based on an assigned result. L12C2 is just giving you two ways of doing the same thing. L12C1 says that a score may be adjusted artificially when, owing to a regularity, "no result can be obtained." If a score can be assigned under L12C2, then a result can be obtained and L12C1 cannot be legally applied. There is no provision in L12 for score adjustments in the form of matchpoint assignments not based on a result. You assign a real score, not a number of matchpoints unrelated to a real score, and if that is impossible, you adjust artificially with avg-, avg+ or avg, that's it. A further option provided by L12C3 does not apply in ACBL-land. The ACBLScore program has provisions for entering a mixed artificial/assigned score (e.g., +300 or avg+, whichever is better), but the program should be revised to eliminate this option. There is nothing in the Laws permitting such an adjustment. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 14:03:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:03:18 +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 OAA26179 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:03:02 +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 AAA25488 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807110404.AAA15270@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Penalty card to which trick? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The SK is played from dummy, and whle dummy's RHO is detaching the card card from his hand, the SQ drops onto the table. RHO has detached a card with the intent of playing it but nobody has seen it. Is the SQ played to this trick, or may RHO play the intended card and make the SQ a penalty card played to the next trick, as if he has played two cards to the trick? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 14:38:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:38:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA26212 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:38:51 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yurSd-0003o5-00; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 04:40:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 05:39:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick? In-Reply-To: <199807110404.AAA15270@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199807110404.AAA15270@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes > >The SK is played from dummy, and whle dummy's RHO is detaching the card >card from his hand, the SQ drops onto the table. RHO has detached a >card with the intent of playing it but nobody has seen it. > >Is the SQ played to this trick, or may RHO play the intended card and >make the SQ a penalty card played to the next trick, as if he has >played two cards to the trick? > 45C5 A penalty card ... may have to be played subject to L50 49 ... when a defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face each such card becomes a penalty card 50 A card prematurely exposed (but not led.. is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise In effect I could allow him to change his card but that would stop the QS being a penalty card. This i shouldn't do. By exposing a second card we would kick in L51A and declarer can nominate which. I'm going to rule the QS is played. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 16:08:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:08:18 +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 QAA26283 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:08:12 +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 XAA25220; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807110609.XAA25220@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Donald Mamula" , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:08:20 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Donald Mamula wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > > mlfrench wrote: > > > >have seen nothing elsewhere and nothing more recent. Perhaps someone can > > >tell us if it was implemented in Reno, and if so whether it is to be > > >continued? If it is indeed ongoing, the details should be published in > > >the ACBL's *Bridge Bulletin.* > > > > If this policy was implemented in Reno, it was a well-kept secret. > > This was BoD item number 981-03 "Player Offense Points". It was brought to the > floor in Reno, and a vote was taken which deferred the matter to the Chicago > meeting. Thanks for the answer. Rich Colker stated in the casebook that the point system "is being adopted for use at NABCs beginning with the 1998 Spring NABC in Reno," which didn't sound like there would be a vote on it. I am pleased to learn that the BoD is studying it. I still think that it should be published in the *Bridge Bulletin*, as the general membership would surely be interested in the idea and want to comment on it. > > If you are interested, you can probably find the specifics in the Reno BoD > minutes on the ACBL web site. It's great to see the minutes published, even including "exhibits" (except for the League Counsel Report and the Treasurer's Report, which are marked "not available online." The point system described there seems to be essentially what was presented in the Dallas casebook. The only really bothersome aspect of it is the assessing of "Dark Points" for "not knowing your partnership methods or playing methods without adequate discussion." The ACBL could perhaps logically believe that controlling conventions, which is its right, permits a requirement that anyone using a convention should have some familiarity with its use. Applying that idea to "methods" looks like quite a stretch. > > In addition, if you have feelings on this, one way or the other, please contact your > BoD member, who will be voting on this in another week. Also, the Board of > Governors has the authority to ask for a reconsideration of BoD actions, so > contact your BoG member for their assistance if the BoD doesn't vote in the > direction you wish. My BoD representative doesn't seem interested in what I have to say, and I have never noticed much influence of the BoG over the BoD. > > Remember the old chestnut about cursing the darkness? Contact me if you need > assistance in lighting a candle. Am I really just cursing the darkness? I thought BLML and RGB were candelabra. You can help by persuading Directors, ACBL officials, and ACBL TDs to subscribe. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 16:44:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:44:45 +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 QAA26346 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:44:39 +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 XAA29336 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807110645.XAA29336@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:43:49 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote; > mlfrench wrote: > > >I hope that the new point system adopted for use at NABCs, supposedly > >beginning with the Reno NABC, will replace the use of PPs to penalize > >flagrant UI usage. "Dark Points" will be assigned to players by TDs > >or ACs for a wide variety of UI and other infractions, including > >those listed in L74C. Then, whether an infraction does injury or not, > >appropriate Dark Points are assigned, with a C&E Committee taking > >action when a player accumulates too many. Incidentally, Dark Points > >will also be assessed for inadequate discussion of conventions by a > >partnership. > > That last sentence scares the **** out of me. Where in creation could > anyone possibly find an alleged justification in the laws for the notion > that players are required to know what they're doing, much less a basis for > defining what it means to do so "adequately"? The ACBL would seem to be > saying that picking up a partner right before the game starts and entering > the event without the time for a full and complete discussion of bidding > methods is now a conduct or ethics offense! Or is their intent to merely > bar the use of any conventions by pick-up or irregular partnerships? > > This ludicrous notion could only have come from someone influential in the > ACBL who regularly plays in steady, well-prepared partnerships, who isn't > satisfied with the competitive advantage this provides and wants to get an > even bigger advantage by regulation. How many times will a player be > allowed to be confused as to the meaning of his partner's bid before he has > to face C&E charges? Why not just bar beginners, or pick-up partnerships, > outright? Is this how the ACBL recruits new players to duplicate -- by > telling them that they'd better make sure before they come out to play that > they won't screw up in their bidding, under threat of being hauled before a > C&E committee (where, unlike at a normal AC, they can't be "educated" to > the notion that committee action may be justified by some technical > infraction even though they haven't deliberately done anything wrong)? > > Stated plainly, what the ACBL would be saying is that NOT KNOWING HOW TO > BID IS CHEATING! I doubt that organized bridge in its current form could > survive such an idea being given official sanction. > It's worse than what I wrote, Eric; Player Offense Points (POPs, a change in name from Dark Points) are to be assessed for inadequate knowledge of, or inadequate discussion of, "partnership methods," not just "conventions," as I mistakenly wrote. I agree with everything Eric says, and hope that this aspect of the point system is discarded. I suspect that Bobby Wolff is one of the supporters of it, as he has always been a strong critic of what he calls convention disruption (CD). As Donald Mamula points out, the "Point System" decision has been deferred to the Summer NABC BoD meeting. Everyone should do what they can to get the BoD to fix it before passing it. Except for the part that Eric criticizes, the point system looks okay to me. The threshold for a disciplinary hearing seems rather low, however: three POPs in three years. You get a single POP for "mild" transgreesions, such as not having two appropriately filled out convention cards available at the table for opponents, and two POPs for "moderate" transgressions, such as flagrant use of UI. They might end up having an awful lot of disciplinary hearings. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 11 18:58:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA26446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:58:08 +1000 Received: from glinda.oz.net (glinda.oz.net [208.154.100.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA26441 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:58:02 +1000 Received: from sense-sea-pm6-18.oz.net (sense-sea-pm6-18.oz.net [208.154.96.178]) by glinda.oz.net (8.9.1/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA10636 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807110858.BAA10636@glinda.oz.net> From: "Donald Mamula" Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:59:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199807110609.XAA25220@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 10 Jul 98, at 23:08, Marvin L. French wrote about Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13: > > Remember the old chestnut about cursing the darkness? Contact me > > if you need assistance in lighting a candle. > > Am I really just cursing the darkness? I thought BLML and RGB were > candelabra. You can help by persuading Directors, ACBL officials, and ACBL > TDs to subscribe. Not meant as a slam....just noting that this is an opportunity for you, and others, to express themselves BEFORE something gets carved into stone. Those opportunities aren't that often. Agree that more officials should be getting a pulse from BLML and RGB. Luckily, some are starting to come around. One note to the "dark points" proposal. It specifically states that "The level of the player involved should always be considered before assessing POP's". Don ****************************************************************** Donald Mamula Kirkland WA mamula@oz.net All opinions are those of the guest, and do not reflect those of station ownership, management, staff or advertisers. We will provide time for opposing viewpoints... ****************************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 12 04:19:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:19:47 +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 EAA29458 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:19:37 +1000 Received: from cph30.ppp.dknet.dk (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA00189 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:21:36 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: declarer plays from both hands Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:21:36 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35b490ea.11160157@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <4jf1cwAF1Pn1EwBL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4jf1cwAF1Pn1EwBL@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, 3 Jul 1998 16:48:21 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > According to the Scope of the Laws: > >>A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads >>his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any >>suggestion that a violation be penalised. When a player "should" do >>something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), >>his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his >>rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. > > It has been argued that while there is a definition of 'irregularity' >in the Law book there is no definition of 'infraction of Law', but this >is wrong. It may not appear in the 'Definitions' but the above is as >much a definition of 'infraction of Law' as it is of 'should'. It does not actually say in so many words that a violation of the 'simple declaration that a player "does" something' (which is not usually to be penalized) is not also an infraction of law. It seems to me that it might be an infraction of law even though the author of the "Scope" did not find it necessary or important to point that out explicitly. Such an interpretation would very nicely lead to the conclusion that "illegal" and "infraction of law" both simply mean "contrary to law", which is consistent with the natural meaning of those words as found in dictionaries. However, unless some native English-speakers will support me on that one, I'll probably have to accept David's (and others') conclusion on that point: > I am thus convinced that while any Violation of Procedure is an >irregularity only some of them qualify as an 'infraction of Law'. L44 >is a Procedural-type Law, so failure to follow it is not an 'infraction >of Law'. We then come to the second question: >But is it illegal? > > There is no definition of 'illegal', so consider the following. My >dictionary defines 'illegal' as 'contrary to Law'. So does mine. >Would you say it is >reasonable to say that failure to follow *a* Law was contrary to Law in >general? Perhaps yes! Yes. > Would you say that 'illegal' and 'infraction of >Law' was the same? Perhaps yes! Yes. But not because the two words are connected in a way that makes them necessarily mean the same, but simply because "illegal action" and "infraction", in ordinary English as described in dictionaries, both mean "violation of law". >So we have two interpretations, both >reasonable. Which do we choose? > > We all know the instinctive answer to these questions. No-one really >wants declarer to be able to change his king. That is correct. But allowing him to change his king is IMO a small price to pay for maintaining the simple and understandable situation that "illegal" means "against the law". >There seems quite a tide >of opinion that equates 'illegal' with 'infraction of Law' [several >posters have assumed it without comment]. I suggest that we interpret >'illegal' for the purposes of the 1997 Laws as an 'infraction of Law', >and define an 'infraction of Law' by reference to the Scope. An interesting suggestion. I disagree. We have two terms which according to the dictionaries both mean "violation of law". We have a set of laws that use both terms. We have a sentence in those laws that seems to indicate that the laws use one of those terms ("infraction") in a way that is different from the one expected in ordinary English. IMO that does not support an assumption that those laws also use the other term ("illegal") in a non-standard way. On the contrary: why use two different terms for the same meaning (which is even different from the normal meaning of both terms)? I find the idea that "illegal", with no special definition in the laws, should mean anything other than "against the laws" very strange. ----- On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:54:19 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > A violation of correct procedure which is not punishable for >itself is an 'irregularity' but not an infraction. It may reach a = punishable >level if the breach is aggravated by other factors - but rarely. This sounds as if you equate "infraction" with "punishable offense". Perhaps my English is at fault, but in my mind (and dictionary) "punishable or not" has no particular link to the use or non-use of the word "infraction". Whether or not an action is punishable is IMO not in any natural way connected with the use of one particular of the terms "irregularity", "infraction", "violation of procedure", and "illegal action". > It is correct procedure, but not a punishable offence, to wash >certain materials in lukewarm water - the label asks us to do it. It is not even illegal - but the label is not a law. If the label had been a law, like L44 is, it would have been illegal - though not necessarily punishable - to violate it. ----- On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:29:09 PDT, "Michael Farebrother" wrote: >As I said, I do not believe that it's the specification of a penalty=20 >that makes something illegal, it's a law that proscribes that=20 >makes something illegal. Exactly. ----- On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:43:07 +0100, David Martin wrote: >> ######### Yes, there are such laws. This is precisely the point that >> I and others are making. The purpose of some laws is *merely to >> define* correct procedure and these laws use specific language to >> indicate that this is what they are doing. To fail to follow such >> laws is an irregularity but is in *no way wrong* and therefore neither >> illegal nor an infraction. Why would anyone write instructions and call them "law" if it is "in no way wrong" to violate them? The whole point of "law" is that it is wrong not to follow it. Is there any meaning at all in L44B if it is "in no way wrong" to violate it? ----- But what about declarer's king? On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:31:54 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: > -# It may be that a more accurate reflection of the thinking >would be arrived at by changing 'illegal play' in 47B to 'play of an >illegal card'. I think this is the whole problem and its solution. L47B does not say exactly what it should say, and therefore declarer is unfortunately allowed to change his king. If I really wanted to find an excuse to forbid him to change his king, I'd rule that L47B means "play of an illegal card" even though it says "illegal play". I'd definitely rather do that than to rule that the laws do not mean illegal when they say "illegal". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 12 20:33:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:33:50 +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 UAA00646 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:33:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-229.uunet.be [194.7.13.229]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16925 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 12:35:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35A88AF4.5F3DDDB3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 12:07:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199807110404.AAA15270@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > The SK is played from dummy, and whle dummy's RHO is detaching the card > card from his hand, the SQ drops onto the table. RHO has detached a > card with the intent of playing it but nobody has seen it. > > Is the SQ played to this trick, or may RHO play the intended card and > make the SQ a penalty card played to the next trick, as if he has > played two cards to the trick? > The spade queen is definitely not a played card. The spade queen is definitely a penalty card. It has to be played. If the irregularity is being called attention to, then play has to stop, the TD will come, declare SQ a penalty card which has to be played as soon as possible, that is, now. If defender shows his other card before attention is drawn to the penalty card, then declarer has played to the trick (just one card) and the SQ becomes a penalty card for the next trick. Then we come to another swamp : is it legal for defender to play another card, while noticing his SQ, but not drawing attention to it ? Since L9 says "may draw attention" it would IMO not be illegal to first play the intended card and only then call the director. Another Race ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 02:49:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:49:04 +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 CAA03697 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:48:55 +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 LAA15045 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:50:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GLDE00O Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:48:42 Message-ID: <9807121148.0GLDE00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:48:42 Subject: DECLARER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JTxx AQx Axx Axx Qx Axx JTx xxxx x Txxxxx QJTxxxx - Kxxx Kxx KQJ Kxx In a 4S contract the club queen is lead, dummy plays the ace and while RHO is thinking, declarer follows suit, turns his cards over and leads a trump from dummy. At the same time RHO plays a small trump, declarer the king and LHO follows. Declarer plays a small trump and RHO says, "what is going on here?" noticing that he has played one card and declarer his third card. This happens in a period of 3 seconds. The director comes and rules that RHO's trump won the first trick and that LHO's play to the second trick accepts dummy's LOOT and declarer's POOT and that RHO may play any legal card to the trick. And since RHO has not played to the 2nd trick then his card is not a change of play so the players subsequent to him are not permitted to change their cards [RHO chooses the spade ace]. Declarer loses the ruff, the spade ace, spade queen, and a club for down one. Declarer appeals stating that he should be entitled to change his spade king play. Further stating that according to L67, LHO's play to T2 establishes his partner's failure to play to T1. Further, since RHO was void in clubs, he must be deemed to have revoked with the revoke penalties to be applied and that a legal card from RHO's hand be supplied to the first trick, ownership of the first trick being retained by dummy. The result ought to be a gain for declarer of [a] no club ruff but a play of a spade none the less [b] the normal trump trick plus [c] the crashing of the ace and queen on the second round of spades and [d] the 1 trick revoke penalty, making 7. The committee says? R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 02:59:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:59:20 +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 CAA03720 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:59:14 +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 MAA15306 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 12:01:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GU0P00R Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:58:58 Message-ID: <9807121158.0GU0P00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:58:58 Subject: DECLARER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JTxx AQx Axx Axx Qx Axx JTx xxxx x Txxxxx QJTxxxx - Kxxx Kxx KQJ Kxx In a 4S contract the club queen is lead, dummy plays the ace and while RHO is thinking, declarer follows suit, turns his cards over and leads a trump from dummy. At the same time RHO plays a small trump, declarer the king and LHO follows. Declarer plays a small trump and RHO says, "what is going on here?" noticing that he has played one card and declarer his third card. This happens in a period of 3 seconds. The director comes and rules that RHO's trump won the first trick and that LHO's play to the second trick accepts dummy's LOOT and declarer's POOT and that RHO may play any legal card to the trick. And since RHO has not played to the 2nd trick then his card is not a change of play so the players subsequent to him are not permitted to change their cards [RHO chooses the spade ace]. Declarer loses the ruff, the spade ace, spade queen, and a club for down one. Declarer appeals stating that he should be entitled to change his spade king play. Further stating that according to L67, LHO's play to T2 establishes his partner's failure to play to T1. Further, since RHO was void in clubs, he must be deemed to have revoked with the revoke penalties to be applied and that a legal card from RHO's hand be supplied to the first trick, ownership of the first trick being retained by dummy. The result ought to be a gain for declarer of [a] no club ruff but a play of a spade none the less [b] the normal trump trick plus [c] the 1 trick revoke penalty, making 6. The committee says? R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 03:39:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 03:39:01 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03777 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 03:38:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19527; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 10:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807121740.KAA19527@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , Subject: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 10:38:53 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rich Colker wrote up *A Blueprint for Appeals* in the Dallas NABC casebook for appeals cases. This was a worthy effort, an attempt to bring some consistency and guidance to AC hearings. His ideas on applying PPs in appeals cases are interesting, and I wonder if everyone would agree with them: (1) When an infraction results in no damage to the NOS (as when their egregious actions brought disaster on themselves), Rich says that a score adjustment is not permitted by law. He would apply a PP to the OS, however, equivalent to what would have resulted from a score adjustment for the OS side only. Is it true that a score adjustment can be made only when the NOS is not injured? This seems to come from 12A1, which follows an "or" in the preceding paragraph. That paragraph says a TD may award an adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. Doesn't L12C2 give him that power? If a pair bids a game by using UI, a game that makes because of really atrocious defense, can't the TD let the score stand for the NOS and assign a different score for the OS? Must he resort to a PP to accomplish the same result? (Consider the matchpoint effect on the rest of the field.) (2) A particular flagrant usage of UI, even when the score has been adjusted with the result of a bad score for the OS and a good one for the NOS, may result in a PP being tacked on for good measure. (3) To inhibit the continuation of undesirable practices before taking more serious action, such as a C&E hearing. One such practice is a failure to adequately discuss conventional methods before playing them. This item is ameliorated by (4): (4) PPs may not be appropriate for inexperienced players. Item (3) would be covered (unless it is excised) in the proposed POPs (Player Offensive Points) system, the vote on which has been deferred to the Chicago NABC this summer. I was surprised to find the passage about CD (Bobby Wolff's abbreviation for "convention disruption") in a document that is evidently used as a guide by current ACs. Comments? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 06:02:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 06:02:37 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04069 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 06:02:29 +1000 Received: from cph13.ppp.dknet.dk (cph13.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.13]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA02816 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 22:04:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 22:04:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35ad109c.1791425@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199807121740.KAA19527@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199807121740.KAA19527@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> 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, 12 Jul 1998 10:38:53 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Rich Colker wrote up *A Blueprint for Appeals* in the Dallas NABC >casebook for appeals cases. This was a worthy effort, an attempt to >bring some consistency and guidance to AC hearings. His ideas on >applying PPs in appeals cases are interesting, and I wonder if >everyone would agree with them: > >(1) When an infraction results in no damage to the NOS (as when their >egregious actions brought disaster on themselves), Rich says that a >score adjustment is not permitted by law. He would apply a PP to the >OS, however, equivalent to what would have resulted from a score >adjustment for the OS side only. > >Is it true that a score adjustment can be made only when the NOS is >not injured? This seems to come from 12A1, which follows an "or" in >the preceding paragraph. That paragraph says a TD may award an >adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. Doesn't L12C2 give >him that power? No. L12C2 tells us _how_ to adjust a score; it does not in itself give any power to adjust a score. > If a pair bids a game by using UI, a game that makes >because of really atrocious defense, can't the TD let the score stand >for the NOS and assign a different score for the OS? It is normal practice to do as you suggest, and that is therefore, in practice, to be considered legal. However, I agree with Rich Colker that there is no law that allows it. If the NOS really haven't been damaged by the use of UI, then the OS haven't gained by it. No law allows an adjustment when there is no damage (L16A: "... assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage"; L73F: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, ..."). In reality, of course, the NOS _have_ been damaged in the situation you describe, and an adjustment is therefore in order - for both sides. The legally doubtful point is really whether an atrocious defense means that the NOS were not damaged by the irregularity. My opinion is that they were clearly damaged - they were forced to play against an illegally bid game contract when they should have been (atrociously) defending a part score. > Must he resort >to a PP to accomplish the same result? Yes, if he really believes that the NOS were not damaged - IMO, but not according to normal practice. However, there is something basically wrong with PPs calculated to get the same effect as an adjustment. PPs are intended to penalize infractions of law, not to compensate for a gain by an irregularity. Whenever a TD feels the need to calculate a PP so that it takes away a gain, he should consider whether the gain really came from the irregularity - if it did, then there was surely also damage to the other side, and an adjustment for both sides is reasonable. >(Consider the matchpoint >effect on the rest of the field.) The matchpoint effect on the rest of the field is irrelevant for a ruling. >(2) A particular flagrant usage of UI, even when the score has been >adjusted with the result of a bad score for the OS and a good one for >the NOS, may result in a PP being tacked on for good measure.=20 This is reasonable. The PP should not depend on whether or not there was an adjustment. >(3) To inhibit the continuation of undesirable practices before >taking more serious action, such as a C&E hearing. One such practice >is a failure to adequately discuss conventional methods before >playing them. This item is ameliorated by (4): My opinion on attempts to require people to not play systems badly is exactly the one Eric Landau argued a few days ago. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 08:00:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:00:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA04278 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:00:21 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yvUBu-0004Ux-00; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 22:01:54 +0000 Message-ID: <5Y8jBBAmTup1Ewje@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 05:07:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980710160354.006e9a68@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed, I must question the use of >the word 'illegal'. My Law 12C2 (Assigned Score) says the scores ' may be >assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total point score prior >to matchpointing.' So, whilst the decision may be couched in terms >suggesting it is based on Law 12C1, it is not inconsistent with 12C2. >Supposing available matchpoints were 20, the ruling could have said that >the NOs get 12 matchpoints, and the OS 8 matchpoints. The use of Av+ and >Av- clouds the issue. But to assume, because these terms are used, that the >TD is acting under Law 12C1 and not 12C2 and is therefore acting illegally >seems to me to be an unjustified assumption. If you read L12C1 and L88 you will discover that A+ does not necessarily equate to 12 MPs, but could be more. When a TD gives a pair A+ the scorer will always assume that it is A+ in the normal Law book interpretation: he will not consider the possibility that a TD has decided that an AssAS happens by chance to have come to exactly 60% - why should he? However, this is a side theme. The basic point is that you really cannot just take part of a Law and completely ignore the rest of it. For A+ to be legal under L12C2 it must be specifically and exactly "the most favourable result that was at all likely" and that is not just wildly unlikely: it is also completely pointless since you might just as well assign the actual score. It is my belief that the bit about using matchpoints to assign a score is merely anachronistic and should be deleted: when weighted scores were permitted under L12C2 there was some point. In actual fact, the main reasons for using A+ as an AssAS are: [1] Laziness [2] Lack of understanding [3] Lack of training One strange idea prevalent among some TDs is that an adjusted score has to be at least 60%: this is absurd, but in fact turns out as true on such a high percentage of hands that such TDs do not recognise the absurdity. The ACBL has said that A+ is reasonable when there are *no* scores that are at all likely. In my view this merely means they have misunderstood the meaning of the term "at all likely". I think it is important that people who read this list realise the illegality of this A+ approach. It is unnecessary, and does nothing for the game, unless you count making spare time for TDs at the expense of accurate rulings. There are a lot of hands where it does little harm [since AssASs quite often would not be too far away from 60% even if calculated fairly] but I think that is a terrible reason to use it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 10:23:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:23:13 +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 KAA04487 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:23:04 +1000 Received: from modem109.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.237] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.00pre #1) id 0yvWQD-0004W1-00; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 01:24:50 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Can ....... of worms? Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:08:26 +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 whose cat has nine tails. ---------- > From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Can ....... of worms? > Date: 06 July 1998 07:31 > > RTFLB > > There's a story about Admiral Nelson (Sorry to mention him for any > French readers - OK OK don't mention the World Cup - Mike declares BLML > a football free-zone) - a story of how he ignored his superiors' orders > by putting his telescope to his blind eye (Battle of Copenhagen ???) > probably offended my Danish readers as well now - I bet Grattan or David > Burn knows which battle > +++ [Oh all right then...... I bet you knew all along it was Copenhagen....... 2 April 1801...... and it was Admiral Parker's signal he failed to notice with his blind eye... ~ Grattan ~] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 22:14:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:14:47 +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 WAA05647 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:14:39 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-120.uunet.be [194.7.13.120]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19555 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:16:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35A9EC5A.DF3B90E6@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:15:38 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <5Y8jBBAmTup1Ewje@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I think it is important that people who read this list realise the > illegality of this A+ approach. It is unnecessary, and does nothing for > the game, unless you count making spare time for TDs at the expense of > accurate rulings. There are a lot of hands where it does little harm > [since AssASs quite often would not be too far away from 60% even if > calculated fairly] but I think that is a terrible reason to use it. > This is THE topic on this list on which David and I AGREE to the fullest degree! I think that should be clear to everyone ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 22:14:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:14:53 +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 WAA05654 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:14:46 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-120.uunet.be [194.7.13.120]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19567 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:16:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35A9F387.6E6485A5@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:46:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: DECLARER X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9807121158.0GU0P00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > > > > JTxx > AQx > Axx > Axx > > Qx Axx > JTx xxxx > x Txxxxx > QJTxxxx - > > Kxxx > Kxx > KQJ > Kxx > > In a 4S contract the club queen is lead, dummy plays the ace and > while RHO is thinking, declarer follows suit, turns his cards over > and leads a trump from dummy. At the same time RHO plays a small > trump, declarer the king and LHO follows. Declarer plays a small > trump and RHO says, "what is going on here?" noticing that he has > played one card and declarer his third card. This happens in a > period of 3 seconds. > Brilliant ! Let's try and take it one step at a time : 1) Three cards are played. Trick one is not yet finished. 2) A trump is led from dummy. Declarer's lead out of turn : L55 This may be accepted or required to retract. Nothing has yet happened. 3) East plays a small trump, intending to ruff the first trick. I find no provision in the Laws that say that this is no longer a card from the first trick, simply because dummay has already led to the next trick. So this card ends the first trick, which goes to defenders, and it now becomes clear that if the lead out of turn is not accepted, then L55B1 applies : if they require to take back, he must do so. 4) Declarer follows suit in trumps. Declarer has now also played out of turn. Declarer can not point to defenders play of a small trump as an excuse. 5) West plays a small spade. Does this accept the lead out of turn ? L53A : a lead out of turn is accepted if an opponent makes a statement to that effect, or if the next player in rotation plays to the trick. That is not the case, but : L53B : if the defender to the right of the irregular lead plays to the trick, then the lead is also accepted. This does not only apply to lead from the wrong side of the table, but also in this case. So the second trick has now started correctly, small trump from dummy, king by declarer, small by west, no card yet from east. 6) declarer leads again and now the attention is drawn to the irregularity. The third trick has not yet begun at all, and L55 will deal with that lead later. Now the TD arrives and decides : A) the first trick was won by west. B) the second trick is a trump trick, starting from north. This trick must first be completed. L53B specifically points to L57 : west has played out of turn to the trick starting in north. L57C : declarer has played from both hands. West is not subject to penalty for his premature play, so east can play any card he likes. > The director comes and rules that RHO's trump won the first trick > and that LHO's play to the second trick accepts dummy's LOOT and > declarer's POOT and that RHO may play any legal card to the trick. > And since RHO has not played to the 2nd trick then his card is not a > change of play so the players subsequent to him are not permitted to > change their cards [RHO chooses the spade ace]. > Seems a correct ruling. 7) East plays the spade ace, winning the second trick. The TD must now still rule on the small spade that started trick 3 prematurely, and offer defenders the opportunity of accepting this. > Declarer loses the ruff, the spade ace, spade queen, and a club for > down one. > Seems correct. > Declarer appeals stating that he should be entitled to change his > spade king play. I believe there have been 327 posts to this effect already. I have not followed the last 317 of them. > Further stating that according to L67, LHO's play > to T2 establishes his partner's failure to play to T1. No, since West has played after East, the first trick is completed before west's acceptance of the lead out of turn. L67 : the error must be rectified if attention has been called to it before both sides have played to the next trick. If west has played to the first trick, then he has not played to the second one. Only if we may assume the the small trump was intended as following trumps, and not ruffing the lead, can we apply L67 and all that follows from it. But since the play of both small trumps occured "at the same time", we may well believe that east was playing to the first trick, not the second. > Further, > since RHO was void in clubs, he must be deemed to have revoked with > the revoke penalties to be applied and that a legal card from RHO's > hand be supplied to the first trick, ownership of the first trick > being retained by dummy. The result ought to be a gain for declarer > of [a] no club ruff but a play of a spade none the less [b] the > normal trump trick plus [c] the 1 trick revoke penalty, making 6. > > The committee says? > Completely correct ruling. Money refunded because it is interesting enough for BLML (how's that for a criterium on refunding deposits ?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 22:14:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:14:58 +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 WAA05660 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:14:51 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-120.uunet.be [194.7.13.120]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19575 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:16:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35A9F558.BE00C171@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:54:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199807121740.KAA19527@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> <35ad109c.1791425@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am totally against the attribution of PP's by AC's. This totally disrupts the normal flow of a tournament. If for some reason OS or NOS go into appeal, OS may get a PP where there was none before the appeal. This is unfair to those wanting to appeal and those not wanting to appeal. Rather, AC's should tell TD's what they want PP's to be awarded for, and how many. Then it is certain that PP's will be given to everyone in the same manner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 13 23:32:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:32:14 +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 XAA05831 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:32:07 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA24896 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980713093427.00695448@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:34:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) In-Reply-To: <199807121740.KAA19527@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM 7/12/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Rich Colker wrote up *A Blueprint for Appeals* in the Dallas NABC >casebook for appeals cases. This was a worthy effort, an attempt to >bring some consistency and guidance to AC hearings. His ideas on >applying PPs in appeals cases are interesting, and I wonder if >everyone would agree with them: > >(1) When an infraction results in no damage to the NOS (as when their >egregious actions brought disaster on themselves), Rich says that a >score adjustment is not permitted by law. He would apply a PP to the >OS, however, equivalent to what would have resulted from a score >adjustment for the OS side only. Rich is wrong here. The idea that "their egregious actions" precludes them from getting the benefit of an adjustment for an opponent's infraction came from Edgar Kaplan (TBW editorial in 1973). This is purely a personal interpretation, which may be justified in terms of the actual laws or may not, but is certainly not mandated. The FLB has been revised three times since EK invented this doctrinal interpretation. I infer that had the lawmakers been in agreement with EK's position on this, they'd have written it into the laws by now. OTOH, had they been in total disagreement, they'd have revised the laws to make that clear also. So I can only assume that it remains subject to SO or local interpretation. Of course, if the ACBL accepts Rich's guidelines as policy, then we will have an official interpretation from our SO, and it will take on the force of permissable regulation, if not of law. I would oppose that, not so much because because I disagree with EK's original concept (although I do) as because where it is used, it seems to be vastly overused. I have witnessed an AC take several minutes of hand analysis to conclude that a defender's action was an "egregious error". In real life, EK's doctrine often seems to have metamorphosed into "if you could have gotten a good board by doing the right thing you lose your adjustment". >Is it true that a score adjustment can be made only when the NOS is >not injured? This seems to come from 12A1, which follows an "or" in >the preceding paragraph. That paragraph says a TD may award an >adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. Doesn't L12C2 give >him that power? If a pair bids a game by using UI, a game that makes >because of really atrocious defense, can't the TD let the score stand >for the NOS and assign a different score for the OS? Must he resort >to a PP to accomplish the same result? (Consider the matchpoint >effect on the rest of the field.) Score adjustments are made to restore equity to the NOS. By definition, therefore, a score can only be adjusted when the NOS has been damaged. L12A1 gives the director the right to restore equity even when no idemnity has been specified elsewhere in the laws. It does not give him the right to assign an adjusted score for a purpose other than restoring equity. In general, the TD can NOT let a score stand for the NOS and assign a different score to the OS. If an infraction produces an inequitable result, equity must be restored for BOTH sides. L12C2 specifies an exception to the general rule, when "for the non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely" and "for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" differ. That is the only basis in law for awarding an adjusted score which is different for the two sides. Marv's language above reinforces my point about overuse of the Kaplan doctrine. Suffice it to say that there's a VAST difference between a "really atrocious defense" and an "egregious error". I have often managed to perpetrate a "really atrocious defense" without even making an obvious error, much less an egregious one. Haven't we all? >(2) A particular flagrant usage of UI, even when the score has been >adjusted with the result of a bad score for the OS and a good one for >the NOS, may result in a PP being tacked on for good measure. Equity adjustments restore equity. Procedural penalties punish violations of procedure. They are totally separate things. A procedural violation either merits a penalty or it doesn't. I can find absolutely no basis in the laws for the notion that the award of a procedural penalty can or should depend on whether or not there was an equity adjustment on the same deal. >(3) To inhibit the continuation of undesirable practices before >taking more serious action, such as a C&E hearing. One such practice >is a failure to adequately discuss conventional methods before >playing them. This item is ameliorated by (4): > >(4) PPs may not be appropriate for inexperienced players. I take it this means that inexperienced players may still be permitted to form pickup partnerships even as it becomes a C&E offense for experienced players to do so. 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 Jul 14 00:30:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:30:17 +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 AAA08199 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:30:10 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA14798; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:31:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.75) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014779; Mon Jul 13 09:31:06 1998 Received: by har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDAE48.DEC3E3A0@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:27:43 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDAE48.DEC3E3A0@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:06:54 -0400 Encoding: 91 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I concur wholeheartedly. If you are going to implement such an absurd and draconian policy you may as well close the partnership desks, expect an immediate 50% decline in table count, and not bother to run any but A sections. There's not 1 in 10 C pair nor 1 in 4 B pairs in any event that fully understand their partnership agreements...many fly by the seat of their pants and/or lack the bridge sophistication to arrange detailed agreements. (I suspect those numbers are very generous, by the way) Judgeing by TBW in any given month, even seasoned world class pairs frequently have the wheels fall off. To consider this a C&E matter is insulting, short sighted and stupid. Only a few perfect people could possibly meet such a standard. I'm not opposed to keeping records of partnership misunderstanding mixups as our cousins across the Atlantic do with "psyches". I am heartily opposed to making a presumption of ethical violation based on what could be and usually is forgetfulness, carelessness, incompetence, or inadequate time and opportunity to work out detailed agreements. Accusations drawn from such unclear evidence could be expected to produce litigation inimical to the best interests of the ACBL. They would strongly alienate the majority of innocent players so accused. They would unjustly tarnish reputations as these procedues never seem to be as secret as they might intend to be. And they would both frighten and irritate many other players who heard of such a star chamber procedure. They would also further demean the perception of the director to that of a fink and a snitch, and increase the level of hostility in many director calls. Educate/counsel if there's a pattern? Fine. Make allegations as to ethics? NO!!! ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 9:29 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 At 12:34 PM 7/9/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >I hope that the new point system adopted for use at NABCs, supposedly >beginning with the Reno NABC, will replace the use of PPs to penalize >flagrant UI usage. "Dark Points" will be assigned to players by TDs >or ACs for a wide variety of UI and other infractions, including >those listed in L74C. Then, whether an infraction does injury or not, >appropriate Dark Points are assigned, with a C&E Committee taking >action when a player accumulates too many. Incidentally, Dark Points >will also be assessed for inadequate discussion of conventions by a >partnership. That last sentence scares the **** out of me. Where in creation could anyone possibly find an alleged justification in the laws for the notion that players are required to know what they're doing, much less a basis for defining what it means to do so "adequately"? The ACBL would seem to be saying that picking up a partner right before the game starts and entering the event without the time for a full and complete discussion of bidding methods is now a conduct or ethics offense! Or is their intent to merely bar the use of any conventions by pick-up or irregular partnerships? This ludicrous notion could only have come from someone influential in the ACBL who regularly plays in steady, well-prepared partnerships, who isn't satisfied with the competitive advantage this provides and wants to get an even bigger advantage by regulation. How many times will a player be allowed to be confused as to the meaning of his partner's bid before he has to face C&E charges? Why not just bar beginners, or pick-up partnerships, outright? Is this how the ACBL recruits new players to duplicate -- by telling them that they'd better make sure before they come out to play that they won't screw up in their bidding, under threat of being hauled before a C&E committee (where, unlike at a normal AC, they can't be "educated" to the notion that committee action may be justified by some technical infraction even though they haven't deliberately done anything wrong)? Stated plainly, what the ACBL would be saying is that NOT KNOWING HOW TO BID IS CHEATING! I doubt that organized bridge in its current form could survive such an idea being given official sanction. >It seems to me that Dark Points are preferable to PPs for UI >infractions, as L90 implies PPs are meant for other sorts of >offenses, and there is no system for tracking them. The Dark Point >system is fully described in the back of the Dallas casebook, but I >have seen nothing elsewhere and nothing more recent. Perhaps someone >can tell us if it was implemented in Reno, and if so whether it is to >be continued? If it is indeed ongoing, the details should be >published in the ACBL's *Bridge Bulletin.* If this policy was implemented in Reno, it was a well-kept secret. 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 Jul 14 02:24:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:24:35 +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 CAA08619 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:24:28 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yvlQb-00024N-00; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:26:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:48:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) In-Reply-To: <35A9F558.BE00C171@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I am totally against the attribution of PP's by AC's. > >This totally disrupts the normal flow of a tournament. > >If for some reason OS or NOS go into appeal, OS may get a PP where there >was none before the appeal. This is unfair to those wanting to appeal >and those not wanting to appeal. I have some sympathy for this. However, an AC presumably only applies a PPf when they feel the TD should have, ie that it would be correct to do so. Like it or not, that is the prime purpose of ACs: to amend rulings by TDs that they think should be amended. >Rather, AC's should tell TD's what they want PP's to be awarded for, and >how many. Then it is certain that PP's will be given to everyone in the >same manner. Since when did ACs become the authority on these matters? Why on earth should they be telling TDs how to behave? They are not the sponsoring organisation. -- 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 Jul 14 02:26:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:26:04 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08626 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:25:58 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA15402 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21653; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:27:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:27:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807131627.MAA21653@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > The spade queen is definitely not a played card. > The spade queen is definitely a penalty card. > It has to be played. This looks right to me. > Since L9 says "may draw attention" it would IMO not be illegal to first > play the intended card and only then call the director. > > Another Race ? I think L60C gets us out of this one. Also, if both cards are penalty cards, declarer gets to choose which one is played. What if, instead, the defender had simultaneously exposed two cards? I thought I remembered a provision that might in some circumstances let the defender choose which one is played, but now I can't find it. Any idea what I might be (mis-?) remembering? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 02:43:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:43:30 +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 CAA08718 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 02:43:22 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yvlix-0005HF-00; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:45:11 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <33X8AGR3>; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer plays from both hands Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:29:08 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > David Martin wrote: > >DWS wrote: > > >> To put it another way, there seems to be a suggestion that > >> declarer's play out of turn is legal. OK, what determines which > >> leads/plays/calls out of turn are legal, and which illegal? > > > ###OLD### Specific laws covering each illegal case. #####OLD#### > > Having accepted that, we need to clean up L56 and L45E2 then. > > > ######## Agreed. (I have just got back from holiday, hence the > tardy reply.) ######### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 03:19:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 03:19:16 +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 DAA08790 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 03:19:05 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03994 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:20:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA17744 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:20:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk (tempest.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.19]) by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA22142 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:20:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 18:20:46 BST Message-Id: <11623.9807131720@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > What if, instead, the defender had simultaneously exposed two cards? I > thought I remembered a provision that might in some circumstances let > the defender choose which one is played, but now I can't find it. Any > idea what I might be (mis-?) remembering? I think we agreed if he dropped two card (intending to play neither) then they were both penalty cards and declarer choses (L51A); while if he played two (or more) cards (intending to play one) then defender choses (L58B2) and the other(s) before penalty cards. This leaves the intermediate case: defender plays (and exposes) one card and simultaneous exposes another. In this case, I would apply L58B, although it is not completely clear that it applies. In the case which started this thread, the card to be played was not exposed or was exposed after the dropped card. L58B can not apply, and we have to apply L49, etc.; if the dropped card is an honour and is a legal play to the trick, then it must be played (L50D1). 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 Jul 14 03:23:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 03:23:49 +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 DAA08820 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 03:23:38 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yvmLt-0001Il-00; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:25:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:24:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick In-Reply-To: <199807131627.MAA21653@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199807131627.MAA21653@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Herman De Wael >> The spade queen is definitely not a played card. >> The spade queen is definitely a penalty card. >> It has to be played. > >This looks right to me. > >> Since L9 says "may draw attention" it would IMO not be illegal to first >> play the intended card and only then call the director. >> >> Another Race ? > >I think L60C gets us out of this one. Also, if both cards are penalty >cards, declarer gets to choose which one is played. > >What if, instead, the defender had simultaneously exposed two cards? I >thought I remembered a provision that might in some circumstances let >the defender choose which one is played, but now I can't find it. Any >idea what I might be (mis-?) remembering? > > L58B2 If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play, each other ... penalty card. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 04:02:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 04:02:34 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08904 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 04:02:28 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA17100 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21779; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:04:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:04:19 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807131804.OAA21779@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > while if he played two (or more) cards (intending to play one) then > defender choses (L58B2) and the other(s) before penalty cards. Thanks; it was 58B2 that I was remembering. I don't know why I couldn't find it. The difference between 58B1 and 58B2 seems to offer some "opportunities" for a clumsy but quick-thinking defender. The lawmakers may wish to have a look at this in 2007. The other point Robin makes -- a dropped card is a penalty card but must be played only if it is a _major_ penalty card -- is well worth remembering. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 04:12:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 04:12:27 +1000 Received: from glinda.oz.net (glinda.oz.net [208.154.100.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08959 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 04:12:22 +1000 Received: from sense-sea-pm5-21.oz.net (sense-sea-pm5-21.oz.net [208.154.96.149]) by glinda.oz.net (8.9.1/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA24747 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807131812.LAA24747@glinda.oz.net> From: "Donald Mamula" Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:13:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <01BDAE48.DEC3E3A0@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.01a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 10 Jul 98, at 11:06, Craig Senior wrote about RE: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13: > I concur wholeheartedly. If you are going to implement such an absurd and > draconian policy you may as well close the partnership desks, expect an > immediate 50% decline in table count, and not bother to run any but A > sections. There's not 1 in 10 C pair nor 1 in 4 B pairs in any event that > fully understand their partnership agreements >From what I have been able to discern, it seems that the 'dark points' proposal was to only apply to NABC+ events at the three NABC's. I have not received any "official" confirmation that that is the case, but my reading of the BoD minutes seems to indicate that. The number of B and C pairs in those events can probably be counted on two hands. If anyone directly involved can confirm/deny to the list, I know we would all appreciate the clarification. Don ******************* Donald Mamula Kirkland WA USA mamula@oz.net ******************* From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 06:55:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:55:47 +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 GAA09354 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:55:41 +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 RAA07791 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980713165805.006d4874@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:58:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 In-Reply-To: <199807131812.LAA24747@glinda.oz.net> References: <01BDAE48.DEC3E3A0@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:13 AM 7/13/98 -0800, Donald wrote: >On 10 Jul 98, at 11:06, Craig Senior wrote about RE: Dallas NABC Appeals Case >#13: > >> I concur wholeheartedly. If you are going to implement such an absurd and >> draconian policy you may as well close the partnership desks, expect an >> immediate 50% decline in table count, and not bother to run any but A >> sections. There's not 1 in 10 C pair nor 1 in 4 B pairs in any event that >> fully understand their partnership agreements > > >>From what I have been able to discern, it seems that the 'dark points' proposal >was to only apply to NABC+ events at the three NABC's. > >I have not received any "official" confirmation that that is the case, but my >reading of the BoD minutes seems to indicate that. > >The number of B and C pairs in those events can probably be counted on two >hands. ...which is truly a pity. If bridge is to flourish in North America, the ACBL must create an atmosphere which will ENCOURAGE B and C-eligible pairs to want to play in top-flight competition. The proposed policy would do exactly the opposite -- which is about the best thing you can say for it. And once we succeed in running all the B and C pairs out of the NABC+ events, what will become of the flight-A experts who want to pick up a casual partner for one of these events? I have been a flight A player (perforce, although I would be by choice anyhow) since flighted pairs were introduced. I don't play very much these days, and have no serious regular partner, although I am fortunate to count a number of top-class players among my friends. I attend about one NABC a year. I go for the express purpose of playing in the major events. I do not pre-arrange games for these events; I pick up partners, often right before the event starts. Now, it would seem, the ACBL is about to tell me that what I have been doing routinely for many years -- making casual agreements about methods shortly before game time, with neither the time nor the inclination to go over my bidding methods in detail -- is a C&E offense. If they go ahead and do that, I will have no reason to attend an NABC ever again. 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 Jul 14 08:20:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 08:20:42 +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 IAA09581 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 08:20:35 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-22.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.188]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA00418; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:22:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35AA893B.9BC83280@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 18:24:59 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner , bridge laws Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick References: <199807131627.MAA21653@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think you are looking for law 58B2. This law seems to cover this situation. Nancy Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > The spade queen is definitely not a played card. > > The spade queen is definitely a penalty card. > > It has to be played. > > This looks right to me. > > > Since L9 says "may draw attention" it would IMO not be illegal to first > > play the intended card and only then call the director. > > > > Another Race ? > > I think L60C gets us out of this one. Also, if both cards are penalty > cards, declarer gets to choose which one is played. > > What if, instead, the defender had simultaneously exposed two cards? I > thought I remembered a provision that might in some circumstances let > the defender choose which one is played, but now I can't find it. Any > idea what I might be (mis-?) remembering? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 13:57:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:57:22 +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 NAA10194 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:57:15 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA24074 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807140358.UAA24074@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:58:08 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > mlfrench wrote: > > >Rich Colker wrote up *A Blueprint for Appeals* in the Dallas NABC > >casebook for appeals cases. This was a worthy effort, an attempt to > >bring some consistency and guidance to AC hearings. His ideas on > >applying PPs in appeals cases are interesting, and I wonder if > >everyone would agree with them: > > > >(1) When an infraction results in no damage to the NOS (as when their > >egregious actions brought disaster on themselves), Rich says that a > >score adjustment is not permitted by law. He would apply a PP to the > >OS, however, equivalent to what would have resulted from a score > >adjustment for the OS side only. > > Rich is wrong here. The idea that "their egregious actions" precludes them > from getting the benefit of an adjustment for an opponent's infraction came > from Edgar Kaplan (TBW editorial in 1973). This is purely a personal > interpretation, which may be justified in terms of the actual laws or may > not, but is certainly not mandated. It is mandated by the ACBL (see below). > > The FLB has been revised three times since EK invented this doctrinal > interpretation. I infer that had the lawmakers been in agreement with EK's > position on this, they'd have written it into the laws by now. OTOH, had > they been in total disagreement, they'd have revised the laws to make that > clear also. So I can only assume that it remains subject to SO or local > interpretation. > > Of course, if the ACBL accepts Rich's guidelines as policy, then we will > have an official interpretation from our SO, and it will take on the force > of permissable regulation, if not of law. Actually, Rich was following existing ACBL policy, which he put this way: "ACBL Regulations require players to meet minimal standards (for the level of player involved) of bidding and play subsequent to an opponent's infraction in order to be entitled to receive redress under the laws." > > I would oppose that, not so much because because I disagree with EK's > original concept (although I do) as because where it is used, it seems to > be vastly overused. I have witnessed an AC take several minutes of hand > analysis to conclude that a defender's action was an "egregious error". In > real life, EK's doctrine often seems to have metamorphosed into "if you > could have gotten a good board by doing the right thing you lose your > adjustment". > If you don't let the NOS keep a bad score that they bring on themselves by a ridiculous action, then you permit the notorious "double shot." The NOS can freely double without doubling values, for instance, knowing they will get a top if it works and relief from the TD/AC if it doesn't work. This *reduction ad absurdum* argument may be the strongest. > >Is it true that a score adjustment can be made only when the NOS is > >not injured? This seems to come from 12A1, which follows an "or" in > >the preceding paragraph. That paragraph says a TD may award an > >adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. Doesn't L12C2 give > >him that power? If a pair bids a game by using UI, a game that makes > >because of really atrocious defense, can't the TD let the score stand > >for the NOS and assign a different score for the OS? Must he resort > >to a PP to accomplish the same result? (Consider the matchpoint > >effect on the rest of the field.) > > Score adjustments are made to restore equity to the NOS. Where does it say that? L12A1 merely says that *one* of the justifications for an AS is to restore equity to the NOS. L16A permits a TD to adjust the score "if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." Since other laws (L12A1, L23, L27B1(b), L40C, L64C) refer to "damage to the non-offending side," I can only infer that L16A refers to damage of any sort, not just to the NOS, which would include damage to the field when the OS achieves a good score by illegal use of UI. Grattan? If only "damage" in L16A were "gain by the offending side," then we would have no problem. > By definition, > therefore, a score can only be adjusted when the NOS has been damaged. I believe this is known as "begging the question." > L12A1 gives the director the right to restore equity even when no idemnity > has been specified elsewhere in the laws. It does not give him the right > to assign an adjusted score for a purpose other than restoring equity. Right, but "equity" may mean that the NOS keeps its bad score. > > In general, the TD can NOT let a score stand for the NOS and assign a > different score to the OS. Begging the question again. > If an infraction produces an inequitable > result, equity must be restored for BOTH sides. Sure, but letting a score stand for one side could be equitable. > L12C2 specifies an > exception to the general rule, when "for the non-offending side, the most > favorable result that was likely" and "for an offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable" differ. That is the only > basis in law for awarding an adjusted score which is different for the two > sides. So it is legal to adjust the score differently for each side. No argument there. Read L12C2 by taking it apart: (1) "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score for a non-offending side, the score is..." (2) "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score for an offending side, the score is..." I don't see where it is required that the TD adjust the score for both sides. Looking at the language carefully, I see there is an "or" between these two possibilities, not an "and." Those little words can have a big effect, or as Eric would say, there's a VAST difference in meaning. And, by the way, this is the "inclusive or," not the "exclusive or." There is at least one character on RGB who would argue that the "or" means you can assign a score to the NOS or the OS, but not both. > > Marv's language above reinforces my point about overuse of the Kaplan > doctrine. Abuse of a principle is not cause in itself for nullifying the principle. > Suffice it to say that there's a VAST difference between a > "really atrocious defense" and an "egregious error". I have often managed > to perpetrate a "really atrocious defense" without even making an obvious > error, much less an egregious one. Haven't we all? Hey, I was trying to make the words stronger, not weaker, thinking that "really atrocious" in colloquial usage is worse than "egregious error." I guess I should have said "really atrocious error," is that better? > > >(2) A particular flagrant usage of UI, even when the score has been > >adjusted with the result of a bad score for the OS and a good one for > >the NOS, may result in a PP being tacked on for good measure. > > Equity adjustments restore equity. Procedural penalties punish violations > of procedure. They are totally separate things. A procedural violation > either merits a penalty or it doesn't. I can find absolutely no basis in > the laws for the notion that the award of a procedural penalty can or > should depend on whether or not there was an equity adjustment on the same > deal. I think we all agree with that. Herman's point that ACs should not be meting out PPs for any reason is also good. PPs are appropriately assessed only by a TD, even though L93B3 gives an AC that power. > > >(3) To inhibit the continuation of undesirable practices before > >taking more serious action, such as a C&E hearing. One such practice > >is a failure to adequately discuss conventional methods before > >playing them. This item is ameliorated by (4): > > > >(4) PPs may not be appropriate for inexperienced players. > > I take it this means that inexperienced players may still be permitted to > form pickup partnerships even as it becomes a C&E offense for experienced > players to do so. > I think you can safely take it that the "failure to discuss" language will not be retained in any BoD-approved version of the point system. I just hope that opponents of the point system will not successfully defeat its passage by pointing to this inappropriate feature. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 14:08:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:08:40 +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 OAA10235 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:08:34 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25356 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 21:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807140409.VAA25356@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 21:09:18 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: And I wrote: > > >Rich Colker wrote up *A Blueprint for Appeals* in the Dallas NABC > >casebook for appeals cases. This was a worthy effort, an attempt to > >bring some consistency and guidance to AC hearings. His ideas on > >applying PPs in appeals cases are interesting, and I wonder if > >everyone would agree with them: > > > >(1) When an infraction results in no damage to the NOS (as when their > >egregious actions brought disaster on themselves), Rich says that a > >score adjustment is not permitted by law. He would apply a PP to the > >OS, however, equivalent to what would have resulted from a score > >adjustment for the OS side only. > > > >Is it true that a score adjustment can be made only when the NOS is > >not injured? This seems to come from 12A1, which follows an "or" in > >the preceding paragraph. That paragraph says a TD may award an > >adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. Doesn't L12C2 give > >him that power? > > No. L12C2 tells us _how_ to adjust a score; it does not in > itself give any power to adjust a score. Agreed. > > If a pair bids a game by using UI, a game that makes > >because of really atrocious defense, can't the TD let the score stand > >for the NOS and assign a different score for the OS? > > It is normal practice to do as you suggest, and that is > therefore, in practice, to be considered legal. > Lots of TD/AC practices are normal practices, but that does not make them legal, nor should they be "considered" legal. Surely there is some basis for finding this particular practice legal, as it makes no sense that it be illegal. Besides, it apparently is *not* normal practice for NABC ACs, going by Rich Colker's words. > However, I agree with Rich Colker that there is no law that > allows it. If the NOS really haven't been damaged by the use of > UI, then the OS haven't gained by it. No law allows an > adjustment when there is no damage (L16A: "... assign an adjusted > score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in > damage"; L73F: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in > this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, ..."). L16A speaks of "damage," but not damage to whom. A lawyer might argue that "damage" could apply to other pairs sitting in the same direction. If a pair bids a slam based on UI, that damages the other pairs sitting the same way if the score is retained and a PP is used in lieu of an assigned score. Was it really an oversight for L16A to omit the "to an innocent opponent" words after "damage"? > In reality, of course, the NOS _have_ been damaged in the > situation you describe, and an adjustment is therefore in order - > for both sides. The legally doubtful point is really whether an > atrocious defense means that the NOS were not damaged by the > irregularity. My opinion is that they were clearly damaged - > they were forced to play against an illegally bid game contract > when they should have been (atrociously) defending a part score. I believe Edgar Kaplan would not agree with you. He would say the damage was subsequent to the irregularity, not a consequence of it, and give the NOs no relief. They had a legitimate chance for a top, and they blew it. They can blame their revoke, lead out of turn, etc., on the stress of the situation, but that won't wash. Even if they would have bought the hand themselves, the NOs have to "play bridge" in order to be compensated. Of course the bad bridge has to be egregiously bad for this principle to apply, but the principle states in effect that the NOs are not damaged by an irregularity if they shoot themselves in the foot. To quote Rich's words in the *Blueprint for Appeals*: "ACBL Regulations require players to meet minimal standards (for the level of player involved) of bidding and play subsequent to an opponent's infraction in order to be entitled to receive redress under the laws." I would prefer "ACBL's interpretaton of the Laws" to "ACBL Regulations," since the ACBL can interpret the Laws but cannot write regulations that conflict with them. If the interpretation is correct, then there is no need for a regulation to enforce it. If it is incorrect, then the regulation is illegal. > > Must he resort > >to a PP to accomplish the same result? > > Yes, if he really believes that the NOS were not damaged - IMO, > but not according to normal practice. > > However, there is something basically wrong with PPs calculated > to get the same effect as an adjustment. PPs are intended to > penalize infractions of law, not to compensate for a gain by an > irregularity. > > Whenever a TD feels the need to calculate a PP so that it takes > away a gain, he should consider whether the gain really came from > the irregularity - if it did, then there was surely also damage > to the other side, and an adjustment for both sides is > reasonable. Not "surely," according to the Kaplan principle. > > >(Consider the matchpoint > >effect on the rest of the field.) > > The matchpoint effect on the rest of the field is irrelevant for > a ruling. > It may be disregarded, but it certainly is not irrevalent. If you give an OS a matchpoint top for a slam reached by UI, then give them a zero as a PP, the rest of the field suffers from the ruling. How can you penalize the entire field for something they had nothing to do with? When a TD/AC assesses a PP instead of assigning a proper score, they certainly should consider the damage inflicted on the rest of the field. Anyway, it comes down to this: If the NOs are not damaged, can a score be legally assigned to the OS only? Surely the lawmakers did not intend that a UI-attained result must stand in such a case, and that a PP must be used in lieu of an assigned score. Grattan? How about this: Consider that the NOs were damaged, even though their egregious actions mean no redress. Then you can legally assign a score for the OS. Does that work? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 14:56:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:56:03 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA10311 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:55:57 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00947; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807140457.VAA00947@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Donald Mamula" , Subject: Re: Dallas NABC Appeals Case #13 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 21:55:01 -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 Donald Mamula wrote; > Craig Senior wrote: > > > I concur wholeheartedly. If you are going to implement such an absurd and > > draconian policy you may as well close the partnership desks, expect an > > immediate 50% decline in table count, and not bother to run any but A > > sections. There's not 1 in 10 C pair nor 1 in 4 B pairs in any event that > > fully understand their partnership agreements > > > From what I have been able to discern, it seems that the 'dark points' proposal > > was to only apply to NABC+ events at the three NABC's. > I have not received any "official" confirmation that that is the case, but my > reading of the BoD minutes seems to indicate that. That would make sense, but I don't see where the minutes indicate that. Since the Reno BoD minutes are on the ACBL web site, everyone can see the point system's detailed description (Page 20 of 43). > > The number of B and C pairs in those events can probably be counted on two > hands. > Doesn't matter how many, since B & C players will be given appropriate leeway: "The level of the player involved should always be considered..." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 19:02:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:02:38 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10613 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:02:31 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-227.uunet.be [194.7.9.227]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA00638 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:04:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35AA5377.8494EDC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:35:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) 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: > > > Since when did ACs become the authority on these matters? Why on > earth should they be telling TDs how to behave? They are not the > sponsoring organisation. > I agree, but on matters of drawing certain lines of leniency, the AC, and its chairman, can have some influence over TD's. If an AC finds that a certain infraction merits a PP, but then does not inform the TD to apply that PP to all occurences of the same infraction, then I feel that the consistency is lacking from the tournament. If a TD decides that a certain type of infraction does not merit a PP, then the AC should not overrule this ruling unless they tell the TD to always apply said PP to said infraction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 19:24:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:24:52 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10661 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:24:42 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id LAA18903 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:26:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01IZE0N53NHS0009IW@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:25:46 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:25:41 +0000 (MED) Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:25:41 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: summertime To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C772D92300 X400-MTS-identifier: [;9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Summertime, but the living ain't easy. Some remarks on several of the currently shown issues. case one: Some of us seem not to like the subsequent/consequent approach when answering the question whether a score should be restored because of damage. But it is too easy to suggest that an opinion of one man, and then given 25 years ago is taken too seriously nowadays. Or to say that since this opinion is not made visible in the laws apparently the lawmakers do not explicitly agree with it. The easiest answer is that the opper-lawmaker himself, Kaplan, for sure had the possibilty to translate this opinion in laws, which he didn't. Does that mean that he didn't agree with himself? Nonsense, he was of the opinion that this was a clear interpretation of the laws. Let me be clear once more. I agree completely with his interpretation, and there is no doubt the wbf lawcommittee does so. Which means that 'local' deviations from this interpretation should be avoided, because they are not in accordance with the laws (the WBF LC opinion should be mandatory). Conclusion: it is possible to receive a score after an offence by the opponents, which is worse than the score had that offence not occurred, without getting redress. In which case the offending side still should get the score related to the result had their offence not occurred. Which means that I do not agree with Rich Colker. But I do agree with the feeling that the laws could be more clear in this issue, which is something to be remembered. May I draw your attention to new law 72B1, there it says that an adjusted score should be given if the offending side takes advantage. That idea should have been expressed in law 12 as well. We changed the wording in law 72 during our meetings in Rhodes and did not do the same in law 12. Not because the cases are different, but because we didn't expect problems. Law 72B1 says that we need advantage for the offending side to adjust the score. For sure the offending side gets a lesser score, and if there is damage (consequent) the innocent side gets redress. The question whether to give an adjusted score needs to be answered for both sides and more or less independently. If there is no damage for the innocent side there still may be unjustified advantage for the offending side. If there is no advantage for the offending side there can't be damage to the innocent side. I support strongly the idea that consequent damage is much more likely than subsequent damage. Most TD's are too demanding to the innocent side. In my opinion we come close to the definition of 'normal' to draw the line between consequent and subsequent. In the old days we would say that an action chosen by less than 20 or 25% with a bad result leads to subsequent damage. case two: question: What are disciplinary powers of the TD. The laws know procedural penalties (law 90) and disciplinary penalties (law 91) Are disciplinay powers concurrent with decisions based on law 91. The line is not very clear. Both can be given in matchpoints. Law 90 covers cases of bad behaving etc. This question is interesting when we look at law 92, which says that an AC may not overrule the TD in decisions exercising his disciplinary powers. When the TD gives no penalty for an irregularity, is he then exercising this powers? If the answer is yes and we consider this to be a disciplinary power the AC may not decide to give a penalty, but has to advise the TD to do so. Another question is whether the national authority mentioned in 93C may or may not overrule the TD regarding his disciplinary powers. The laws are not clear. May be I should have the answers myself. Well, I like to get your opinion. case three: Two cards played or dropped or something else. Let us assume that it is the player's turn to lead to a trick. And now two cards hit the table, both visible. TD is called. He should ask the player what his intention was, to play one of the cards or not. If the answer is yes, he wanted to play one of the cards, then he may choose himself the card to be played and the other becomes a minor or major penaltycard, depending on the rank. If the answer is no, he didn't want to play one of the cards (because he wanted to play another or hadn't made a decision yet) both cards become major penalty-cards and declarer may decide which of them to be played. We have another example of a big advantage for the player knowing the laws. He will say 'yes' regardless his intention. It can't loose. Therefore the TD should assume that one of the cards was supposed to be played, not making this distinction. If this happens when a player wants to play to a trick already in progress, the distinction is certainly relevant and the question regarding the intention needs to be asked if none of the cards is of the suit led. May be the player has to follow suit. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 19:28:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA10693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:28:51 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA10688 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:28:43 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id LAA12794 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:30:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01IZE0S76NXS0009JI@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:29:53 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:29:37 +0000 (MED) Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:29:37 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: summertime once more To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <9637291114071998/A25119/EXPERT/11C772DD1F00*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C772DD1F00 X400-MTS-identifier: [;9637291114071998/A25119/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I didn't have the intention to hide myself. Just to eager to get rid of it. Ton Kooijman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 23:59:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:59:59 +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 XAA11281 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:59:50 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yw5eD-0006lc-00; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:01:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:43:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) In-Reply-To: <199807140358.UAA24074@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >If you don't let the NOS keep a bad score that they bring on >themselves by a ridiculous action, then you permit the notorious >"double shot." The NOS can freely double without doubling values, for >instance, knowing they will get a top if it works and relief from the >TD/AC if it doesn't work. This *reduction ad absurdum* argument may >be the strongest. It is a matter of degree. I believe that the standards required in the ACBL are ridiculously high[*]. From what I have seen about one in ten or fewer of the hands where the NOs don't keep their scores they would not keep them in Europe either. But I do agree that if the double-shot is undesirable [a common assumption, though arguable] then we need some method to control it, and this method is acceptable. However, I cannot see why the method has to include people who have clearly done nothing more than make an error of judgement - which all players do every time they play. [*] Based on what I have seen on BLML, RGB, RGBO and in the NABC casebooks. >> Equity adjustments restore equity. Procedural penalties punish >violations >> of procedure. They are totally separate things. A procedural >violation >> either merits a penalty or it doesn't. I can find absolutely no >basis in >> the laws for the notion that the award of a procedural penalty can >or >> should depend on whether or not there was an equity adjustment on >the same >> deal. >I think we all agree with that. I am not in agreement. Whatever you do at higher levels, when you are dealing with lesser levels, say Flt C players, it is a good thing if you can leave a table as a TD with the players not too unhappy. When there is an infraction but no damage the NOs are often extremely unhappy: I find a small PPf for the Os often does not upset them and makes the NOs reasonably happy. As far as a basis in the Laws, one of the reasons given is "inconveniences the contestants" which this does, so there is a basis in Law for a PP. > Herman's point that ACs should not be >meting out PPs for any reason is also good. PPs are appropriately >assessed only by a TD, even though L93B3 gives an AC that power. There is certainly nothing in the Law that says this, and I believe it to be wrong. The main purpose of an AC is to review a ruling, and that includes correcting it if it is wrong. If an AC feels a PPf should have been given, then they are correct to give one. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 14 23:59:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:59:58 +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 XAA11282 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:59:50 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yw5eD-0006le-00; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:01:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:28:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick? In-Reply-To: <35A88AF4.5F3DDDB3@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 Grabiner wrote: >> >> The SK is played from dummy, and whle dummy's RHO is detaching the card >> card from his hand, the SQ drops onto the table. RHO has detached a >> card with the intent of playing it but nobody has seen it. >> >> Is the SQ played to this trick, or may RHO play the intended card and >> make the SQ a penalty card played to the next trick, as if he has >> played two cards to the trick? >> > >The spade queen is definitely not a played card. >The spade queen is definitely a penalty card. >It has to be played. > >If the irregularity is being called attention to, then play has to stop, >the TD will come, declare SQ a penalty card which has to be played as >soon as possible, that is, now. >If defender shows his other card before attention is drawn to the >penalty card, then declarer has played to the trick (just one card) and >the SQ becomes a penalty card for the next trick. > >Then we come to another swamp : is it legal for defender to play another >card, while noticing his SQ, but not drawing attention to it ? >Since L9 says "may draw attention" it would IMO not be illegal to first >play the intended card and only then call the director. No, I don't think so. While I grant the problem over whether a player is required to call attention to an irregularity, L49 says that the SQ has become a penalty card: it does not need attention to be drawn to it to become one. So the player is required to play the SQ at the first legal opportunity. This also means that playing a card accidentally is no better. L52 now gives declarer the right to choose which card is to be played, and the other one is major penalty card. The question of not drawing attention to an irregularity is one that seems to me to be fraught with difficulty. We don't want a Law that says you have to draw attention in all circumstances - consider a revoke: players surely should have a right to play on to get it established. However, usually we would want players to call attention to 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 Wed Jul 15 00:00:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:09 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11295 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:02 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yw5eD-0006lb-00; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:01:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:27:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) In-Reply-To: <35AA5377.8494EDC@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: >> >> >> Since when did ACs become the authority on these matters? Why on >> earth should they be telling TDs how to behave? They are not the >> sponsoring organisation. >> > >I agree, but on matters of drawing certain lines of leniency, the AC, >and its chairman, can have some influence over TD's. > >If an AC finds that a certain infraction merits a PP, but then does not >inform the TD to apply that PP to all occurences of the same infraction, >then I feel that the consistency is lacking from the tournament. > >If a TD decides that a certain type of infraction does not merit a PP, >then the AC should not overrule this ruling unless they tell the TD to >always apply said PP to said infraction. > Supposing that the TD follows what this AC instructs. What happens when the next AC thinks differently? -- 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 Jul 15 00:20:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:20:16 +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 AAA13630 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:20:10 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yw5xu-00070D-00; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:21:58 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id <33X8AGY0>; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:03:44 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: declarer plays from both hands Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:03:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: SNIP > On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:43:07 +0100, David Martin > wrote: > >> ####OLD##### Yes, there are such laws. This is precisely the > point that > >> I and others are making. The purpose of some laws is *merely to > >> define* correct procedure and these laws use specific language to > >> indicate that this is what they are doing. To fail to follow such > >> laws is an irregularity but is in *no way wrong* and therefore > neither > >> illegal nor an infraction. > > Why would anyone write instructions and call them "law" if it is > "in no way wrong" to violate them? The whole point of "law" is > that it is wrong not to follow it. Is there any meaning at all > in L44B if it is "in no way wrong" to violate it? > > > ####### You definition of the point of a law is not IMO correct. When > drafting laws, it is sometimes necessary to provide definitions of > words and terms that can then be used unambiguosly in the remainder of > the laws. To fail to have such definitional laws would result in the > need the constantly repeat the defintion of key words and terms on > each occasion that they are used. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 04:15:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:35 +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 EAA14454 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:26 +1000 Received: from cph58.ppp.dknet.dk (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18242 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:13 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:13 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35ae9e21.5966960@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:43:31 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >But I do agree that if the >double-shot is undesirable [a common assumption, though arguable] then >we need some method to control it, and this method is acceptable. I agree. Personally I do not find the double-shot undesirable. If it were legal, it would simply mean that you were allowed to gamble on your opponents having committed an irregularity, just like you are allowed to gamble on your opponents having bid a terrible contract. It would probably make players more aware of the need to avoid violating L16A (known UI-offenders would be doubled more often!), and TDs would not have to bother with the concept. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 04:15:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:34 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA14450 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:25 +1000 Received: from cph58.ppp.dknet.dk (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18238 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: summertime Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:11 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35b1a039.6503221@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> In-Reply-To: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:25:41 +0000 (MED), KOOYMAN wrote: >May I draw your attention to new law 72B1, there it says that an = adjusted score >should be given if the offending side takes advantage. That idea should = have >been expressed in law 12 as well.=20 Yes, that would make it a lot easier for me to find the laws and the Kaplan interpretation consistent with each other. >I support strongly the idea that consequent damage is much more likely = than >subsequent damage. Most TD's are too demanding to the innocent side. In= my >opinion we come close to the definition of 'normal' to draw the line = between >consequent and subsequent. In the old days we would say that an action = chosen >by less than 20 or 25% with a bad result leads to subsequent damage.=20 I find these figures (20-25%) incredibly high. A defense against a UI-bid contract which is in the worst fifth of the field's defenses is quite normal, and should IMO be very very far from an "egregious error". My idea of the figure would be more like 1% - definitely below 5%. >case two: >question: What are disciplinary powers of the TD. The laws know = procedural >penalties (law 90) and disciplinary penalties (law 91) Are disciplinay = powers >concurrent with decisions based on law 91. The line is not very clear. = Both can >be given in matchpoints. Law 90 covers cases of bad behaving etc. This = question >is interesting when we look at law 92, which says that an AC may not = overrule >the TD in decisions exercising his disciplinary powers. When the TD = gives no >penalty for an irregularity, is he then exercising this powers? If the = answer >is yes and we consider this to be a disciplinary power the AC may not = decide to >give a penalty, but has to advise the TD to do so.=20 I think I would prefer to have it considered "disciplinary powers". As others have pointed out, there is something wrong if PPs are given differently in cases that are appealed than in cases that are not. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 04:15:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:30 +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 EAA14442 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:20 +1000 Received: from cph58.ppp.dknet.dk (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18232 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35af9f62.6287801@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199807140409.VAA25356@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199807140409.VAA25356@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> 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, 13 Jul 1998 21:09:18 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >L16A speaks of "damage," but not damage to whom. A lawyer might argue >that "damage" could apply to other pairs sitting in the same >direction. If a pair bids a slam based on UI, that damages the other >pairs sitting the same way if the score is retained and a PP is used >in lieu of an assigned score. Was it really an oversight for L16A to >omit the "to an innocent opponent" words after "damage"? It is a logical impossibility to damage the pairs sitting in the same direction without also damaging the opponents. There are only three possibilities after a UI irregularity: (a) The OS gets a worse score than it would have without the irregularity. The irregularity has helped the opponents and has damaged half the field. In this case we do not adjust, since there is no damage _to the opponents_ . It is equivalent to just playing badly. (b) The irregularity makes no difference to the score. No damage, no adjustment. (c) The OS get a better score than it would have otherwise. In this case, the opponents and half the field are, as a matter of simple logic, damaged. Kaplan's interpretation, which I find wrong (but follow because I consider it the authoritative interpretation), now tells us that if the NOS have committed a subsequent egregious error without which they would still have got a good score, then we are to consider the damage not caused by the irregularity. Under that interpretation, the damage to half the field is also caused by the egregious error, not by the irregularity. Conclusion: the rest of the field is always irrelevant for an adjustment. Jesper: >> In reality, of course, the NOS _have_ been damaged in the >> situation you describe, and an adjustment is therefore in order - >> for both sides. The legally doubtful point is really whether an >> atrocious defense means that the NOS were not damaged by the >> irregularity. My opinion is that they were clearly damaged - >> they were forced to play against an illegally bid game contract >> when they should have been (atrociously) defending a part score. Marv: >I believe Edgar Kaplan would not agree with you. He would say the >damage was subsequent to the irregularity, not a consequence of it, >and give the NOs no relief. Correct - he would. As I said, I disagree, but accept that Kaplan's opinion has more influence than mine on the standard way of ruling such irregularities. >> Whenever a TD feels the need to calculate a PP so that it takes >> away a gain, he should consider whether the gain really came from >> the irregularity - if it did, then there was surely also damage >> to the other side, and an adjustment for both sides is >> reasonable. > >Not "surely," according to the Kaplan principle. No, "surely" according to logic: there was an irregularity; everybody agrees that the NOS would have a better score without the irregularity; the irregularity has caused them to get a worse score. This is my idea of the definition of "damage", though it is not Kaplan's. >> The matchpoint effect on the rest of the field is irrelevant for >> a ruling. >>=20 >It may be disregarded, but it certainly is not irrevalent. If you >give an OS a matchpoint top for a slam reached by UI, then give them >a zero as a PP, the rest of the field suffers from the ruling. How >can you penalize the entire field for something they had nothing to >do with? I'll answer this in two ways: (1) If the TD does not adjust it is because the NOS's bad score is considered its own fault. That fault is the reason for the effect on the field, which is exactly the same effect any other terrible error (without an irregularity) on the part of the NOS would have. (2) If a player miscounts his trumps, it influences the rest of the field though they had nothing to do with it. If a player commits an irregularity and there is a ruling, it influences the rest of the field though they had nothing to do with it. These are the facts of life in a pairs tournament. The field is not important in a score adjustment matter. >When a TD/AC assesses a PP instead of assigning a proper >score, they certainly should consider the damage inflicted on the >rest of the field. >How about this: Consider that the NOs were damaged, even though their >egregious actions mean no redress. Then you can legally assign a >score for the OS. Does that work? If they were damaged, the laws tell us to adjust - which, as I read L12C2, means adjust for _both_ sides. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 04:15:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:31 +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 EAA14444 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:22 +1000 Received: from cph58.ppp.dknet.dk (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18235 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:09 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35b0a008.6453850@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199807140358.UAA24074@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199807140358.UAA24074@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> 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, 13 Jul 1998 20:58:08 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Read L12C2 by taking it apart: > >(1) "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score for a >non-offending side, the score is..." > >(2) "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score for an >offending side, the score is..." > >I don't see where it is required that the TD adjust the score for >both sides. I do. Your taken-apart version above sounds as if you are right, but that is not what the law says. L12C2 says: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. 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." Note "in place of a result actually obtained". There are four players who obtain one result; this one result is replaced by an assigned adjusted score. To me, that sounds as if a score adjustment is always for both sides. Note also "The scores awarded to the two sides ..." which also sounds as if there are scores in plural. >Looking at the language carefully, I see there is an "or" >between these two possibilities, not an "and." Correct, and I admit that I find it hard to explain that "or". However, weighing the evidence for the two interpretations, I find that the "adjust for both sides" interpretation clearly wins. In addition, if you don't want to adjust for the NOS because you do not consider them damaged, where is the law that allows you to adjust for the OS at all? The laws require "damage" (though Kaplan seems to have meant otherwise). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 14:12:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:12:36 +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 OAA16460 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:12:32 +1000 Received: from accordion (acrobat [150.203.20.55]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA27468 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:15:29 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980715141341.0098c9d0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:13:42 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: ADMINTRIVIA: Archives of BLML Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All Following David's recent loss of a slab of BLML articles I thought I would remind everybody that majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au automagically archives all articles, and you only have to ask it to receive back-issues in month-sized slabs. email majordomo with the command 'help' for the details, but: index bridge-laws (returns a list of files available) get bridge-laws (send me the file) Month-slabs are typically around 1 Meg, although May'98 hit a record of 2.5Meg, 843 articles. I'm still looking for a good archive2web converter - I've seen plenty of bad ones :-) Recommendations welcome. That should allow you to browse and search the archives from a web browser. Keep in mind that every message doesn't reach every person on the list - I get plenty of bounces (especially intermittent ones) every day.... so you may not have a complete set (of articles, that is :-) ). 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 Jul 15 17:28:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA16741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:28:09 +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 RAA16736 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:28:03 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-87.uunet.be [194.7.9.87]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA12340 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:29:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35AB927D.F5ABA536@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:16:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) 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: > > > > Supposing that the TD follows what this AC instructs. What happens > when the next AC thinks differently? > Good argument, that's where the chairman of the AC comes in. My point is that if AC's go around giving PP's when a TD has not done so, not just because he misjudged the particular case but because it is something he does not regularly give PP's for, then the game becomes unfair towards appealers or non-appealers. Either the AC should refrain from giving PP's just to "do something" as often happens ("we don't want to rule for NOS, let's give OS a PP instead"), or it should instruct TD's to award PP's in the cases they would want to give them. The point o Ton Kooijman is also valid : if the TD did not give a PP, then is the AC entitled to give one ? Logic says it shouldn't be, and the AC should rather advise TD to award the PP, so that perhaps, the TD can answer : I had several cases like that one, and I did not give a PP to those people, so I won't give one to these either. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 18:55:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA16903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:55:41 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA16896 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:55:35 +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 BAA13369 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807150856.BAA13369@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:55:21 -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 Let's start a new thread to summarize where we stand: Kaplan's Principle has been reaffirmed by Tom Kooijman, who succeeded Edgar Kaplan as Chairman of the Laws Commission of the World Bridge Federation. Here's what he wrote: > Some of us seem not to like the subsequent/consequent approach when > answering the question whether a score should be restored because > of damage. But it is too easy to suggest that an opinion of one > man, and then given 25 years ago is taken too seriously nowadays. > Or to say that since this opinion is not made visible in the laws > apparently the lawmakers do not explicitly agree with it. > The easiest answer is that the opper-lawmaker himself, Kaplan, for > sure had the possibilty to translate this opinion in laws, which > he didn't. Does that mean that he didn't agree with himself? > Nonsense, he was of the opinion that this was a clear interpretation > of the laws. Let me be clear once more. I agree completely with his > interpretation, and there is no doubt the wbf lawcommittee does so. > Which means that 'local' deviations from this interpretation should > be avoided, because they are not in accordance with the laws (the WBF > LC opinion should be mandatory). > Conclusion: it is possible to receive a score after an offence by > the opponents, which is worse than the score had that offence not > occurred, without getting redress. In which case the offending side > still should get the score related to the result had their offence > not occurred. Accordingly, the ACBL AC's "Blueprint for Appeals" is off-base when it states that no score adjustment is permitted when the NOS is not damaged by an infraction. Its further statement that a PP must be employed to remove any advantage for the OS in that case is also off-base. > I support strongly the idea that consequent damage is much more > likely than subsequent damage. Most TD's are too demanding to the > innocent side. In my opinion we come close to the definition of > 'normal' to draw the line between consequent and subsequent. In > the old days we would say that an action chosen by less than 20 > or 25% with a bad result leads to subsequent damage. I hope Ton means 20-25% of the NOs' peers, but I think the criteria need to be more specific when giving guidelines to TDs and ACs. For instance, a revoke or lead out of turn that leads to a bad result against a UI-reached contract should mean no score adjustment for the NOS. Other disqualifying actions include those that are strongly suggestive of a double-shot attempt (e.g., a baseless double or wild bid). When anything but very bad play or bidding for their level of expertise would give the NOs a good result, and they don't "play bridge," no adjustment. However, after very bad play or bidding that was likely to happen even if the irregularity had not occurred, and the NOs had no easy path to a good result, then I would tend to adjust their score too. This could involve some very difficult decisions, and a large body of published precedents would be a big help. The NABC casebooks could provide such reference material, but not until everyone concerned (TDs, ACs, the casebook panel) regularly interpret the Laws in accordance with the "Kaplan Principle." > The question whether to give an adjusted score needs to be answered > for both sides and more or less independently. If there is > no damage for the innocent side there still may be unjustified > advantage for the offending side. As we are saying. > If there is no advantage for the offending side there can't be > damage to the innocent side. If the OS reaches a 2S contract through UI, making 110, when no UI would have led to 3C, plus 110, then the OS gained no advantage from the UI. However, if the 2S bid shut out a 2H bid, preventing the NOs from reaching a makeable 3H, then the NOS is damaged. I would change the statement to: If there is damage to the innocent side, then that constitutes an advantage to the offending side. That may have been the intent of Ton's statement, but it wasn't clear to me. > question: What are disciplinary powers of the TD? The laws know > procedural penalties (law 90) and disciplinary penalties (law 91) > Are disciplinary powers concurrent with decisions based on law 91? > The line is not very clear. Both can be given in matchpoints. > Law 90 covers cases of bad behaving etc. Law 90 concerns PPs, and does indeed cover "cases of bad behaving, etc." It seems clear to me that PPs are not meant to be used as part of the score adjustment process, or for that matter as part of the prescribed penalties associated with any irregularity. If the TD or AC feels that a player should have a greater penalty for an infraction than the one prescribed by the Laws, then the matter should be handled by Conduct and Ethics procedures, not by PPs. The point system (Player Offense Points, POPs) to be voted on at the summer NABC in Chicago would perform this task, removing any excuse for the inappropriate use of PPs, at least for NABCs. > This question is interesting when we look at law 92, (He meant to write "93") > which says that an AC may not overrule the TD in decisions > exercising his disciplinary powers. When the TD gives no > penalty for an irregularity, is he then exercising his powers? If > the answer is yes and we consider this to be a disciplinary power > the AC may not decide to give a penalty, but has to advise the TD > to do so. I would say the answer is yes. L93 also says that an AC may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, so it doesn't have to be a "disciplinary power" to be exempt from an overrule. I'm not sure what Ton is saying here, but IMO L90 PP decisions can be overruled, but L91 disciplinary actions cannot be overruled. My question is, when the TD gives or does not give a prescribed penalty for an irregularity, is he then applying a point of law or regulation that an AC cannot overrule? > Another question is whether the national authority mentioned in 93C > may or may not overrule the TD regarding his disciplinary powers. > The laws are not clear. > It looks clear to me. The AC may not overrule, but the national authority may do so in its role of supplying "further appeal." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 21:32:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:25 +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 VAA17279 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ywPox-0002i1-00; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:34:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:48:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KOOYMAN wrote: >Summertime, but the living ain't easy. > >Some remarks on several of the currently shown issues. > >case three: >Two cards played or dropped or something else. >Let us assume that it is the player's turn to lead to a trick. And now two >cards hit the table, both visible. TD is called. He should ask the player what >his intention was, to play one of the cards or not. If the answer is yes, he >wanted to play one of the cards, then he may choose himself the card to be >played and the other becomes a minor or major penaltycard, depending on the >rank. If the answer is no, he didn't want to play one of the cards (because he >wanted to play another or hadn't made a decision yet) both cards become major >penalty-cards and declarer may decide which of them to be played. >We have another example of a big advantage for the player knowing the laws. He >will say 'yes' regardless his intention. It can't loose. Therefore the TD >should assume that one of the cards was supposed to be played, not making this >distinction. >If this happens when a player wants to play to a trick already in progress, the >distinction is certainly relevant and the question regarding the intention >needs to be asked if none of the cards is of the suit led. May be the player >has to follow suit. This feels totally wrong. While there are Laws designed for knowledgeable players [L25B being the best example] either they are in the Law book or they are not. If the WBFLC wishes to change them then they have the power but until they do then it cannot be fair to rule wrong because a player with knowledge of the Laws has an advantage. If a player drops two cards on the table, and he knows that it is to his advantage to say he intended to play one of them, then the presumption he will lie for his own benefit is a dreadful one. While no doubt there are a sizeable group of players who believe that they should win at any cost I believe there is a *far* greater group of players that do not tell direct lies. Furthermore, it is up to the TD to judge matters based on the available evidence, and that includes what other players say, not just the player who played/dropped the cards. I see no reason why we should not follow the normal procedure of asking the various players what happened and making a judgement decision. We shall only be wrong that way when the player concerned is [a] knowledgeable [b] prepared to lie [c] convincing and I consider this to happen a small enough minority of the time not to be a worry. -- 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 Jul 15 21:32:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:26 +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 VAA17281 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ywPox-0002i2-00; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:34:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:17:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DECLARER In-Reply-To: <35A9F387.6E6485A5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >> >> JTxx >> AQx >> Axx >> Axx >> >> Qx Axx >> JTx xxxx >> x Txxxxx >> QJTxxxx - >> >> Kxxx >> Kxx >> KQJ >> Kxx >> >> In a 4S contract the club queen is lead, dummy plays the ace and >> while RHO is thinking, declarer follows suit, turns his cards over >> and leads a trump from dummy. At the same time RHO plays a small >> trump, declarer the king and LHO follows. Declarer plays a small >> trump and RHO says, "what is going on here?" noticing that he has >> played one card and declarer his third card. This happens in a >> period of 3 seconds. >Brilliant ! > >Let's try and take it one step at a time : > >1) Three cards are played. Trick one is not yet finished. > >2) A trump is led from dummy. Declarer's lead out of turn : L55 >This may be accepted or required to retract. Nothing has yet happened. > >3) East plays a small trump, intending to ruff the first trick. >I find no provision in the Laws that say that this is no longer a card >from the first trick, simply because dummay has already led to the next >trick. So this card ends the first trick, which goes to defenders, and >it now becomes clear that if the lead out of turn is not accepted, then >L55B1 applies : if they require to take back, he must do so. > >4) Declarer follows suit in trumps. Declarer has now also played out of >turn. Declarer can not point to defenders play of a small trump as an >excuse. > >5) West plays a small spade. >Does this accept the lead out of turn ? >L53A : a lead out of turn is accepted if an opponent makes a statement >to that effect, or if the next player in rotation plays to the trick. >That is not the case, but : >L53B : if the defender to the right of the irregular lead plays to the >trick, then the lead is also accepted. This does not only apply to lead >from the wrong side of the table, but also in this case. The defender to the right of the irregular lead did *not* play to this trick. This lead was by North, and you and I are agreed that East's card was played to the previous trick. So L53B is inoperative. >So the second trick has now started correctly, small trump from dummy, >king by declarer, small by west, no card yet from east. > >6) declarer leads again and now the attention is drawn to the >irregularity. The third trick has not yet begun at all, and L55 will >deal with that lead later. > >Now the TD arrives and decides : > >A) the first trick was won by west. East. >B) the second trick is a trump trick, starting from north. This trick >must first be completed. L53B specifically points to L57 : west has >played out of turn to the trick starting in north. As I say, L53B is inoperative. However, L57 stands on its own merits, so I agree with this: >L57C : declarer has played from both hands. West is not subject to >penalty for his premature play, so east can play any card he likes. Now our only problem is that there has been no decision by the defenders to accept the irregular lead. North led when it was East's lead. This may be accepted by West or East saying so [L53A] or by East's following to this. >> The director comes and rules that RHO's trump won the first trick >> and that LHO's play to the second trick accepts dummy's LOOT and >> declarer's POOT and that RHO may play any legal card to the trick. >> And since RHO has not played to the 2nd trick then his card is not a >> change of play so the players subsequent to him are not permitted to >> change their cards [RHO chooses the spade ace]. >Seems a correct ruling. Nearly. I think he has to give the defenders the option to accept the LOOT or not. Alternatively one might argue that West playing to this trick has inferentially accepted the lead, but L53A says "a statement to that effect" and this did not happen. No, I think they have now got the option not to accept the LOOT. If they don't, East is on lead to T2, declarer and dummy replace their cards in their hand, and West's card becomes a major penalty card. I think it is reasonable to assume that East/West will not accept this option! >7) East plays the spade ace, winning the second trick. > >The TD must now still rule on the small spade that started trick 3 >prematurely, and offer defenders the opportunity of accepting this. > >> Declarer loses the ruff, the spade ace, spade queen, and a club for >> down one. >> > >Seems correct. Yes. Despite a small difference, I believe this to be correct except that the defence should have been offered a losing option. >> Declarer appeals stating that he should be entitled to change his >> spade king play. > >I believe there have been 327 posts to this effect already. >I have not followed the last 317 of them. Current thinking seems to be that he may not, though Jesper has recently introduced a new theme. >> Further stating that according to L67, LHO's play >> to T2 establishes his partner's failure to play to T1. > >No, since West has played after East, the first trick is completed >before west's acceptance of the lead out of turn. I understand they played at the same time, not East first. However, since it was East's turn to play to T1, L58A means that the effect is as though East played first. >L67 : the error must be rectified if attention has been called to it >before both sides have played to the next trick. >If west has played to the first trick, then he has not played to the >second one. Only if we may assume the the small trump was intended as >following trumps, and not ruffing the lead, can we apply L67 and all >that follows from it. But since the play of both small trumps occured >"at the same time", we may well believe that east was playing to the >first trick, not the second. > >> Further, >> since RHO was void in clubs, he must be deemed to have revoked with >> the revoke penalties to be applied and that a legal card from RHO's >> hand be supplied to the first trick, ownership of the first trick >> being retained by dummy. The result ought to be a gain for declarer >> of [a] no club ruff but a play of a spade none the less [b] the >> normal trump trick plus [c] the 1 trick revoke penalty, making 6. >> >> The committee says? >> > >Completely correct ruling. Nearly so! >Money refunded because it is interesting enough for BLML (how's that for >a criterium on refunding deposits ?) It is sufficient but not necessary. -- 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 Jul 15 21:32:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:31 +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 VAA17295 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:23 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ywPp4-0002iW-00; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:34:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:03:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KOOYMAN wrote: >Summertime, but the living ain't easy. Never is. :)) >Some remarks on several of the currently shown issues. > >case one: >Some of us seem not to like the subsequent/consequent approach when answering >the question whether a score should be restored because of damage. But it is >too easy to suggest that an opinion of one man, and then given 25 years ago is >taken too seriously nowadays. Or to say that since this opinion is not made >visible in the laws apparently the lawmakers do not explicitly agree with it. >The easiest answer is that the opper-lawmaker himself, Kaplan, for sure had the >possibilty to translate this opinion in laws, which he didn't. Does that mean >that he didn't agree with himself? Nonsense, he was of the opinion that this >was a clear interpretation of the laws. Let me be clear once more. I agree >completely with his interpretation, and there is no doubt the wbf lawcommittee >does so. Which means that 'local' deviations from this interpretation should be >avoided, because they are not in accordance with the laws (the WBF LC opinion >should be mandatory). >Conclusion: it is possible to receive a score after an offence by the >opponents, which is worse than the score had that offence not occurred, without >getting redress. In which case the offending side still should get the score >related to the result had their offence not occurred. Which means that I do not >agree with Rich Colker. But I do agree with the feeling that the laws could be >more clear in this issue, which is something to be remembered. >May I draw your attention to new law 72B1, there it says that an adjusted score >should be given if the offending side takes advantage. That idea should have >been expressed in law 12 as well. We changed the wording in law 72 during our >meetings in Rhodes and did not do the same in law 12. Not because the cases are >different, but because we didn't expect problems. >Law 72B1 says that we need advantage for the offending side to adjust the >score. For sure the offending side gets a lesser score, and if there is damage >(consequent) the innocent side gets redress. >The question whether to give an adjusted score needs to be answered for both >sides and more or less independently. If there is no damage for the innocent >side there still may be unjustified advantage for the offending side. If there >is no advantage for the offending side there can't be damage to the innocent >side. >I support strongly the idea that consequent damage is much more likely than >subsequent damage. Most TD's are too demanding to the innocent side. In my >opinion we come close to the definition of 'normal' to draw the line between >consequent and subsequent. In the old days we would say that an action chosen >by less than 20 or 25% with a bad result leads to subsequent damage. On earlier occasions, the following argument has been put: If it is perceived that the NOs do not deserve an adjustment then a split score is given. Careful reading of the relevant Laws led some people to consider this legal, and some people not. Since it is an accepted part of the way rulings are given on a world-wide basis, ie generally around the world [not specifically *everywhere*], and has been for a considerable time, then if the WBFLC had considered it not to be legal they would have made it clear either by promulgation of an interpretation, or [better still] by amending the relevant Laws to clarify. I am in no doubts that the approach is legal, and am pleased to hear it confirmed by Ton. As mentioned elsewhere, I think that either we need this approach or we should legalise the double-shot. My own preference would be for the latter which I believe to be the norm in sports generally. I believe the real problem to be what level of action is required to break the causal link. The level in NAmerica is such that a player making a fairly serious error of judgement is deemed to have snapped the link. Speaking for a moment as a player, that seems totally unfair to me. I hate the idea that, when playing in a situation that *I would not have reached without an opponent's infraction*, I can be penalised for making a mistake to the extent of not getting redress from the irregularity. As pointed out elsewhere, ACBL ACs have been known to spend a long time deciding whether an error was egregious: surely no error is egregious if it takes a long analysis to decide it! The level in much of Europe is decided by disallowing an adjustment to the NOs where they have been guilty of "wild or gambling action" [EBL 12.9]. This is designed to be much closer to the double-shot so there is an attempt to disallow all double-shot attempts but no others. Certainly as a player I consider this to be much fairer. I say much of Europe: my impression is that in this area the Netherlands tend to follow NAmerican practice, which may be why Ton is referring to an action that fewer than 20% or 25% would find: I believe fewer than 4% would be nearer what I believe to be fair. This level is an interpretation that is not in conflict with the Laws so I consider that it is a suitable matter for continuing debate. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >I find these figures (20-25%) incredibly high. A defense against >a UI-bid contract which is in the worst fifth of the field's >defenses is quite normal, and should IMO be very very far from an >"egregious error". My idea of the figure would be more like 1% - >definitely below 5%. I find this about right. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 15 21:32:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:25 +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 VAA17280 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:32:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ywPox-0002i0-00; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:34:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:38:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KOOYMAN wrote: >Summertime, but the living ain't easy. > >Some remarks on several of the currently shown issues. > >case two: >question: What are disciplinary powers of the TD. The laws know procedural >penalties (law 90) and disciplinary penalties (law 91) Are disciplinay powers >concurrent with decisions based on law 91. The line is not very clear. Both can >be given in matchpoints. Law 90 covers cases of bad behaving etc. I thought behaviour came under L91? > This question >is interesting when we look at law 92, which says that an AC may not overrule >the TD in decisions exercising his disciplinary powers. When the TD gives no >penalty for an irregularity, is he then exercising this powers? If the answer >is yes and we consider this to be a disciplinary power the AC may not decide to >give a penalty, but has to advise the TD to do so. There is a clear distinction between L90 and L91 and it has been understood that PPs and DPs are different. The purpose of a PP is to ensure the orderly progress of the mechanics of a tournament. If you do not have PPs available certain people will just not bother with the mechanics, never bothering to move to the right table, never bothering to count their cards, always saying things that are unsuitable, and so on. The PP is the big stick which is needed to make sure that tournaments are run and that "procedures" are followed. Behaviour is a matter for a DP. While playing with 12 cards is not helpful to the orderly progress of a tournament, calling someone else "a stupid cow who is only useful in the kitchen" is something that needs controlling. Bridge is a game to be played in a courteous manner [L74A1] and this unfortunately requires something to control a small minority of people, making sure that they follow accepted "discipline". The term "disciplinary powers" surely refers to the powers of L91, since otherwise why use the term "procedural" in L90 and "disciplinary" in L91? I thus believe that an AC may overrule a TD in a L90 case but not a L91 case. It is important that any TD who issues a DP should make it clear that it is a DP and not a PP. If a TD has decided a particular level of DP then the AC may not over- rule him. Correct. However L93B3 does give them the right to exercise all powers of a TD apart from over-ruling DPs [or regulations] which should mean that they can issue a DP themselves. In England this has been interpreted that the AC may always increase a DP [since they do so by introducing a DP of their own] but never reduce it [since that would involve over-ruling the TD]. >Another question is whether the national authority mentioned in 93C may >or may not overrule the TD regarding his disciplinary powers. The laws >are not clear. L91A says that the TD's decision is final. This surely means that even the NA cannot overrule a TD on DPs and part-of-session suspensions [PoSSs?]. However, no such reference to it being final occurs in L93B1, so I feel that the wording of L93C covers this. In other words, I would interpret that the NA may not overrule a TD on DPs and part-of-session suspensions but may overrule him on anything else, including his points of law or regulations. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >I think I would prefer to have it considered "disciplinary >powers". As others have pointed out, there is something wrong if >PPs are given differently in cases that are appealed than in >cases that are not. Others may have pointed it out, but their arguments are not convincing. When a PP is suitable and a TD does not issue one then it is correct for an AC to do so. This is similar to any other ruling where a TD does not give what the AC considers a correct ruling. However, suppose that your NCBO lays down that any pair getting Ghestem wrong *always* receives a PP of 6 imps unless there are strong mitigating circumstances. The TD gives the pair a PP of 3 imps: can the AC overrule him? Now, I do not believe [see above] that this is use of his disciplinary powers, but it is a matter of regulation, so the AC cannot overrule him anyway per L93B3, but the NA can per L93C. If there are to be consistent PPs for particular things then they should be a matter of regulation, and ACs cannot overrule: in the more normal case of PPs being judgement matters they are suitable for ACs to overrule. -- 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 Jul 15 22:39:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:39:55 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA17534 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:39:49 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id OAA22658 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:41:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01IZFLQP0GAO000G5N@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:41:06 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:41:03 +0000 (MED) Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:41:03 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: Betreft: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties In-reply-to: <199807150856.BAA13369@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4303411415071998/A27173/EXPERT/11C77BA83100*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C77BA83100 X400-MTS-identifier: [;4303411415071998/A27173/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ........... >>I hope Ton means 20-25% of the NOs' peers, but I think the criteria >>need to be more specific when giving guidelines to TDs and ACs. For >>instance, a revoke or lead out of turn that leads to a bad result >>against a UI-reached contract should mean no score adjustment for the >>NOS. I agree, and since these kind of irregularities probably happen less than in 20% during the play of this board, the 20% rule covers it. Other disqualifying actions include those that are strongly >>suggestive of a double-shot attempt (e.g., a baseless double or wild >>bid). When anything but very bad play or bidding for their level of >>expertise would give the NOs a good result, and they don't "play >>bridge," no adjustment. However, after very bad play or bidding that >>was likely to happen even if the irregularity had not occurred, and >>the NOs had no easy path to a good result, then I would tend to >>adjust their score too. I agree once more and say once more that here too the 20% rule is applicable. This could involve some very difficult >>decisions, and a large body of published precedents would be a big >>help. The NABC casebooks could provide such reference material, but >>not until everyone concerned (TDs, ACs, the casebook panel) regularly >>interpret the Laws in accordance with the "Kaplan Principle." >> >>> The question whether to give an adjusted score needs to be answered >>> for both sides and more or less independently. If there is >>> no damage for the innocent side there still may be unjustified >>> advantage for the offending side. >> >>As we are saying. >> >>> If there is no advantage for the offending side there can't be >>> damage to the innocent side. >> >>If the OS reaches a 2S contract through UI, making 110, when no UI >>would have led to 3C, plus 110, then the OS gained no advantage from >>the UI. However, if the 2S bid shut out a 2H bid, preventing the NOs >>from reaching a makeable 3H, then the NOS is damaged. I would change >>the statement to: If there is damage to the innocent side, then that >>constitutes an advantage to the offending side. That may have been >>the intent of Ton's statement, but it wasn't clear to me. It was, and in your example the offending side took advantage for sure: +110 in stead of -140, because no UI would have led to 3H for their opponents and not to 3C. So we agree again. The reason for my statement was that saying "if there is damage to the innocent side, then that constitutes an advantage to the offending side" seems to lead to the conclusion that if there is no damage for the innocent side,there is no advantage for the offending side, which logically spoken is a false conclusion. But that seems to be Rich Colker's opinion and that is just the thing I wanted to fight against. Ton From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 00:46:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:46:55 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20170 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:46:44 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ywSr9-0001dk-00; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:48:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:02:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) In-Reply-To: <35AB927D.F5ABA536@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: >> >> > >> Supposing that the TD follows what this AC instructs. What happens >> when the next AC thinks differently? >> > >Good argument, that's where the chairman of the AC comes in. > >My point is that if AC's go around giving PP's when a TD has not done >so, not just because he misjudged the particular case but because it is >something he does not regularly give PP's for, then the game becomes >unfair towards appealers or non-appealers. > >Either the AC should refrain from giving PP's just to "do something" as >often happens ("we don't want to rule for NOS, let's give OS a PP >instead"), or it should instruct TD's to award PP's in the cases they >would want to give them. I don't disagree with the principle: I just believe you have the wrong authority. The sponsoring organisation can lay down guidelines, either in writing or when they are training their Directors. They should be the ones making this sort of decision if it is seemly, not ACs [even Chairmen]. >The point o Ton Kooijman is also valid : if the TD did not give a PP, >then is the AC entitled to give one ? Logic says it shouldn't be, and >the AC should rather advise TD to award the PP, so that perhaps, the TD >can answer : I had several cases like that one, and I did not give a PP >to those people, so I won't give one to these either. As you will see from my posts in reply I do not think this is correct. I believe the AC is perfectly entitled to give one. Communication is desirable. ACs should seek to know all the facts before making a decision, and in the sort of case you are predicating then one of the facts they should discover is why no fine was issued by the TD. -- 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 Jul 16 16:15:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:15:29 +1000 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22858 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:15:23 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id HAA13162 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 07:16:43 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98 07:16 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Penalty card to which trick To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199807131627.MAA21653@cfa183.harvard.edu> > > From: Herman De Wael > > The spade queen is definitely not a played card. > > The spade queen is definitely a penalty card. > > It has to be played. > > This looks right to me. > > > Since L9 says "may draw attention" it would IMO not be illegal to > > first > > play the intended card and only then call the director. > > > > Another Race ? > > I think L60C gets us out of this one. Also, if both cards are penalty > cards, declarer gets to choose which one is played. > > What if, instead, the defender had simultaneously exposed two cards? I > thought I remembered a provision that might in some circumstances let > the defender choose which one is played, but now I can't find it. Any > idea what I might be (mis-?) remembering? L58b2 as others have said. I believe it may well be applicable in the current case. Personally I am uncomfortable with the way the ruling seems to be going (particularly if the offender has any sort of disability which impairs holding the cards). I look for a loophole and start to ponder the word "simultaneous". Consider declarer drops the SQ; a) and also drops the SA stuck behind it but then the SQ slides aside b) which lands quickly on the table while the SA flutters to the floor c) continues his playing motion (unable to stop in time) and plays the SA d) also drops the SA but on the slow motion replay it obviously becomes exposed half a second later e) has detached the SA from hand and got it to a position where, although probably unseen by others, L45c1 comes into action and calls the TD. The TD is probably in the best position to establish exactly what interval is appropriate to establishing simultaneity at the table but I would encourage leniency - of course I would also encourage a strict application of the "could have known" principle in slightly different circumstances. Eg simultaneous = Nothing of any significance to the normal play happened, or had any significant opportunity to happen, between the two actions. NB: I believe that scientific discoveries that occur "days" apart can be ruled simultaneous for legal purposes. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 16:15:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:15:34 +1000 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22862 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:15:26 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id HAA13183 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 07:16:46 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98 07:16 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <35b0a008.6453850@pipmail.dknet.dk> > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue Jul 14 19:33:24 1998 > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by mail-relay.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA21576 > for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:33:17 +0100 (BST) > X-Envelope-From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) > id EAA14464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:31 +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 EAA14444 for > ; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:15:22 +1000 > Received: from cph58.ppp.dknet.dk (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) > by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18235 > for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:09 +0200 > (MET DST) > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) > Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:17:09 +0200 > Organization: at home > Message-ID: <35b0a008.6453850@pipmail.dknet.dk> > References: <199807140358.UAA24074@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> > In-Reply-To: <199807140358.UAA24074@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> > 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@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:58:08 -0700, "Marvin L. French" > wrote: > > >Read L12C2 by taking it apart: > > > >(1) "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score for a > >non-offending side, the score is..." > > > >(2) "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score for an > >offending side, the score is..." > > > >I don't see where it is required that the TD adjust the score for > >both sides. > > I do. Your taken-apart version above sounds as if you are right, > but that is not what the law says. > > L12C2 says: > "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted > score in place of a result actually obtained after > an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending > side, the most favourable result that was likely > had the irregularity not occurred, or, for an > offending side, the most unfavourable result that > was at all probable. 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." > > Note "in place of a result actually obtained". There are four > players who obtain one result; this one result is replaced by an > assigned adjusted score. To me, that sounds as if a score > adjustment is always for both sides. Note also "The scores > awarded to the two sides ..." which also sounds as if there are > scores in plural. > > >Looking at the language carefully, I see there is an "or" > >between these two possibilities, not an "and." > > Correct, and I admit that I find it hard to explain that "or". > However, weighing the evidence for the two interpretations, I > find that the "adjust for both sides" interpretation clearly > wins. > I think this deals with the situation where OS go for 500 against NV opponents and the TD believes that absent the offending bid it is "at all probable" but not "likely" that NOS would bid and make 980 > In addition, if you don't want to adjust for the NOS because you > do not consider them damaged, where is the law that allows you to > adjust for the OS at all? The laws require "damage" (though > Kaplan seems to have meant otherwise). Knowing that NOs have the potential to make slam I would "consider them damaged" under L16 and find myself obliged to apply L12c2. Only when I conduct my analysis of the hand do I realise that they were not actually damaged but that's too late to save the OS. Alternatively I might consider the OS in breach of 73C and yet not have paid any, ie the correct, penalty and get there by way of L12a3. Tim West-Meads > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 17:18:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:18:44 +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 RAA22968 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:18:37 +1000 Received: from modem7.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.135] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.00pre #1) id 0ywiL6-0000RB-00; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:20:28 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:38:46 +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 whose cat has nine tails. ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: 12 July 1998 21:04 \x/ \x/ However, I agree with Rich Colker that there is no law that allows it. If the NOS really haven't been damaged by the use of UI, then the OS haven't gained by it. No law allows an adjustment when there is no damage (L16A: "... assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage"; L73F: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, ..."). \x/ \x/ ++++ [ I agree that score adjustment is not an option according to the law as now written if no player has been damaged as the result of an irregularity. It is not currently an option to adjust the score for either side if no player is adjudged to have suffered damage. Where score adjustment is not an option a PP is specifically still in the discretion of the Director where there has been a "violation of correct procedure" etc. It is a matter for the discretion of the Director what penalty he assesses and this can take account of the gravity of the breach. ~~ Grattan ~~] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 17:18:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:18:57 +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 RAA22975 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:18:44 +1000 Received: from modem7.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.135] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.00pre #1) id 0ywiL8-0000RB-00; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:20:30 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:59:52 +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 whose cat has nine tails. ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > Subject: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) > Date: 12 July 1998 18:38 > > > Is it true that a score adjustment can be made only when the NOS is > not injured? This seems to come from 12A1, which follows an "or" in > the preceding paragraph. That paragraph says a TD may award an > adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. Doesn't L12C2 give > him that power? If a pair bids a game by using UI, a game that makes > because of really atrocious defense, can't the TD let the score stand > for the NOS and assign a different score for the OS? Must he resort > to a PP to accomplish the same result? (Consider the matchpoint > effect on the rest of the field.) > +++ The laws are quite clear in not allowing any adjustment of score when no damage has resulted from an irregularity. [ The matter to receive careful consideration, however, is whether indeed the irregularity has caused consequential damage; the argument that being forced to defend or play at a higher level and getting it wrong constitutes consequential damage crops up from time to time. I have sympathy for it where the error is judgemental but a mechanical breach of law is something wholly under the control of the player who makes it and is not a consequence of the earlier irregularity.] Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 19:00:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:00:07 +1000 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA23158 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:00:01 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id KAA10112 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:01:20 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98 10:00 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: DECLARER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <9807121158.0GU0P00@bbs.hal-pc.org> > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sun Jul 12 18:08:26 1998 > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by mail-relay.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA24664 > for ; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:08:23 +0100 (BST) > X-Envelope-From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) > id CAA03725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:59:20 +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 CAA03720 for > ; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:59:14 +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 MAA15306 > for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Jul 1998 12:01:01 -0500 (CDT) > Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org > id 0GU0P00R Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:58:58 > Message-ID: <9807121158.0GU0P00@bbs.hal-pc.org> > Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users > X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 > Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 11:58:58 > Subject: DECLARER > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > > > > > JTxx > AQx > Axx > Axx > > Qx Axx > JTx xxxx > x Txxxxx > QJTxxxx - > > Kxxx > Kxx > KQJ > Kxx > > In a 4S contract the club queen is lead, dummy plays the ace and > while RHO is thinking, declarer follows suit, turns his cards over > and leads a trump from dummy. At the same time RHO plays a small > trump, declarer the king and LHO follows. Declarer plays a small > trump and RHO says, "what is going on here?" noticing that he has > played one card and declarer his third card. This happens in a > period of 3 seconds. > > The director comes and rules that RHO's trump won the first trick > and that LHO's play to the second trick accepts dummy's LOOT and > declarer's POOT and that RHO may play any legal card to the trick. > And since RHO has not played to the 2nd trick then his card is not a > change of play so the players subsequent to him are not permitted to > change their cards [RHO chooses the spade ace]. > > Declarer loses the ruff, the spade ace, spade queen, and a club for > down one. Like David I do not believe L53B applies - West played a card to South's SK not to the irregular lead. East should be given the option of playing the SA (and no the SK may not be changed). However I see no reason not to offer East the chance to make his own lead and then apply L53C. Suppose the hands were: JTxx AQx Axx Axx xx Axx JTx xxxx x Txxxxx QJTxxxx - KQxx Kxx KQJ Kxx Declarer's shennanigens should not deprive East of the chance of finding the killing diamond switch. Obviously a TD looking at the actual hands may not see the importance of making this offer. > > Declarer appeals stating that he should be entitled to change his > spade king play. Further stating that according to L67, LHO's play > to T2 establishes his partner's failure to play to T1. Further, > since RHO was void in clubs, he must be deemed to have revoked with > the revoke penalties to be applied and that a legal card from RHO's > hand be supplied to the first trick, ownership of the first trick > being retained by dummy. The result ought to be a gain for declarer > of [a] no club ruff but a play of a spade none the less [b] the > normal trump trick plus [c] the 1 trick revoke penalty, making 6. This is just ridiculous. Tim west-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 20:34:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:34:18 +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 UAA23324 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:34:11 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-197.uunet.be [194.7.13.197]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA25590 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:35:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35ACD1A0.77E6D1BC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:58:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: DECLARER 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: > > > >5) West plays a small spade. > >Does this accept the lead out of turn ? > >L53A : a lead out of turn is accepted if an opponent makes a statement > >to that effect, or if the next player in rotation plays to the trick. > >That is not the case, but : > >L53B : if the defender to the right of the irregular lead plays to the > >trick, then the lead is also accepted. This does not only apply to lead > >from the wrong side of the table, but also in this case. > > The defender to the right of the irregular lead did *not* play to this > trick. This lead was by North, and you and I are agreed that East's > card was played to the previous trick. So L53B is inoperative. > Ooops. Often got left and right mingled up. So indeed, the lead out of turn has not been accepted. > >So the second trick has now started correctly, small trump from dummy, > >king by declarer, small by west, no card yet from east. > > Incorrect. > >6) declarer leads again and now the attention is drawn to the > >irregularity. The third trick has not yet begun at all, and L55 will > >deal with that lead later. > > > >Now the TD arrives and decides : > > > >A) the first trick was won by west. > > East. That was a simple lapsus. Wrong anyway. > > >B) the second trick is a trump trick, starting from north. This trick > >must first be completed. L53B specifically points to L57 : west has > >played out of turn to the trick starting in north. > > As I say, L53B is inoperative. However, L57 stands on its own merits, > so I agree with this: > > >L57C : declarer has played from both hands. West is not subject to > >penalty for his premature play, so east can play any card he likes. > > Now our only problem is that there has been no decision by the > defenders to accept the irregular lead. North led when it was East's > lead. This may be accepted by West or East saying so [L53A] or by > East's following to this. > > >> The director comes and rules that RHO's trump won the first trick > >> and that LHO's play to the second trick accepts dummy's LOOT and > >> declarer's POOT and that RHO may play any legal card to the trick. > >> And since RHO has not played to the 2nd trick then his card is not a > >> change of play so the players subsequent to him are not permitted to > >> change their cards [RHO chooses the spade ace]. > > >Seems a correct ruling. > > Nearly. I think he has to give the defenders the option to accept the > LOOT or not. Alternatively one might argue that West playing to this > trick has inferentially accepted the lead, but L53A says "a statement to > that effect" and this did not happen. No, I think they have now got the > option not to accept the LOOT. If they don't, East is on lead to T2, > declarer and dummy replace their cards in their hand, and West's card > becomes a major penalty card. I think it is reasonable to assume that > East/West will not accept this option! > I agree with David. > >7) East plays the spade ace, winning the second trick. > > > >The TD must now still rule on the small spade that started trick 3 > >prematurely, and offer defenders the opportunity of accepting this. > > > >> Declarer loses the ruff, the spade ace, spade queen, and a club for > >> down one. > >> > > > >Seems correct. > > Yes. Despite a small difference, I believe this to be correct except > that the defence should have been offered a losing option. > > > >Money refunded because it is interesting enough for BLML (how's that for > >a criterium on refunding deposits ?) > > It is sufficient but not necessary. > What do you mean ? Money can also be refunded if the case is not interesting enough for BLML ? OK, I agree with that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 22:56:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:56:41 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA23625 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:56:34 +1000 Received: from client855f.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.85.95] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0ywnc8-0004Xe-00; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:58:25 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: summertime Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:39:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdb0b6$bf6a67c0$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: 15 July 1998 13:18 Subject: Re: summertime >KOOYMAN wrote: > >>>Conclusion: it is possible to receive a score after an offence by the >>opponents, which is worse than the score had that offence not occurred, without >>getting redress. In which case the offending side still should get the score >>related to the result had their offence not occurred. Which means that I do not >>agree with Rich Colker. But I do agree with the feeling that the laws could be >>more clear in this issue, which is something to be remembered. >>May I draw your attention to new law 72B1, there it says that an adjusted score >>should be given if the offending side takes advantage. That idea should have >>been expressed in law 12 as well. We changed the wording in law 72 during our >>meetings in Rhodes and did not do the same in law 12. Not because the cases are >>different, but because we didn't expect problems. >>Law 72B1 says that we need advantage for the offending side to adjust the25% with a bad result leads to subsequent damage. > ++++ I am having some slight difficulty here envisaging an advantage to offender obtained "*through* the irregularity" (Law 72B1) which does not entail damage to non-offenders. Offenders are entitled to a score resulting from some action of opponent that is not occasioned by the irregularity, and where NO obtains a bad result because of his own (subsequent) violation of law his side is no longer innocent. ++++ ~~~Grattan~~~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 16 22:56:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:56:39 +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 WAA23624 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:56:31 +1000 Received: from client855f.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.85.95] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0ywnc4-0004Xe-00; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:58:21 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: summertime Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:30:05 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdb0ad$1479cf80$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 -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 15 July 1998 13:14 Subject: Re: summertime >KOOYMAN wrote: >>Summertime, but the living ain't easy. >>>> >>case three: >>Two cards played or dropped or something else. >>Let us assume that it is the player's turn to lead to a trick. And now two >>cards hit the table, both visible. TD is called. He should ask the player what >>his intention was, to play one of the cards or not. If the answer is yes, he >>wanted to play one of the cards, then he may choose himself the card to be >>played and the other becomes a minor or major penaltycard, depending on the >>rank. If the answer is no, he didn't want to play one of the cards (because he >>wanted to play another or hadn't made a decision yet) both cards become major >>penalty-cards and declarer may decide which of them to be played. >>We have another example of a big advantage for the player knowing the laws. He >>will say 'yes' regardless his intention. It can't loose. Therefore the TD >>should assume that one of the cards was supposed to be played, not making this >>distinction. >>If this happens when a player wants to play to a trick already in progress, the >>distinction is certainly relevant and the question regarding the intention >>needs to be asked if none of the cards is of the suit led. May be the player >>has to follow suit. > > This feels totally wrong. While there are Laws designed for >knowledgeable players [L25B being the best example] either they are in >the Law book or they are not. If the WBFLC wishes to change them then >they have the power but until they do then it cannot be fair to rule >wrong because a player with knowledge of the Laws has an advantage. > > If a player drops two cards on the table, and he knows that it is to >his advantage to say he intended to play one of them, then the >presumption he will lie for his own benefit is a dreadful one. While no >doubt there are a sizeable group of players who believe that they should >win at any cost I believe there is a *far* greater group of players that >do not tell direct lies. > > Furthermore, it is up to the TD to judge matters based on the >available evidence, and that includes what other players say, not just >the player who played/dropped the card> \X/ ++++ I found all of this quite confusing to read (so I have repeated it for the sake of further confusion -?). I think we should begin by looking at law 49 (incidentally, we don't mean ' a player ' we mean 'a defender' in this thread). This law says that cards exposed by a defender are penalty cards unless they are exposed in the normal course of play or in pursuance of a law. So if two cards are exposed accidentally they are both penalty cards; but if one of them is a card detached from the hand purposefully to play it to the trick (Law 45) that card is a played card and the other is a penalty card. It is surely for the Director to determine which of these circumstances applies to the particular case and the Director's opinion governs how he rules. The law does not tell the Director the manner in which he shall establish facts; this is something within the scope of the skills which Directors learn in the school of life and then apply in their work (and which appeals committees explore from time to time). One of the facts he will establish is *which* card if any the defender played. ~~~ Grattan ++++ - From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 02:39:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 02:39:11 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA26730 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 02:39:06 +1000 Received: from prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA10002 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:40:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807161640.MAA02564@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199807150856.BAA13369@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > When anything but very bad play or bidding for their level of > expertise would give the NOs a good result, and they don't "play > bridge," no adjustment. However, after very bad play or bidding that > was likely to happen even if the irregularity had not occurred, and > the NOs had no easy path to a good result, then I would tend to > adjust their score too. What is the meaning of "no easy path" here? For example, suppose that N-S may have used UI to play in 5S rather than 6S. The line of play in both contracts is the same. West makes a bad defensive play against 5S which allows the contract to make six; competent defense would hold it to five. Do E-W still get the adjustment to the +50 which was likely had the itrregularity not occurred? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 02:55:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 02:55:40 +1000 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com (ids2.idsonline.com [205.177.236.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA26758 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 02:55:33 +1000 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com (asc167.idsonline.com [207.176.21.167]) by ids2.idsonline.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA01436; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:49:16 -0400 Message-ID: <35AE5B18.FCD125AB@ids2.idsonline.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:57:12 -0700 From: Richard Colker Reply-To: sahib@ids2.idsonline.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, danjoanm@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan, Thanks for cc:'ing me your response to Marvin's queery. The key to such situations, as you suggest, is whether the "damage" to the NOS is a direct result of the OS's infraction. Meerly having to defend a contract they might not otherwise have had to defend is not sufficient. If the non-offenders are placed in a position where their equity in the board has been increased (e.g., as when defending an unmakable slam, perhaps reached via an opponent's use of UI from a hesitation, which no one else in the field would bid), and all they have to do is play normal bridge (for the level of players involved) to get a good (top) board, then they live or die by their defense -- if they duck the (known) setting trick to allow the slam to make, then they keep their poor result, because it is self-inflicted. As you indicate, the offenders cannot be allowed to keep their good result, but since there was no damage to the NOS from their infraction, this must be achieved through a PP. I would go a step further and say that, if the NOS's poor result is in any way due to their exercise of normal playing judgment -- i.e., has a bridge-related motivation that is reasonable for the level of player involved -- then there was damage and they deserve redress. (One problem we have in the ACBL is that we cannot give redress in the form of equity, as you can elsewhere in the world, since we are not authorized to use Law 12C3 here. We must use only 12C2.) So to Marvin: the NOS's score can be adjusted only when they have been damaged as a consequence of the infraction -- and not simply because of their own subsequent inferior actions. The OS's score can (and should) be adjusted whether or not there was damage -- if there was, through the direct application of 12C2 (or 12C3); if there was not, then through a PP. Regards, Rich Grattan wrote: > Grattan > whose cat has nine tails. > > > ---------- > > From: Marvin L. French > Subject: Rich Colker's use > of Procedural Penalties (PPs) > > Date: 12 July 1998 18:38 > > > > > > > Is it true that a score adjustment can be made only when the NOS is > > not injured? This seems to come from 12A1, which follows an "or" in > > the preceding paragraph. That paragraph says a TD may award an > > adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. Doesn't L12C2 give > > him that power? If a pair bids a game by using UI, a game that makes > > because of really atrocious defense, can't the TD let the score stand > > for the NOS and assign a different score for the OS? Must he resort > > to a PP to accomplish the same result? (Consider the matchpoint > > effect on the rest of the field.) > > > +++ The laws are quite clear in not allowing any adjustment of > score when no damage has resulted from an irregularity. [ The > matter to receive careful consideration, however, is whether > indeed the irregularity has caused consequential damage; the > argument that being forced to defend or play at a higher level > and getting it wrong constitutes consequential damage crops > up from time to time. I have sympathy for it where the error is > judgemental but a mechanical breach of law is something > wholly under the control of the player who makes it and is > not a consequence of the earlier irregularity.] Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 03:07:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:07:31 +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 DAA26789 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:07:26 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09225; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807161708.KAA09225@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: summertime Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:08:07 -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 Grattan wrote: > ++++ I am having some slight difficulty here envisaging an > advantage to offender obtained "*through* the irregularity" > (Law 72B1) which does not entail damage to non-offenders. > Offenders are entitled to a score resulting from some > action of opponent that is not occasioned by the irregularity, > and where NO obtains a bad result because of his own > (subsequent) violation of law his side is no longer innocent. > ++++ ~~~Grattan~~~ > So what is the conclusion here? N-S bid a bad slam based on illegal use of UI, a slam that could easily be beaten if E-W had not led out of turn and then revoked. N-S get an appropriate assigned score, E-W keep their bad result. They had their chance at a top and flubbed it. They were not damaged by the irregularity, they shot themselves in the foot (feet?). This is what Kaplan said and what Ton reaffirmed. Using a PP to achieve the same result for N-S, giving them a zero but not adjusting their score, is an unnecessary abuse of PPs, especially since it steals a matchpoint from every other N-S in the field. Is there any argument with any of this??? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 03:36:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:36:04 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA26851 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:35:57 +1000 Received: from cph34.ppp.dknet.dk (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA09990 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:37:47 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:37:46 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35b03a11.1589315@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, 16 Jul 98 07:16 BST-1, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >In-Reply-To: <35b0a008.6453850@pipmail.dknet.dk> >> From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue Jul 14 19:33:24 1998 May I suggest that you don't really need to quote all the headers from the messages you are replying to? Jesper: >> Correct, and I admit that I find it hard to explain that "or". >> However, weighing the evidence for the two interpretations, I >> find that the "adjust for both sides" interpretation clearly >> wins. Tim: >I think this deals with the situation where OS go for 500 against NV=20 >opponents and the TD believes that absent the offending bid it is "at = all=20 >probable" but not "likely" that NOS would bid and make 980 This is still a L12C2 adjustment for both sides - it just happens that the adjustment for one side gives the same result as the originally obtained result. >> In addition, if you don't want to adjust for the NOS because you >> do not consider them damaged, where is the law that allows you to >> adjust for the OS at all? The laws require "damage" (though >> Kaplan seems to have meant otherwise). > >Knowing that NOs have the potential to make slam I would "consider them=20 >damaged" under L16 and find myself obliged to apply L12c2. Only when I=20 >conduct my analysis of the hand do I realise that they were not actually= =20 >damaged but that's too late to save the OS.=20 How can you consider anybody damaged before you've analyzed the hand? How can it be "too late" when you haven't ruled yet? >Alternatively I might=20 >consider the OS in breach of 73C and yet not have paid any, ie the=20 >correct, penalty and get there by way of L12a3. No penalty has been paid - that is not an "incorrect penalty". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 05:03:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 05:03:50 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA27101 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 05:03:42 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA14017 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA23604; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:05:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:05:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807161905.PAA23604@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L90 versus 91 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: KOOYMAN > question: What are disciplinary powers of the TD. The laws know procedural > penalties (law 90) and disciplinary penalties (law 91) Are disciplinay powers > concurrent with decisions based on law 91. The line is not very clear. I'm pretty sure EK wrote something on this subject. Probably it was in the "Appeals Committee" books published by The Bridge World. As I recall and also infer from L91A, the key point is "maintain order and discipline." An example was a player who wishes to argue a decision; the TD says "Play a card right now or I shall fine you X matchpoints." Or the TD can eject a disruptive player. The goal is to coerce proper behavior and protect the contest, not to punish past misdeeds. The immediacy of the punishment is an important element. In effect, the TD is given a big stick to motivate _immediate_ cooperation when it is needed. And players have no option of non-cooperation in hope a sympathetic AC will later overturn the DP. By contrast, L90 PP's are intended to punish past misdeeds. Of course there's the long-term goal of motivating better behavior in the future, but immediacy of the punishment is not a factor. Nearly all the typical penalties discussed on BLML seem to me to come under L90. Certainly the flagrant use of UI or other obvious violations of correct procedure fall in this category. I see no reason why an AC should not review and perhaps modify any L90 PP if it thinks the TD made a mistake. This includes imposition of a PP where the TD didn't impose one. As has been noted in other threads, uniformity of application of PP's is highly desirable. This is a matter for the SO. Measures might include publishing regulations, training TD's, carefully choosing and training AC members, publishing case reports, and no doubt more. BLML had a bit of discussion of whether the ACBL's "Zero Tolerance" penalties came under L90 or L91. I think the end result was that most thought L91, and the ACBL has since said so explicitly. Again the goal is an _immediate_ improvement in behavior. > When the TD gives no > penalty for an irregularity, is he then exercising this powers? > If the answer is yes and we consider this to be a disciplinary power > the AC may not decide to > give a penalty, but has to advise the TD to do so. Yes, I don't think an AC can assign a DP. It would make no sense, since immediate cooperation is no longer an issue. However, an AC can assign a PP for any offense listed in L90A, which seems to include virtually any offense, so the result is the same. > Another question is whether the national authority mentioned in 93C may or may > not overrule the TD regarding his disciplinary powers. The laws are not clear. L91A specifies that the TD's decision under that Law is final. Anyone can request or advise the TD to change his ruling, and the TD can be disciplined or not rehired for the next event, but as far as I can tell, his decision under this clause is final. That makes sense, given the purpose of the L91 authority. L91B specifically demands the concurrence of the SO or its representative (Tournament Committee). After that, I think L93C allows appeal of L91B decisions to the National Authority, but it's hard to see how such an appeal could be in time to have any effect. I agree that the interaction of L91B, L93B3, and L93C is murky. That is probably reasonable because this is an area where SO's might well wish to have their own regulations. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 06:05:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 06:05:25 +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 GAA27244 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 06:05:20 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27924; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807162006.NAA27924@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:05:10 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > When anything but very bad play or bidding for their level of > > expertise would give the NOs a good result, and they don't "play > > bridge," no adjustment. However, after very bad play or bidding that > > was likely to happen even if the irregularity had not occurred, and > > the NOs had no easy path to a good result, then I would tend to > > adjust their score too. > > What is the meaning of "no easy path" here? Composing that sentence was hard enough without having to explain it too! There is such a wide variety of possible circumstances that it is impossible (for me, anyway) to summarize them all in a sentence or two. Someone like David S. would have to enumerate the possibilities and instruct TDs how to adjudicate each one. Here's what I had in mind: Through illegal use of UI, N-S bid a 3NT that few others are bidding, and very bad defense lets declarer take ten tricks. Had they stopped in 2NT, it seems likely the defense would have been the same and N-S would have been +180. E-W had no easy path to a good result, because 3NT cannot be beaten with the lay of the cards. Assign +180/-180, or possibly +150/-180 if +150 was not likely but was "at all probable." However, if 3NT could easily have been beaten just by "playing bridge"(PB), then adjust to +180 (or maybe +120) for N-S and let E-W keep their -630. They had an easy path to a good score and they flubbed it. Of course the playing skill of E-W must be taken into account when making this decision. The PB criterion is different for players of different ability. You expect a good player to make an easy unblock, but maybe that play is not easy for a weaker player. For anyone, revoking or leading/playing out of turn is not PB. Note that +180 might be a good result for N-S. There is nothing in the Laws to prevent that, and TDs/ACs have no legal justification for their common practice of adjusting the score artificially (avg-) to ensure sure that N-S suffer more punishment than L12C2 provides. Nor are the NOs entitled to the good score (avg+) they often get undeservedly. > > For example, suppose that N-S may have used UI to play in 5S rather than > 6S. The line of play in both contracts is the same. West makes a bad > defensive play against 5S which allows the contract to make six; > competent defense would hold it to five. Do E-W still get the > adjustment to the +50 which was likely had the irregularity not > occurred? > If I understand David G. right, he means "possible," not "likely." 5S rather than 6S? I guess that's possible, although it's usually vice-versa. Obviously E-W had no easy path for a good result against 5S, so forget that. The TD must judge whether there was, say, one chance in three ("most favorable result that was likely") that E-W would have defended differently against 6S. If so, then 6S down one is assigned, both sides getting the resulting score. If not, 6S likely would have made, so no harm done to E-W by the infraction, and no gain by N-S. No adjustment, but maybe a lecture for N-S. Some would say maybe a PP, but I do not believe this is a proper application of PPs. The examples given in L90B do not suggest that PPs are meant to punish ethics violations, which IMO are more appropriately handled by good C&E procedures, such as the proposed Player Offense Point (POP) system to be voted on at the Chicago NABC. For N-S in isolation the criterion is tougher, not one chance in three but, say, one chance in six, that 6S would have been defeated. If so, then E-W keep their result against 5S, but N-S are assigned a score of 6S down one. The 1 in 3 and 1 in 6 numbers are just guidelines suggested by the Laws Commission of the ACBL, and do not imply (as many TDs and ACs seem to think) that a rigorous mathematical analysis must back up any decisions made about "likely" and "at all probable." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 07:52:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 07:52:45 +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 HAA27445 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 07:52:40 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA22013 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23746; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:54:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:54:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807162154.RAA23746@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > The examples given in L90B do not suggest > that PPs are meant to punish ethics violations, which IMO are more > appropriately handled by good C&E procedures This depends on what you mean by "ethics violations." If a player _should have known_ his action was a violation (given the level and experience of the player), then a PP seems appropriate to me. What else could "violates correct procedure" in L90A mean? (All right, don't answer that! "What else do you really think it means?" might be a better question. It _could_ mean any number of things, but I think only one corresponds to common usage.) If you judge that a player did in fact know that his action was a violation, then by all means let's have a C&E hearing. That doesn't rule out a PP, of course. In fact, if you are considering a C&E action, you should already have convinced yourself that the player "should have known," so a PP would seem almost automatic. I would not expect the above to be controversial. Am I missing something? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 08:37:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:37:06 +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 IAA27618 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:36:58 +1000 Received: from modem89.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.89] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.00pre #1) id 0ywwfl-0004Fo-00; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:38:46 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:36:24 +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 whose cat has nine tails. > >David Stevenson wrote: > > I don't disagree with the principle: I just believe you have the wrong > authority. The sponsoring organisation can lay down guidelines, either > in writing or when they are training their Directors. They should be > the ones making this sort of decision if it is seemly, not ACs [even > Chairmen]. > ++++ [ I take the view that Law 90 places the authority for determining a PP firmly with the Director, not with the SO. Upon appeal the AC has the same powers as the Director in assessing a PP, both positively and negatively. The SO's role, in my view, is in the training of Directors; it is there that the policy can be discussed. I have no doubt that it is intended the national authority should have unconfined powers to make superior and overriding judgements under the laws as is to be expected of any final court of appeal. ~ Grattan ~]++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 10:21:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:21:31 +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 KAA28048 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:21:24 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ywyIP-0003Cp-00; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:22:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:08:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199807162154.RAA23746@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> The examples given in L90B do not suggest >> that PPs are meant to punish ethics violations, which IMO are more >> appropriately handled by good C&E procedures >This depends on what you mean by "ethics violations." If a player >_should have known_ his action was a violation (given the level and >experience of the player), then a PP seems appropriate to me. What >else could "violates correct procedure" in L90A mean? (All right, >don't answer that! "What else do you really think it means?" might be >a better question. It _could_ mean any number of things, but I think >only one corresponds to common usage.) Sitting North when you are meant to be West. Putting the wrong board on the table. Moving into the wrong section. Failing to count the cards before looking at them. Bidding out of turn. Bringing a dog into the playing area. Smoking in the playing area. Wearing shorts in the evening at an EBU Congress. There are thousands of ways of violating correct procedure, and only a small minority are ethics violations. >If you judge that a player did in fact know that his action was a >violation, then by all means let's have a C&E hearing. That doesn't >rule out a PP, of course. In fact, if you are considering a C&E >action, you should already have convinced yourself that the player >"should have known," so a PP would seem almost automatic. I don't think that a C&E hearing is suitable for failing to count the cards before looking at them. However, the specific violations that are [a] ethical ones and [b] serious are suitable for C&E hearings. Giving a PPf as well seems a trifle over-the-top. >I would not expect the above to be controversial. Am I missing >something? I don't see why ethics violations should normally end in C&E hearings. In any single section of 12 tables, there are probably about 100 ethical violations in 25 boards. I don't think a C&E hearing for each is quite the way to go. OK, let's get serious. All this black and white stuff is meaningless. Violations of correct procedure range from the totally trivial to the serious: some are concerned with ethics, some are not. To suggest that violations, or ethical violations, should be dealt with by a C&E committee is clearly wrong. What I expect is meant is that serious ethical violations should be. Fine. But how about less serious ones? I sometimes think that some of us lose sight of the fact that we are meant to be controlling a game of bridge. We don't want a committee hearing for a fairly trivial misdemeanor: nor do we want the inability to control them whatever. Trivial misdemeanors are properly dealt with by PPs, generally a warning the first time, then a fine thereafter. I would not want it any other way. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 13:56:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:56:33 +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 NAA28411 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:56:26 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA17410; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807170357.UAA17410@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:56:48 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > The examples given in L90B do not suggest > > that PPs are meant to punish ethics violations, which IMO are more > > appropriately handled by good C&E procedures > > This depends on what you mean by "ethics violations." If a player > _should have known_ his action was a violation (given the level and > experience of the player), then a PP seems appropriate to me. What > else could "violates correct procedure" in L90A mean? (All right, > don't answer that! "What else do you really think it means?" might be > a better question. It _could_ mean any number of things, but I think > only one corresponds to common usage.) I guess it means whatever you decide it means. "Common usage" does not establish law. It is common for TDs to adjust scores artificially instead of by assignment, but that doesn't make it right. Examples of procedure violations are listed in L90B, and I don't see anything there that has to do with ethics violations. If the lawmakers had that in mind, they certainly would have included it in the eight (!) examples. > > If you judge that a player did in fact know that his action was a > violation, then by all means let's have a C&E hearing. That doesn't > rule out a PP, of course. I believe it does. Classifying cheating as a "violation of correct procedure" is a long reach. > In fact, if you are considering a C&E > action, you should already have convinced yourself that the player > "should have known," so a PP would seem almost automatic. Where is that written? L726B refers to score adjustments, not to PPs. > > I would not expect the above to be controversial. Am I missing > something? Yes. The *Scope of the Laws* says that the Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. They are written under the assumption that no one would deliberately do wrong. Deliberate wrongdoing is a subject for C&E hearings, not for PPs. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 14:40:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:40:58 +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 OAA28507 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:40:52 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22609 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807170442.VAA22609@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:41:38 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >> From: "Marvin L. French" > >> The examples given in L90B do not suggest > >> that PPs are meant to punish ethics violations, which IMO are more > >> appropriately handled by good C&E procedures > (snip) > > I don't see why ethics violations should normally end in C&E hearings. > In any single section of 12 tables, there are probably about 100 ethical > violations in 25 boards. I don't think a C&E hearing for each is quite > the way to go. > I didn't mean to suggest a C&E hearing for each. Good C&E procedures, such as the point system Rich Colker has recommended, keep track of mild ethical violations, warn those who have an excessive number, and call for a C&E hearing only as a final step in a series of steps. > OK, let's get serious. All this black and white stuff is meaningless. > Violations of correct procedure range from the totally trivial to the > serious: some are concerned with ethics, some are not. To suggest that > violations, or ethical violations, should be dealt with by a C&E > committee is clearly wrong. What I expect is meant is that serious > ethical violations should be. Fine. But how about less serious ones? They are recorded and kept on file, with no C&E committee until a player has an objectionable dossier (computer file, that is). Each entry is of course appealable. > > I sometimes think that some of us lose sight of the fact that we are > meant to be controlling a game of bridge. We don't want a committee > hearing for a fairly trivial misdemeanor: nor do we want the inability > to control them whatever. Trivial misdemeanors are properly dealt with > by PPs, generally a warning the first time, then a fine thereafter. I > would not want it any other way. Who keeps track of the warnings? Is that only per tournament, and then forget them? As for using PPs for this purpose, I like Rich Colker's comment in an e-mail to me: The bridge score should reflect bridge--not conduct. Using PPs for mild ethical violations reminds me of the Mexico City police, who collect traffic fines on the spot instead of writing a ticket. It may work, but it isn't right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 17 23:01:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:01:00 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00589 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:00:51 +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 JAA01207 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980717090346.0068e51c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:03:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <35b1a039.6503221@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:17 PM 7/14/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:25:41 +0000 (MED), KOOYMAN > wrote: > >>May I draw your attention to new law 72B1, there it says that an adjusted score >>should be given if the offending side takes advantage. That idea should have >>been expressed in law 12 as well. > >Yes, that would make it a lot easier for me to find the laws and >the Kaplan interpretation consistent with each other. L72B1 says that an adjusted score should be given if the offending side *gained* an advantage. That means damage to the NOS; i.e. the OS cannot be penalized under L72B1 absent damage. I don't see where this has any bearing on the issue of consequent v. subsequent damage. >>I support strongly the idea that consequent damage is much more likely than >>subsequent damage. Most TD's are too demanding to the innocent side. In my >>opinion we come close to the definition of 'normal' to draw the line between >>consequent and subsequent. In the old days we would say that an action chosen >>by less than 20 or 25% with a bad result leads to subsequent damage. > >I find these figures (20-25%) incredibly high. A defense against >a UI-bid contract which is in the worst fifth of the field's >defenses is quite normal, and should IMO be very very far from an >"egregious error". My idea of the figure would be more like 1% - >definitely below 5%. IMO, even 1%-5% may be too high -- if 20%-25% is "quite normal", surely 1%-5% is worse than quite normal, but we all play "worse than quite normal" all the time. But, more important, this is not a matter of relative percentages, or of "how bad" an error was. My Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "egregious" as "remarkable or extraordinary in some bad way". Something can be very, very, very bad, even "really atrocious" (Marv's phrase), without being "remarkable or extraordinary". Edgar Kaplan was a master of the English language; his writings make it clear that he understood the distinction (when he chose to use the word "egregious" rather than "particularly bad" or "atrocious" he knew what he was saying), even if almost nobody since seems to have. The opposite side of that linguistic coin is that it may be possible for an error to be "egregious" without being "atrocious", or even particularly bad. When a player makes a deliberate error in an attempt to gain the dreaded "double shot" at a good score, that error could be considered "remarkable or extraordinary in some bad way" even if it's not all that bad. The ACBL apparently doesn't understand this. Marv quotes the regulation: "ACBL Regulations require players to meet minimal standards (for the level of player involved) of bidding and play subsequent to an opponent's infraction in order to be entitled to receive redress under the laws." That says that whether damage is consequent is a matter of the severity of the error made by the NOS; whether it is egregious or not isn't a factor. And that is nothing more or less than straight-out legislating of standards of bridge skill. It says that players who play well have more right to protection under the laws than players who play badly (by some adjudicator's purely subjective "minimal standards"). I don't think that the laws allow this, and I'm not convinced that EK ever thought or said that they did. 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 Jul 17 23:15:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:15:09 +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 XAA00616 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:15:03 +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 JAA01571 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980717091802.006d7dc4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:18:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199807150856.BAA13369@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:55 AM 7/15/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Accordingly, the ACBL AC's "Blueprint for Appeals" is off-base when >it states that no score adjustment is permitted when the NOS is not >damaged by an infraction. No, the ACBL is right on this one: no score adjustment is permitted when the NOS is not damaged. As others have said, that appears to be clear in the laws, and it's equally clear that Kaplan would agree. What the Kaplan doctrine says is that the NOS may lose their entitlement to an adjustment if an "egregious error", "subsequent" but not "consequent" to the damage, "breaks the connection between the infraction and the damage". That clearly requires that there must have been some damage to which the "connection" can be "broken". In short, the Kaplan doctrine distinguishes redressable (for the NOS) from non-redressable damage; it has no applicability to cases of no damage. 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 Jul 18 00:04:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:04:47 +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 AAA00741 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:04:40 +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 KAA03054 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980717100738.0069a6b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:07:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199807161640.MAA02564@prozac.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199807150856.BAA13369@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:40 PM 7/16/98 -0400, David wrote: >For example, suppose that N-S may have used UI to play in 5S rather than >6S. The line of play in both contracts is the same. West makes a bad >defensive play against 5S which allows the contract to make six; >competent defense would hold it to five. Do E-W still get the >adjustment to the +50 which was likely had the itrregularity not >occurred? I think David's premise is impossible. If, indeed, "the line of play in both contracts is the same", that says to me that the likelihood that the NOS would not have put up the same bad defense against the same line of play in a different-level contract is vanishingly small. So the NOS scored -480 when, absent the UI, they would have scored -980. No damage; no adjustment. For the NOS to be entitled to +50 they must convince the TD/AC that it is "likely" (L12C2) that the play would have gone differently had the contract been 6S. David assumes this, but I don't see it as justified in the example he gives. 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 Jul 18 00:09:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:09:02 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA00787 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:08:56 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA00200 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24098; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:11:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:11:04 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807171411.KAA24098@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > There are thousands of ways of violating correct procedure, and only a > small minority are ethics violations. ... > In any single section of 12 tables, there are probably about 100 ethical > violations in 25 boards. I'm still not sure what definition of "ethics violations" you are adopting, but I myself would tend to think of a much more stringent definition. In a properly run game, I wouldn't expect more than one or two _knowledgeable_ violations in a session as above. Perhaps there might be a few dozen or even a hundred _unknowing_ violations, especially if the players are beginners. (I do not include many ACBL games in my category of "properly run," alas.) I'm still trying to identify our disagreements, if any. A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he should have known better. Do you assign a PPw? PPf? (I say no and yes.) A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he could not have been expected to know better. Do you assign a PPf? A PPw? (I say no and maybe; give a PPw if knowing correct procedure would be normal for this level of play but not for this specific player. Of course you explain any score adjustment.) A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he did in fact know better. Do you assign a PPw, PPf, or initiate C&E action? (I say no, yes, and yes. David says ?, no, and yes, so there is at least a small disagreement here. I don't understand David's reason. Only the C&E committee can judge whether the player really did know better, but the TD can judge he should have.) As you will notice, all of the above refers to violations of correct procedure; there is no need to decide whether there is an "ethics violation," whatever that means. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 18 00:38:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:38:44 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03106 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:38:38 +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 KAA04072 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980717104135.0069c548@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:41:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Rich Colker's use of Procedural Penalties (PPs) In-Reply-To: <35AE5B18.FCD125AB@ids2.idsonline.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:57 PM 7/16/98 -0700, sahib wrote: >The key to such situations, as you suggest, is whether the "damage" to the NOS >is a direct result of the OS's infraction. Meerly having to defend a contract >they might not otherwise have had to defend is not sufficient. If the >non-offenders are placed in a position where their equity in the board has >been increased (e.g., as when defending an unmakable slam, perhaps reached via >an opponent's use of UI from a hesitation, which no one else in the field >would bid), and all they have to do is play normal bridge (for the level of >players involved) to get a good (top) board, then they live or die by their >defense -- if they duck the (known) setting trick to allow the slam to make, >then they keep their poor result, because it is self-inflicted. As you >indicate, the offenders cannot be allowed to keep their good result, but since >there was no damage to the NOS from their infraction, this must be achieved >through a PP. I would go a step further and say that, if the NOS's poor result >is in any way due to their exercise of normal playing judgment -- i.e., has a >bridge-related motivation that is reasonable for the level of player involved >-- then there was damage and they deserve redress. (One problem we have in the >ACBL is that we cannot give redress in the form of equity, as you can >elsewhere in the world, since we are not authorized to use Law 12C3 here. We >must use only 12C2.) Mr. Colker gets full credit for understanding his own position and being consistent with it, but I think it is not merely wrong, but potentially disastrous for bridge. "All they [the NOs] have to do" to avoid forfeiting their right to an adjusted score "is play normal bridge". Well, in my English, forfeiture of the right to an adjustment to which someone would otherwise have been entitled is a "penalty" (American Heritage Dictionary: "Penalty... 1. A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense. 2. Something... required as a forfeit for an offense. 3. The disadvantage or painful consequences resulting from an action or condition. 4. Sports. A punishment, handicap, or loss of advantage imposed on a team or competitor for infraction of a rule."). However you slice it, Mr. Colker's approach establishes a penalty for failure to "play normal bridge". Ducking the setting trick against a slam may incur a penalty (as in Mr. Colker's example), and is thus an "infraction" de facto, even if the regulators avoid the use of the word. The ACBL claims that they are trying to make competitive bridge more attractive to its participants and potential participants. They would do this by making bad bridge an infraction, and by making failure to understand one's bidding methods a Conduct & Ethics offense. Perhaps they are in need of medication. 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 Jul 18 00:57:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:57:04 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03210 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:56:58 +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 LAA04632 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980717105955.006dede4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:59:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <199807161708.KAA09225@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:08 AM 7/16/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >So what is the conclusion here? > >N-S bid a bad slam based on illegal use of UI, a slam that could >easily be beaten if E-W had not led out of turn and then revoked. > >N-S get an appropriate assigned score, E-W keep their bad result. >They had their chance at a top and flubbed it. They were not damaged >by the irregularity, they shot themselves in the foot (feet?). > >This is what Kaplan said and what Ton reaffirmed. > >Using a PP to achieve the same result for N-S, giving them a zero but >not adjusting their score, is an unnecessary abuse of PPs, especially >since it steals a matchpoint from every other N-S in the field. > >Is there any argument with any of this??? I can't argue with the conclusion, but I'm not convinced that I can't argue with the implicit premise on which it may (I'm not certain of Marv's intent here) be based. As I said in an earlier post, an "egregious" error is one which is "remarkable or extraordinary in some bad way". That means more than merely bad, or very bad, or very, very, very, very bad. It requires some qualitative element, i.e. is not merely the result of the degree of severity. When a slam "could easily [have been] beaten if E-W had not led out of turn and then revoked" this test is met: The fact that E-W committed an infraction [two, actually] subsequent to N-S's provides the qualitative element, and allows us to find their actions "egregious". But when the slam could easily have been beaten if E-W had not ducked their ace at trick 2 and then failed to cash the setting trick at trick 7, their actions may have been string-together-as-many-very's-as-you'd-like bad, but was not egregious. I have no objection to penalizing the NOS with the loss of their right to an adjustment due to their commission of a subsequent procedural infraction (or some other qualitative factor, such as a finding that they may be attempting to secure an intentional "double shot"). I have a strong objection to penalizing them for merely playing bad bridge, no matter how "bad" (an unavoidably subjective notion) an adjudicator may find it to have been. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 18 01:30:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 01:30:37 +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 BAA03342 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 01:30:30 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yxCUf-0003pp-00; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:32:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:20:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Orange Book 1998 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Over the years I have made several observations concerning English regulations. These are included in the Orange Book, the EBU's Handbook of Directives and Permitted Conventions. A new Orange Book is operative in England and Wales from 1st September. If you would like to see it please look at the L&EC page of the EBU at http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec -- 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 Jul 18 01:40:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 01:40:16 +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 BAA03378 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 01:40:10 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yxCe0-0004n2-00; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:42:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:39:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: <199807171411.KAA24098@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 > >> There are thousands of ways of violating correct procedure, and only a >> small minority are ethics violations. >... >> In any single section of 12 tables, there are probably about 100 ethical >> violations in 25 boards. > >I'm still not sure what definition of "ethics violations" you are >adopting, but I myself would tend to think of a much more stringent >definition. In a properly run game, I wouldn't expect more than one or >two _knowledgeable_ violations in a session as above. Perhaps there >might be a few dozen or even a hundred _unknowing_ violations, >especially if the players are beginners. > >(I do not include many ACBL games in my category of "properly run," >alas.) > >I'm still trying to identify our disagreements, if any. > >A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he should have known >better. Do you assign a PPw? PPf? (I say no and yes.) > >A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he could not have >been expected to know better. Do you assign a PPf? A PPw? (I say no >and maybe; give a PPw if knowing correct procedure would be normal for >this level of play but not for this specific player. Of course you >explain any score adjustment.) > >A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he did in fact know >better. Do you assign a PPw, PPf, or initiate C&E action? (I say no, >yes, and yes. David says ?, no, and yes, so there is at least a small >disagreement here. I don't understand David's reason. Only the C&E >committee can judge whether the player really did know better, but the >TD can judge he should have.) Nor do I, possibly because this is not what I said. by a very, very, very, very long way. What is the difficulty here? Why misquote me completely? I am not the one who is saying that all ethics violations should go to C&E committees. I am the one who says that is completely stupid. >As you will notice, all of the above refers to violations of correct >procedure; there is no need to decide whether there is an "ethics >violation," whatever that means. Totally wrong. I really think that equating deliberate use of UI with playing out of turn is completely ludicrous. -- 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 Jul 18 03:51:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 03:51:47 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f91.hotmail.com [207.82.250.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA04046 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 03:51:38 +1000 Received: (qmail 9406 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jul 1998 17:52:59 -0000 Message-ID: <19980717175259.9405.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.132.92 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:52:57 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.132.92] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:52:57 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With apologies to Steve for the double posting (count me as one who would prefer auto-reply to list rather than to sender): >From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >> From: David Stevenson > >> There are thousands of ways of violating correct procedure, and only a >> small minority are ethics violations. >... >> In any single section of 12 tables, there are probably about 100 ethical >> violations in 25 boards. > >I'm still not sure what definition of "ethics violations" you are >adopting, but I myself would tend to think of a much more stringent >definition. In a properly run game, I wouldn't expect more than one or >two _knowledgeable_ violations in a session as above. Perhaps there >might be a few dozen or even a hundred _unknowing_ violations, >especially if the players are beginners. > Sure there are about 100 violations (at least violations of procedure). One person in the game doesn't count eir cards before each hand - that's 25 there. And there's one who just says "ok" rather than pulling out the last pass card in auctions. And there's the people who are slightly late from their "smoke break", and play slowly anyway, and some who don't lead face down (even though they've been told several times to), and... Yes, I know some are "ethical" and some are "procedural", and some wouldn't exist in a "well run" game. Ok, here's where I'm con(fused)(cerned) enough to put my nose in. > >A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he should have known >better. Do you assign a PPw? PPf? (I say no and yes.) > >A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he could not have >been expected to know better. Do you assign a PPf? A PPw? (I say no >and maybe; give a PPw if knowing correct procedure would be normal for >this level of play but not for this specific player. Of course you >explain any score adjustment.) I think if I agree with your "sayings" above, you have to give a PPw for this condition. Here's why: I hope "you" also explain how the player violated correct procedure, and what correct procedure is, whether or not there is any score adjustment. And now, the player "should have known better" - you've told em after all - so unless you have given a PPw, the next time e violates same procedure you are going to PPf em without a warning. I am uncomfortable about this. > >A player violates correct procedure, and you judge he did in fact know >better. Do you assign a PPw, PPf, or initiate C&E action? (I say no, >yes, and yes. David says ?, no, and yes, so there is at least a small >disagreement here. I don't understand David's reason. Only the C&E >committee can judge whether the player really did know better, but the >TD can judge he should have.) I'm a little concerned about this, too. I am on BLML, I have read both the european and american version of the Laws, and I know of some of the Zonal differences between SOs. This is all knowledge available to, say, DWS. So I go to England on a business trip, and play in a game directed by DWS, and ask my partner "having none?" when defending (I wouldn't, but that's only because I never do). I expect to pay the penalty for my inattention, but initiate C&E action? Really? What about the LoL(of whatever gender) that I meet at least one of at every tournament who never leads face down, even the hand after the director has ruled OLooT against em and explained that if e leads face down (as is correct procedure here), this will likely never happen again? Initiate C&E action? I have bowed to more exalted lights than mine in "that other thread" that simply violating correct procedure is not illegal, L72A1 notwithstanding. Now people are saying that doing so after having it explained as a procedural violation is a potential C&E matter. I am a little concerned - or am I overgeneralizing again? > >As you will notice, all of the above refers to violations of correct >procedure; there is no need to decide whether there is an "ethics >violation," whatever that means. > I think that this is the point - if it's simply a procedural violation that is trivial enough to be "overlooked", that's one thing - possibly PPs, possibly not; but if it's a violation of ethics as well, then C&E action is warranted. How do I judge? I don't know. And I don't think much of flighting PPs - I do agree with applying PPs in various strengths based on "may not have known", but that's different from saying "if you're Flight B, you don't know these things, even if you've been playing for 20 years." At least in the ACBL, a few more PPw and PPf being handed out for things like OL face up, ignoring skip bid warnings, not having 2 CCs clearly visible and available and other procedural violations would very quickly get rid of this sort of "offensive behaviour," even in Flight C. But I think (and this is only my opinion) that C&E should be reserved for investigations of cheating, or repeated patterns of behaviour that gain unethical advantages to the player. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 18 03:52:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 03:52:26 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA04053 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 03:52:20 +1000 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA14248 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:54:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: summertime Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:54:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35b38f26.2674045@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> <9641251114071998/A25111/EXPERT/11C772D92300*@MHS> <3.0.1.32.19980717090346.0068e51c@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980717090346.0068e51c@pop.cais.com> 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, 17 Jul 1998 09:03:46 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:17 PM 7/14/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: >>Yes, that would make it a lot easier for me to find the laws and >>the Kaplan interpretation consistent with each other. > >L72B1 says that an adjusted score should be given if the offending side >*gained* an advantage. That means damage to the NOS; i.e. the OS cannot= be >penalized under L72B1 absent damage. I don't see where this has any >bearing on the issue of consequent v. subsequent damage. You're right. Making the practice of not adjusting for the NOS legal would require explicit rules to not adjust for the NOS when they've committed a subsequent egregious error. It would probably require a definition of a "subsequent error" concept. >It says that players who play well have more right to >protection under the laws than players who play badly (by some >adjudicator's purely subjective "minimal standards"). It says that players who play well on that occasion compared to their usual playing level has more right to protection than players who play that specific board (much) less well than they would usually do. This means that the same performance at the table produces a better score for a beginner than for an experienced player. Such an effect is not unreasonable for offenders (be more lenient towards inexperienced pairs), but it is unreasonable that a completely innocent pair who happens to play a specific board like the beginner would have played it gets a worse score. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 18 05:45:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 05:45:14 +1000 Received: from clmout3.prodigy.com (clmout3-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04860 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 05:45:08 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by clmout3.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA34562 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:42:56 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id PAA02570 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:42:06 -0400 Message-Id: <199807171942.PAA02570@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:42:06, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: I will be away Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As of July 18 - August 4, I will probably not have time to read the laws list. If you have any questions that need to be answered by ACBL headquarters, please hold them till we return to Memphis. We will be at the Chicago North American Bridge Championships and be posting to the website. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 18 07:57:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 07:57:58 +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 HAA05405 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 07:57:52 +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 OAA00892 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:59:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807172159.OAA00892@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: summertime Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:56:51 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> Jesper wrote: > >>Yes, that would make it a lot easier for me to find the laws and > >>the Kaplan interpretation consistent with each other. > > > >L72B1 says that an adjusted score should be given if the offending side > >*gained* an advantage. That means damage to the NOS; i.e. the OS cannot be > >penalized under L72B1 absent damage. > > I don't see where this has any > >bearing on the issue of consequent v. subsequent damage. > > You're right. Making the practice of not adjusting for the NOS > legal would require explicit rules to not adjust for the NOS when > they've committed a subsequent egregious error. > > It would probably require a definition of a "subsequent error" > concept. As Kaplan supplied. > > >It says that players who play well have more right to > >protection under the laws than players who play badly (by some > >adjudicator's purely subjective "minimal standards"). > > It says that players who play well on that occasion compared to > their usual playing level has more right to protection than > players who play that specific board (much) less well than they > would usually do. > > This means that the same performance at the table produces a > better score for a beginner than for an experienced player. Such > an effect is not unreasonable for offenders (be more lenient > towards inexperienced pairs), but it is unreasonable that a > completely innocent pair who happens to play a specific board > like the beginner would have played it gets a worse score. > This is all not true, if Kaplan's Principle is applied the way it was intended. You base the decision on player experience, and weak players are given almost unlimited leeway. You simply cannot allow the double-shot, such as a wild slam bid or a completely baseless double, to be made with impunity because a score adjustment is obviously coming. And if a player had an easy route to a top against a UI contract, merely by playing sensibly (not expertly) for his level of ability, then flubs it completely, he may have been damaged by the infraction, but that does not automatically entitle him to redress. The infraction gave him an easy route to a top, since all he had to do was not revoke or lead/play out of turn, or not do something else "egregious." Therefore, no redress and you adjust the OS score only. I am still looking for the Law that says you must adjust for both sides. L12C2 has an "or" rather than an "and" in its wording (an "inclusive or", incidentally) and L12A starts out with "The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores)..." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 18 14:45:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:45:22 +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 OAA06014 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:45:15 +1000 Received: from modem38.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.166] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.00pre #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yxOtn-0001gw-00; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 05:47:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: L90 versus 91 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:49:24 +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 whose cat has nine tails. ---------- > From: Steve Willner > > I'm pretty sure EK wrote something on this subject. Probably it was in > the "Appeals Committee" books published by The Bridge World. \X/ > > Yes, I don't think an AC can assign a DP. It would make no sense, > since immediate cooperation is no longer an issue. However, an AC can > assign a PP for any offense listed in L90A, which seems to include > virtually any offense, so the result is the same. \X/ +++[ I do not actually see the law to support the contention that an AC cannot assign a DP. What I read in the laws is that the AC has all the powers given to the Director but may not over-rule him on *exercise* of his disciplinary powers (etc.). Failing to do something is not an exercise of the power to do it. However, as you say the point is trivial since there are other ways to skin the cat.~ Grattan]+++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 19 01:38:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 01:38:05 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09179 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 01:37:57 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-44-124.s124.tnt3.brd.erols.com [207.172.44.124]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA12664 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807181539.LAA12664@smtp1.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:39:24 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-reply-to: <199807170357.UAA17410@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> 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 Marvin L. > French > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 11:57 PM > To: Steve Willner; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Score Adjustments and Procedural Penalties > > > [snip] > > Yes. The *Scope of the Laws* says that the Laws are primarily > designed not as a punishment for irregularities, but rather as > redress for damage. They are written under the assumption that no one > would deliberately do wrong. Deliberate wrongdoing is a subject for > C&E hearings, not for PPs. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > "Laws are not drafted to prevent dishonorable practices; that they cannot accomplish. Ostracism is the only adequate remedy. The real object of the laws is to define correct procedure and to provide for the situations which occur when a player through carelessness gains an unintentional, but nevertheless an unfair advantage. Consequently, penalties when provided are moderated to a minimum consistent with justice. An offending player should earnestly desire to pay the full penalty and thus atone for his mistake. When this essential principle is thoroughly understood, penalties are paid graciously and cheerfully, improper claims are not presented, and the pleasure of the players is materially enhanced." >From the Preface to the Laws of Contract Bridge, copyright 1927 by the Whist Club, New York Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 19 08:54:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 08:54:08 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10048 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 08:54:00 +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 TAA24761 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 19:02:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980718185709.006db2b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 18:57:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <199807172159.OAA00892@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:56 PM 7/17/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> This means that the same performance at the table produces a >> better score for a beginner than for an experienced player. Such >> an effect is not unreasonable for offenders (be more lenient >> towards inexperienced pairs), but it is unreasonable that a >> completely innocent pair who happens to play a specific board >> like the beginner would have played it gets a worse score. >> >This is all not true, if Kaplan's Principle is applied the way it was >intended. You base the decision on player experience, and weak >players are given almost unlimited leeway. Why is it not true? Surely, when an OS receives an unfavorable adjustment while the NOS, an experienced pair, is denied a symmetrical adjustment due having committed an egregious error, we would assume that has the NOs been novices (in least in most cases) they would have received the favorable adjustment on the grounds that, for a novice, the same error was not sufficiently egregious to break the connection. What I fear people are starting to think is that it's not true because an experienced pair who commits an egregious error is not considered "a completely innocent pair", that the Kaplan doctrine treats bad bridge as an infraction that can be penalized. >You simply cannot allow the double-shot, such as a wild slam bid or a >completely baseless double, to be made with impunity because a score >adjustment is obviously coming. The theoretical argument is, why not? But this isn't the place for it. OK, so don't allow the double shot, if you don't want to. Make a regulation that says that if the TD or AC believes that a player is (or the right could've-might've-words) trying for a double shot that player is denied an adjustment. He loses his rights by committing the infraction of trying (or could've-might've-appearance-of words) for a double shot. Don't make up a non-infraction just to catch those guys along with a bunch of innocents because you can't figure out how to word your rule without someone suing you cause you called him a bad guy when you didn't give him his double shot. The practical argument is, if you can predict "when a score adjustment is obviously coming" -- at least at an ACBL event -- you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. >And if a player had an easy route to >a top against a UI contract, merely by playing sensibly (not >expertly) for his level of ability, then flubs it completely, he may >have been damaged by the infraction, but that does not automatically >entitle him to redress. Why not? Isn't this the most obvious and straightforward way to apply the laws? The fact that he had an infraction committed against him doesn't entitle him to anything, and if he flubs it so completely that he wouldn't have been damaged by the infraction he doesn't get anything either. But if he *has* been damaged, restore the damage. >The infraction gave him an easy route to a >top, since all he had to do was not revoke or lead/play out of turn, >or not do something else "egregious." Therefore, no redress and you >adjust the OS score only. We've had this red herring before. We're not talking about committing infractions such as leading out of turn or revoking. We're talking about being denied an adjustment because of a bridge error, like ducking a setting trick or getting pseudo-squeezed by keeping a suit declarer already showed out of. Bridge errors. Supposedly egregious bridge errors. Not revokes. Not that it should matter in theory. But this isn't the place for that, either. Back to the issue... Perhaps had the infraction not been committed, he would have had an easy route to a bit over average. All he would have had to do to avoid a near-bottom was not commit whatever error it was he committed. But the infraction occurred, and as a result he got a zero. Why shouldn't he be entitled to get his near-bottom back? Restore the damage resulting from the infraction, and leave the damage resulting from the error. >I am still looking for the Law that says you must adjust for both >sides. There is, of course, no such law, as it would be in conflict with... >L12C2 has an "or" rather than an "and" in its wording (an >"inclusive or", incidentally) and L12A starts out with "The Director >may award an adjusted score (or scores)..." L12C2 does have an "or", but L12C2 also explains quite explicitly what that "or" is all about, and it has nothing to do with egregious errors or bad bridge. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 20 22:28:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:28:56 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA17114 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 22:28:43 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yyF5O-0005Q3-00; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:30:34 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 13:20:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Novel System Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 13:20:51 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Its not very often that I feel pity for Maddog but every once in a while he moves me to tears (of laughter). Try this one from a recent YC duplicate. A pair are playing "YOUR System". "YOUR" is not an acronym nor the surname of some wacky inventor of new systems. "YOUR" means that they are playing exactly what their opponents,ie. "you", are playing. The system has many immediate benefits. (1) The great variety of systems played within a single evening prevents you getting RSI (Repetitive System Injury) caused by playing the same system for so many years that it no longer contains any surprises. (2) The system is effortlessly kept upto date and automatically takes account of changes in licensing regulations. (3) The system can be played anywhere in the world without modification. (4) Questions during the auction and play are greatly reduced as is the number of MI cases. (The assumption of MI rather than MB in Law 75 is clearly not valid here.) (5) You can quite legally study your opponent's convention card at your turn to call or play, greatly increasing the accuracy of your bidding and play and simultaneously reducing the number of misbids when some lesser system has been forgotten. (6) There are far fewer TD calls for use of unlicensed conventions! The system has only got one obvious drawback and that is when a pair who are playing it come across a similar pair as opponents. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 20 23:03:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:03:17 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17210 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:03:11 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA00875 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:05:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Novel System In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, David Martin wrote: > Its not very often that I feel pity for Maddog but every once in a while > he moves me to tears (of laughter). Try this one from a recent YC > duplicate. > > A pair are playing "YOUR System". "YOUR" is not an acronym nor the > surname of some wacky inventor of new systems. "YOUR" means that they > are playing exactly what their opponents,ie. "you", are playing. The > system has many immediate benefits. [snip] > > The system has only got one obvious drawback and that is when a pair who > are playing it come across a similar pair as opponents. > At least in ACBLand (and I suspect many others) you can not change system in mid-session. :-( I also suspect that if you tried it playing in the Tuesday night game at my local club you would run into problems against at least two pairs. Not that either has a deficient convention card, but beyond the first round of bidding, most stuff isn't shown--and both pairs have detailed agreements in somewhat offbeat systems. I like the idea, but I don't think it's workable. I can see this group getting into a horrendous thread concerning the legality of questions such as "How do you bid a 13 point 5-5 in the black suits if you have two red aces?" :-) -- Richard Lighton |"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial (lighton@idt.net)| atomic globule. Consequently my family pride is something Wood-Ridge NJ | inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (The Mikado) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 01:31:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:31:07 +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 BAA19863 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:31:00 +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 LAA14873 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980720113226.00698ac4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:32:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Novel System In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:05 AM 7/20/98 -0400, Richard wrote: >On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, David Martin wrote: > >> Its not very often that I feel pity for Maddog but every once in a while >> he moves me to tears (of laughter). Try this one from a recent YC >> duplicate. >> >> A pair are playing "YOUR System". "YOUR" is not an acronym nor the >> surname of some wacky inventor of new systems. "YOUR" means that they >> are playing exactly what their opponents,ie. "you", are playing. The >> system has many immediate benefits. > >[snip] >> >> The system has only got one obvious drawback and that is when a pair who >> are playing it come across a similar pair as opponents. >> >At least in ACBLand (and I suspect many others) you can not change >system in mid-session. :-( I also suspect that if you tried it playing >in the Tuesday night game at my local club you would run into problems >against at least two pairs. Not that either has a deficient convention >card, but beyond the first round of bidding, most stuff isn't shown--and >both pairs have detailed agreements in somewhat offbeat systems. Back in my youth (1960s) a regular partner and I played this fairly often in our local clubs -- in lieu of CCs, we carried small laminated cards that said "We play your system for your convenience." It was both educational and fun, and no one ever objected. But some time in the late 60s or early 70s we were informed that this practice had been made illegal in ACBL competition. My understanding is that it remains so (alas). 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 Jul 21 01:57:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:57:50 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19947 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:57:44 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA20175 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26233; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:59:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:59:41 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807201559.LAA26233@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Novel System X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Back in my youth (1960s) a regular partner and I played this fairly often > in our local clubs -- in lieu of CCs, we carried small laminated cards that > said "We play your system for your convenience." It was both educational > and fun, and no one ever objected. But some time in the late 60s or early > 70s we were informed that this practice had been made illegal in ACBL > competition. My understanding is that it remains so (alas). This would seem a matter for the SO to regulate (L40D,E), so if your club allows it, I don't see why the ACBL would object. As others have pointed out, there are some problems with using this approach in serious competition, and I can well understand why a SO would ban it. But in a club game, as long as everyone has fun with it, what's the problem? Of course things were a bit simpler thirty years ago, when you might actually have had a pretty good idea what someone else's system was! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 02:27:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:27:12 +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 CAA20205 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:27:05 +1000 Received: from client08e9.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.233] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yyIni-0002qD-00; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:28:34 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: summertime Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:31:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdb3fb$d1f501a0$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 " You're right. Making the practice of not adjusting for the NOS legal would require explicit rules to not adjust for the NOS when they've committed a subsequent egregious error. " +++[ I think introduction of the word 'egregious' has done a disservice to the intention by creating a need for clarification of the obscure. I believe the laws are clear enough; where clarity is less apparent is in the minds of those seeking to understand. The laws are specific in requiring that the damage shall be caused by the infraction. They do not provide for redress where the infraction has merely provided opportunity for opponent to do something stupid. If a player infringes the law but his action is not the cause of damage the procedural penalty is available to the Director but score adjustment is not, as the laws and precedents stand today. There cannot be advantage to the offender without there is disadvantage (damage) to non-offender in my book since the advantage has to be reflected in the result obtained.~~Grattan~~]+++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 03:03:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 03:03:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA20278 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 03:03:34 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yyJNM-0006gP-00; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:05:24 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:53:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: summertime Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:53:12 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: : > SNIP > " > > +++[ I think introduction of the word 'egregious' has > done a disservice to the intention by creating a need for > clarification of the obscure. I believe the laws are clear > enough; where clarity is less apparent is in the minds of > those seeking to understand. > The laws are specific in requiring that the damage > shall be caused by the infraction. They do not provide > for redress where the infraction has merely provided > opportunity for opponent to do something stupid. > If a player infringes the law but his action is not > the cause of damage the procedural penalty is > available to the Director but score adjustment is not, > as the laws and precedents stand today. There cannot > be advantage to the offender without there is disadvantage > (damage) to non-offender in my book since the advantage > has to be reflected in the result obtained.~~Grattan~~]+++ > > ########### Declarer is in a slam and has cut himself off from a > dummy that contains a long running suit. The slam is unmakable > without the tricks in dummy's long suit. What should the ruling be if > Declarer leads from the wrong hand (dummy) and his RHO carelessly > follows suit? I would like to adjust the score to the slam going off > for Declarer but leave the slam making score for the careless > Defenders. Is this wrong? If not wrong then should I use a Law 90 > PPf to achieve this or should I adjust under Law 72B1? If I use Law > 72B1 then IMO the adjusted score to be given is defined by Law 12C2 > and I would have to adjust both sides' scores to the slam going off. > Thus, IMO, a Law 90 PPf should be used in this case as the Defenders > are damaged by their own carelessness in accepting the LOOT rather > than Declarer's infraction. What do others, in particular Grattan and > DWS, think? ########## > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 03:43:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 03:43:35 +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 DAA20378 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 03:43:28 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05251 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807201744.KAA05251@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Ruling Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:42:58 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vulnerability: Both Dealer: South S- AK82 H- A94 D- AT6 C- JT2 S- T S- J973 H- KQT7 H- J52 D- K98532 D- Q74 C- Q3 C- A84 S- Q654 H- 863 D- J C- K9765 West North East South (usual directions) P P 1NT P P Dbl P 2S Dbl 3D All pass Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card said this. Your ruling? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 04:19:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:19:23 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20522 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:19:15 +1000 Received: from cph41.ppp.dknet.dk (cph41.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.41]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA14163 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:21:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: summertime Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:21:07 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35b380f7.382640@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <01bdb3fb$d1f501a0$LocalHost@default> In-Reply-To: <01bdb3fb$d1f501a0$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 On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:31:17 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > The laws are specific in requiring that the damage >shall be caused by the infraction. They do not provide >for redress where the infraction has merely provided >opportunity for opponent to do something stupid. > If a player infringes the law but his action is not >the cause of damage the procedural penalty is >available to the Director but score adjustment is not, >as the laws and precedents stand today. There cannot=20 >be advantage to the offender without there is disadvantage=20 >(damage) to non-offender in my book since the advantage >has to be reflected in the result obtained.~~Grattan~~]+++ I'm very glad to see that this is your opinion. Of course I agree 100%. The problem is that TDs and ACs are adjusting for the OS only. The same effect as an adjustment for the OS only can of course be achieved by a PP. This is legal if you consider that the NOS was not damaged. We often hear about adjustments for the OS only that is calculated to match a gain by the irregularity. As Grattan says, if it really is a gain by the irregularity, then surely there was damage to the NOS. And in that case they should have had an adjusted score as well. I would prefer to follow the current laws literally, and adjust for both sides, even in the case of the double shot. As I've said elsewhere, I do not consider the double shot a problem at all. However, if the double shot is to be considered a problem, then I think we should have a law specifying clearly what a double shot is, that it is illegal, and that the penalty for a double shot is that you (the NOS) lose your right to an adjustment while the OS still gets it adjustment. We could then forget all about "egregious errors" and the discussion of what "egregious" really means. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 05:02:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 05:02:44 +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 FAA20655 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 05:02:38 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcisp.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.75.153]) by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03213 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980720150327.01200b04@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:03:27 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Novel System In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:20 PM 7/20/98 +0100, David M wrote: >Its not very often that I feel pity for Maddog but every once in a while >he moves me to tears (of laughter). Try this one from a recent YC >duplicate. > >A pair are playing "YOUR System". "YOUR" is not an acronym nor the >surname of some wacky inventor of new systems. "YOUR" means that they >are playing exactly what their opponents,ie. "you", are playing. The >system has many immediate benefits. (1) The great variety of systems >played within a single evening prevents you getting RSI (Repetitive >System Injury) caused by playing the same system for so many years that >it no longer contains any surprises. (2) The system is effortlessly >kept upto date and automatically takes account of changes in licensing >regulations. (3) The system can be played anywhere in the world >without modification. (4) Questions during the auction and play are >greatly reduced as is the number of MI cases. (The assumption of MI >rather than MB in Law 75 is clearly not valid here.) (5) You can quite >legally study your opponent's convention card at your turn to call or >play, greatly increasing the accuracy of your bidding and play and >simultaneously reducing the number of misbids when some lesser system >has been forgotten. (6) There are far fewer TD calls for use of >unlicensed conventions! > >The system has only got one obvious drawback and that is when a pair who >are playing it come across a similar pair as opponents. > I like it. It sounds a lot like MY system. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 05:52:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 05:52:43 +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 FAA20828 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 05:52:22 +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 QAA22059 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980720155347.006982cc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:53:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <199807201744.KAA05251@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:42 AM 7/20/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Vulnerability: Both >Dealer: South > > S- AK82 > H- A94 > D- AT6 > C- JT2 > >S- T S- J973 >H- KQT7 H- J52 >D- K98532 D- Q74 >C- Q3 C- A84 > > S- Q654 > H- 863 > D- J > C- K9765 > >West North East South (usual directions) > P > P 1NT P P >Dbl P 2S Dbl >3D All pass > >Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor >declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was >not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel >applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card >said this. > >Your ruling? No adjustment for UI. If West thought that East "was supposed to bid 2C" (I don't play this convention), then East's actual 2S bid is enough for me to presume that West would have "woken up" to the fact that the wheels had somehow come off without the UI from the lack of an alert, so he's entitled to take his best shot. If N-S claimed that they were damaged by MI from the failure to alert, that would be something else, but it sounds like E-W really had no agreement about balancing actions against 1NT, in which case there was no MI. 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 Jul 21 06:51:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 06:51:47 +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 GAA21004 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 06:51:38 +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 QAA20100 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:53:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807202053.QAA19133@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980720155347.006982cc@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:53:47 -0400) Subject: Re: Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > At 10:42 AM 7/20/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >> S- T S- J973 >> H- KQT7 H- J52 >> D- K98532 D- Q74 >> C- Q3 C- A84 >> West North East South (usual directions) >> P >> P 1NT P P >> Dbl P 2S Dbl >> 3D All pass >> Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor >> declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was >> not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel >> applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card >> said this. > No adjustment for UI. If West thought that East "was supposed to bid 2C" > (I don't play this convention), then East's actual 2S bid is enough for me > to presume that West would have "woken up" to the fact that the wheels had > somehow come off without the UI from the lack of an alert, so he's entitled > to take his best shot. Is 2S impossible, or merely unlikely? Most players who play Brozel will bid an independent suit in response if they hold it. If East held somthing like QJ9xxx Axx xx xx, 2Sx is probably down one and 3D could be worse. I think passing 2Sx is an LA here, given that East would only bid 2S with a suit he expected to be better than West's. I don't think this is the same situation as a theoretically possible bid, such as 1NT-2H(intended as transfer)-3H. With no agreements here, it is unlikely that the transfer would be broken to any bid other than 3S, and the 2H bidder can thus use the odd break to conclude that there has been a misunderstanding and bid 4S. -- 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 Jul 21 07:31:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:31:41 +1000 Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA21087 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:31:35 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3VVWa17153 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:32:25 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Fwd: Ruling Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_900970346_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_900970346_boundary Content-ID: <0_900970346@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII In a message dated 7/20/98 2:34:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, R Craig H writes: << << The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card said this. Your ruling? >> No infraction. No adjustment. It is required that agreements be alerted and explained to the opponents. Your facts do not set forth that it WAS the agreement of the pair to play Brozel in the passout seat. In fact, it appears affirmatively that the pair did not have an agreement. If one partner bid in the belief that an agreement existed, but the other did not, there has been no impropriety, since there is no penalty for misbidding. Had you set out as a fact that the pair had previous discussion, previous experience, system notes, and the AC found that there was an agreement that Brozel applied, the contrary result would apply. Misinformation, UI, etc., would be involved. Once the 2S bid was doubled, the would-be Brozel bidder probably woke up to the fact there was no agreement. But there was still no infraction. Bidding 3D was not the result of an infraction, so must be allowed. Naturally, the Brozel bidders should be required to have an agreement for the balancing seat after this incident, so there will be no repeat of this ruling for the future. --part0_900970346_boundary Content-ID: <0_900970346@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: RCraigH@aol.com Return-path: To: mlfrench@writeme.com Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:34:18 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/20/98 1:47:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: << The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card said this. Your ruling? >> No infraction. No adjustment. It is required that agreements be alerted and explained to the opponents. Your facts do not set forth that it WAS the agreement of the pair to play Brozel in the passout seat. In fact, it appears affirmatively that the pair did not have an agreement. If one partner bid in the belief that an agreement existed, but the other did not, there has been no impropriety, since there is no penalty for misbidding. Had you set out as a fact that the pair had previous discussion, previous experience, system notes, and the AC found that there was an agreement that Brozel applied, the contrary result would apply. Misinformation, UI, etc., would be involved. Once the 2S bid was doubled, the would-be Brozel bidder probably woke up to the fact there was no agreement. But there was still no infraction. Bidding 3D was not the result of an infraction, so must be allowed. Naturally, the Brozel bidders should be required to have an agreement for the balancing seat after this incident, so there will be no repeat of this ruling for them. --part0_900970346_boundary-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 07:54:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:54:07 +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 HAA21151 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 07:54:01 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA02099; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807202155.OAA02099@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:53:35 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > mlfrench wrote: > > >Vulnerability: Both > >Dealer: South > > > > S- AK82 > > H- A94 > > D- AT6 > > C- JT2 > > > >S- T S- J973 > >H- KQT7 H- J52 > >D- K98532 D- Q74 > >C- Q3 C- A84 > > > > S- Q654 > > H- 863 > > D- J > > C- K9765 > > > >West North East South (usual directions) > > P > > P 1NT P P > >Dbl P 2S Dbl > >3D All pass > > > >Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor > >declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was > >not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel > >applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card > >said this. > > > >Your ruling? > > No adjustment for UI. If West thought that East "was supposed to bid 2C" > (I don't play this convention), then East's actual 2S bid is enough for me > to presume that West would have "woken up" to the fact that the wheels had > somehow come off without the UI from the lack of an alert, so he's entitled > to take his best shot. > > If N-S claimed that they were damaged by MI from the failure to alert, that > would be something else, but it sounds like E-W really had no agreement > about balancing actions against 1NT, in which case there was no MI. This is the second e-mail saying no adjustment, the other from RCraig. I think both are overlooking the fact that West used the non-Alert, at least in part, to determine that East was not on the same wavelength. If the deal had been played with a curtain, West would not have known about the failure to Alert. He would logically have assumed that East had in effect said, "I don't care what your suit is, I want to play spades." That is what the 2S bid means for Brozel players, and that is what West (who thought he was using Brozel) would normally think. To put it another way, West would have passed 2S doubled if East had Alerted the double, so he must pass it in the absence of an Alert. My ruling would be to adjust the score to the most favorable result that was likely for N-S, and the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for E-W, in a contract of 2S doubled. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 08:19:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:19:35 +1000 Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21188 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:19:29 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8HHIa06496; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4c406927.35b3c2c6@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:20:52 EDT To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Ruling Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/20/98 5:57:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: << My ruling would be to adjust the score to the most favorable result that was likely for N-S, and the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for E-W, in a contract of 2S doubled. >> You first must show a violation. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 08:26:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:26:55 +1000 Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21236 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:26:49 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 8KWQa20769; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <87940f2a.35b3c450@aol.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:27:27 EDT To: RCraigH@aol.com, mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Ruling Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/20/98 6:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, R Craig H writes: << << My ruling would be to adjust the score to the most favorable result that was likely for N-S, and the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for E-W, in a contract of 2S doubled. >> You first must show a violation. >> From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 08:33:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:33:24 +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 IAA21325 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:33:18 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@CSB.BU.EDU [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id SAA11808; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:35:13 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id SAA21612; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807202235.SAA21612@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Ruling To: mlfrench@writeme.com Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) In-Reply-To: <199807201744.KAA05251@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Jul 20, 98 10:42:58 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that so long as 2S is an allowable response to the double (most people play that it says "partner I dontr care what your suit is, I want to play 2S"), then west must act as though east alerted, explained the double as "showing a single suited hand, and asking me to bid 2C" and then went ahead and bid 2S anyway. If this is the case, then (a) pass of 2S(dbl) is a L.A. (b) the UI that partner didnt realize that the double was a 1-suiter suggests that bidding 3D is more likely to be a good action, and (c) the opponents would have done better had W passed the double. Thus I roll the contract back to 2S dbled down a bunch. For E-W I score it as the worst declarer play line and best defence that was at all probable (I can imagine a line which would lead to down 4); for N-S I decide the worst play line/best defence that was likely. (I could argue for down 2 or 3 depending on the players). So I would assign +500 NS, -1100 EW. -- David Metcalf p.s. the line for down 4: D lead-> ace, club returned. Declarer plays A and continues club. S wins K, cashes QS, plays C->T, gets 2 diamond ruffs and the A,K of spades. Not brilliant play, but not totally farfetched either. Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>Vulnerability: Both >>Dealer: South >> >> S- AK82 >> H- A94 >> D- AT6 >> C- JT2 >> >>S- T S- J973 >>H- KQT7 H- J52 >>D- K98532 D- Q74 >>C- Q3 C- A84 >> >> S- Q654 >> H- 863 >> D- J >> C- K9765 >> >>West North East South (usual directions) >> P >> P 1NT P P >>Dbl P 2S Dbl >>3D All pass >> >>Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor >>declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was >>not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel >>applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card >>said this. >> >>Your ruling? >> >>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) >> >> >> >> >> From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 09:37:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:37:32 +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 JAA21445 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:37:26 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yyPWc-0007Pe-00; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:39:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 00:35:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Novel System In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Martin writes >Its not very often that I feel pity for Maddog but every once in a while >he moves me to tears (of laughter). Try this one from a recent YC >duplicate. > >A pair are playing "YOUR System". "YOUR" is not an acronym nor the >surname of some wacky inventor of new systems. "YOUR" means that they >are playing exactly what their opponents,ie. "you", are playing. The >system has many immediate benefits. (1) The great variety of systems >played within a single evening prevents you getting RSI (Repetitive >System Injury) caused by playing the same system for so many years that >it no longer contains any surprises. (2) The system is effortlessly >kept upto date and automatically takes account of changes in licensing >regulations. (3) The system can be played anywhere in the world >without modification. (4) Questions during the auction and play are >greatly reduced as is the number of MI cases. (The assumption of MI >rather than MB in Law 75 is clearly not valid here.) (5) You can quite >legally study your opponent's convention card at your turn to call or >play, greatly increasing the accuracy of your bidding and play and >simultaneously reducing the number of misbids when some lesser system >has been forgotten. (6) There are far fewer TD calls for use of >unlicensed conventions! > >The system has only got one obvious drawback and that is when a pair who >are playing it come across a similar pair as opponents. In discussion with David this evening I pointed out that if the pair are playing an unlicensed convention and you, perforce, use it then AFAICT the Director should be summoned and you should be awrded 30 % or your score and the Director will tell YOU to stop using it. Should he also tell the pair whose cc it is to stop too? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 10:00:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:00:14 +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 KAA21503 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:00:06 +1000 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:00:06 +1000 Received: (qmail 25684 invoked from network); 21 Jul 1998 00:02:01 -0000 Received: from pm02-d089.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.89) by mailhub.iag.net with SMTP; 21 Jul 1998 00:02:01 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980720200022.4f0f6e68@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: Ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:20 PM 7/20/98 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 7/20/98 5:57:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > ><< My ruling would be to adjust the score to the most favorable result > that was likely for N-S, and the most unfavorable result that was at > all probable for E-W, in a contract of 2S doubled. >> > >You first must show a violation. > > What would have happend with the following Hand QJ9xxxx xxx xxx VOID The systemic 2CL bid is very likely too take the pair to a disaster. and pass on 2SP X is probably what would have happend if correct info was given. But when pd failured to ALERT you know passing 2sp is going to be a disaster and moving on is ALWAYS right. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 11:00:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:00:25 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA21608 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:00:19 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA27937 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:09:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980720210146.006df7d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:01:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <199807202053.QAA19133@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19980720155347.006982cc@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:53 PM 7/20/98 -0400, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > >> At 10:42 AM 7/20/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: > >>> S- T S- J973 >>> H- KQT7 H- J52 >>> D- K98532 D- Q74 >>> C- Q3 C- A84 > >>> West North East South (usual directions) >>> P >>> P 1NT P P >>> Dbl P 2S Dbl >>> 3D All pass > >>> Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor >>> declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was >>> not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel >>> applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card >>> said this. > >> No adjustment for UI. If West thought that East "was supposed to bid 2C" >> (I don't play this convention), then East's actual 2S bid is enough for me >> to presume that West would have "woken up" to the fact that the wheels had >> somehow come off without the UI from the lack of an alert, so he's entitled >> to take his best shot. > >Is 2S impossible, or merely unlikely? Most players who play Brozel will >bid an independent suit in response if they hold it. If East held >somthing like QJ9xxx Axx xx xx, 2Sx is probably down one and 3D could be >worse. I think passing 2Sx is an LA here, given that East would only >bid 2S with a suit he expected to be better than West's. Sounds right to me, if that is in fact how the convention is played (I take it West is allowed to pass 2C). I'd have described that as East "supposed to bid 2C unless he has a suit of his own". If the hand David gives above is a 2S bid, then pass is certainly an LA to 3D. >I don't think this is the same situation as a theoretically possible >bid, such as 1NT-2H(intended as transfer)-3H. With no agreements here, >it is unlikely that the transfer would be broken to any bid other than >3S, and the 2H bidder can thus use the odd break to conclude that there >has been a misunderstanding and bid 4S. ...which is how I read Marv's original post. (Trying to be humble, for the first time here...) I shouldn't have responded so quickly; next time I'll look up Brozel first. And now it's a much harder question. Whether I adjust might depend on the sense I get from talking to West as to whether what Marv describes as "intended as Brozel" actually meant that he thought he had agreed to play Brozel in the passout seat or that he knew he didn't have an agreement and was hoping partner would read his double as Brozel. There's an evil little demon inside of me that wants to adjust this score just so that East will get what he deserves for that awful 2S bid, which doesn't look right no matter what West's passed-hand double was. 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 Jul 21 11:26:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:26:57 +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 LAA21678 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:26:46 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa14147; 20 Jul 98 18:28 PDT To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:53:35 PDT." <199807202155.OAA02099@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:28:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9807201828.aa14147@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: > > >Vulnerability: Both > > >Dealer: South > > > > > > S- AK82 > > > H- A94 > > > D- AT6 > > > C- JT2 > > > > > >S- T S- J973 > > >H- KQT7 H- J52 > > >D- K98532 D- Q74 > > >C- Q3 C- A84 > > > > > > S- Q654 > > > H- 863 > > > D- J > > > C- K9765 > > > > > >West North East South (usual directions) > > > P > > > P 1NT P P > > >Dbl P 2S Dbl > > >3D All pass > > This is the second e-mail saying no adjustment, the other from > RCraig. > > I think both are overlooking the fact that West used the non-Alert, > at least in part, to determine that East was not on the same > wavelength. If the deal had been played with a curtain, West would > not have known about the failure to Alert. He would logically have > assumed that East had in effect said, "I don't care what your suit > is, I want to play spades." That is what the 2S bid means for Brozel > players, and that is what West (who thought he was using Brozel) > would normally think. > > To put it another way, West would have passed 2S doubled if East had > Alerted the double, so he must pass it in the absence of an Alert. > > My ruling would be to adjust the score to the most favorable result > that was likely for N-S, and the most unfavorable result that was at > all probable for E-W, in a contract of 2S doubled. My only possible problem with this logic is: what is the chance that East would have a spade suit where he wanted to play 2S regardless of West's suit, but did not act over 1NT? I'd have to find this out about E-W before making a ruling. If East was likely to act with this kind of suit, then I believe West has every right to pull 2Sx. This would be even more pertinent if E-W were playing DONT, in which a double still shows a one-suited hand but a hand with a spade suit can overcall 2S immediately. If they were playing DONT, I'd probably rule that passing 2Sx is not a LA for West. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 11:52:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:52:27 +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 LAA21720 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:52:14 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yyRd0-0007Bp-00; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 01:11:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <199807202053.QAA19133@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Is 2S impossible, or merely unlikely? Most players who play Brozel will >bid an independent suit in response if they hold it. If East held >somthing like QJ9xxx Axx xx xx, 2Sx is probably down one and 3D could be >worse. I think passing 2Sx is an LA here, given that East would only >bid 2S with a suit he expected to be better than West's. Woule East *really* pass over 1NT with this good a suit? I wouldn't! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 13:21:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA21885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:21:15 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA21878 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:21:08 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA07509 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807210322.UAA07509@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:21:52 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >Is 2S impossible, or merely unlikely? Most players who play Brozel will > >bid an independent suit in response if they hold it. If East held > >somthing like QJ9xxx Axx xx xx, 2Sx is probably down one and 3D could be > >worse. I think passing 2Sx is an LA here, given that East would only > >bid 2S with a suit he expected to be better than West's. > > Would East *really* pass over 1NT with this good a suit? I wouldn't! > David G. should have omitted that ace, making vulnerable direct action somewhat questionable against a 16-18 HCP 1NT (which I should have mentioned) and a quick doubler sitting South (yours truly). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 16:25:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:25:10 +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 QAA22320 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:25:02 +1000 From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Message-Id: <199807210625.QAA22320@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de by nz11.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:26:59 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA161802417; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:26:57 +0200 Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980720200022.4f0f6e68@pop3.iag.net> from Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren at "Jul 21, 98 10:00:06 am" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:26:57 +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: 1036 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren: > At 06:20 PM 7/20/98 EDT, you wrote: > >In a message dated 7/20/98 5:57:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > ><< My ruling would be to adjust the score to the most favorable result > > that was likely for N-S, and the most unfavorable result that was at > > all probable for E-W, in a contract of 2S doubled. >> > > > >You first must show a violation. > > What would have happend with the following Hand > > QJ9xxxx > xxx > xxx > VOID Partner would have shown Spades over 1NT, *and* they would have bid game. Don't forget that they stopped in 1NT. They very probably won't have more than a combined 23 HCP count. [Remark: it is more easy to act with weak unbalanced hands over a strong NT than over a weak NT, because partner will never try for 3NT.] East has shown either a good five card S suit, or a very weak 6 card S suit. IMHO passing 2Sx should be considered an LA according to ACBL standards, but not according to European standards. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 22:02:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:02:09 +1000 Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22904 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:02:01 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id NQLPa26052; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:02:06 EDT To: metcalf@cs.bu.edu, mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Ruling Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/20/98 6:36:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, metcalf@cs.bu.edu writes: << I think that so long as 2S is an allowable response to the double (most people play that it says "partner I dontr care what your suit is, I want to play 2S"), then west must act as though east alerted, explained the double as "showing a single suited hand, and asking me to bid 2C" and then went ahead and bid 2S anyway. If this is the case, then (a) pass of 2S(dbl) is a L.A. (b) the UI that partner didnt realize that the double was a 1-suiter suggests that bidding 3D is more likely to be a good action, and (c) the opponents would have done better had W passed the double. Thus I roll the contract back to 2S dbled down a bunch. For E-W I score it as the worst declarer play line and best defence that was at all probable (I can imagine a line which would lead to down 4); for N-S I decide the worst play line/best defence that was likely. (I could argue for down 2 or 3 depending on the players). So I would assign +500 NS, -1100 EW. -- David Metcalf >> This result is again based on the conclusion that this pair had an agreement as to the meaning of the double of 1NT in the balancing seat. The AC must find that to be the case before it can establish any violation, which is a prerequisite to making any score adjustment. The facts presented in the original post do not establish an agreement. Hence no violation. Hence, no adjustment. Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 22:07:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:07:49 +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 WAA22955 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:07:42 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yybEf-0006XB-00; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:09:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:04:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > Grattan wrote: : > >> SNIP >> " >> >> +++[ I think introduction of the word 'egregious' has >> done a disservice to the intention by creating a need for >> clarification of the obscure. I believe the laws are clear >> enough; where clarity is less apparent is in the minds of >> those seeking to understand. >> The laws are specific in requiring that the damage >> shall be caused by the infraction. They do not provide >> for redress where the infraction has merely provided >> opportunity for opponent to do something stupid. >> If a player infringes the law but his action is not >> the cause of damage the procedural penalty is >> available to the Director but score adjustment is not, >> as the laws and precedents stand today. There cannot >> be advantage to the offender without there is disadvantage >> (damage) to non-offender in my book since the advantage >> has to be reflected in the result obtained.~~Grattan~~]+++ >> >> ########### Declarer is in a slam and has cut himself off from a >> dummy that contains a long running suit. The slam is unmakable >> without the tricks in dummy's long suit. What should the ruling be if >> Declarer leads from the wrong hand (dummy) and his RHO carelessly >> follows suit? I would like to adjust the score to the slam going off >> for Declarer but leave the slam making score for the careless >> Defenders. Is this wrong? If not wrong then should I use a Law 90 >> PPf to achieve this or should I adjust under Law 72B1? If I use Law >> 72B1 then IMO the adjusted score to be given is defined by Law 12C2 >> and I would have to adjust both sides' scores to the slam going off. >> Thus, IMO, a Law 90 PPf should be used in this case as the Defenders >> are damaged by their own carelessness in accepting the LOOT rather >> than Declarer's infraction. What do others, in particular Grattan and >> DWS, think? ########## >> Oh, thanks, just when I was keeping well out of this. It is accepted by authorities world-wide and by members of the WBFLC that you may split a score to give an adjustment to one side only. While the wording may not clearly support this, it has been done for many years and the WBFLC has not taken any steps to suggest it may not be done. In my view it is to be considered legal even if the letter of the Law is at best ambiguous. I am happy that you should consider each side separately when you are adjusting, and not worry too much about whether the wording actually supports adjusting for one side and not the other. I believe we should do so for wild or gambling action only, in other words I do not agree with the NAmerican stance, but that is merely a personal opinion. I believe the NAmerican stance to be legal, though not good for the game of bridge. Note that I do not believe the approach to be clearly illegal otherwise I would not support it: I consider their is sufficient ambiguity and flexibility in the relevant Laws that there is no reason not to follow the accepted interpretations. In the actual case quoted RHO's action is "Wild". -- 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 Jul 21 22:38:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:38:25 +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 WAA23056 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:38:19 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yybiK-0002sL-00; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:40:17 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:15:40 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Novel System Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:15:38 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: SNIP > In discussion with David this evening I pointed out that if the pair > are > playing an unlicensed convention and you, perforce, use it then AFAICT > the Director should be summoned and you should be awrded 30 % or your > score and the Director will tell YOU to stop using it. Should he also > tell the pair whose cc it is to stop too? > > ########## The standard EBU adjustment is to 40% for the OS unless > they have already been fined on one or more previous occasions for the > use of other unlicensed conventions. IMO, the TD should definitely > instruct *both* pairs to stop using the unlicensed convention. > ########## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 23:00:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:00:13 +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 XAA23156 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:00:06 +1000 Received: from sandpiper.bu.edu (SANDPIPER.BU.EDU [128.197.10.211]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id IAA11691; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:46:50 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by sandpiper.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id IAA19779; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807211246.IAA19779@sandpiper.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Ruling To: RCraigH@aol.com Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) In-Reply-To: from "RCraigH@aol.com" at Jul 21, 98 08:02:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In responding to my message (below), RCraigH@aol.com wrote: >>This result is again based on the conclusion that this pair had an agreement >>as to the meaning of the double of 1NT in the balancing seat. The AC must >>find that to be the case before it can establish any violation, which is a >>prerequisite to making any score adjustment. The facts presented in the >>original post do not establish an agreement. Hence no violation. Hence, no >>adjustment. >> >>Craig Hemphill >> Hi- No, there need not have been an agreement about the meaning of the double. The doubler clearly intended (hoped) that his double was to show a 1-suiter. If the agreement was 1-suiter, then the doubler knew from the failure to alert that his partner interpreted it differently, and that they had gone off the rails (had he alerted, explained and bid 2S anyway, a pass would have been clear). If the agreement was not 1-suiter, then doubler was woken up to the fact that he had misbid by the lack of alert. This too is UI. In either case, the double had UI which suggested a 3D bid over passing. David Metcalf >> >>In a message dated 7/20/98 6:36:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, metcalf@cs.bu.edu >>writes: >> >><< >> I think that so long as 2S is an allowable response to the double >> (most people play that it says "partner I dontr care what your suit is, >> I want to play 2S"), then west must act as though east alerted, explained >> the double as "showing a single suited hand, and asking me to bid 2C" >> and then went ahead and bid 2S anyway. >> >> If this is the case, then (a) pass of 2S(dbl) is a L.A. >> (b) the UI that partner didnt realize that the double was a 1-suiter >> suggests that bidding 3D is more likely to be a good action, and >> (c) the opponents would have done better had W passed the double. >> >> Thus I roll the contract back to 2S dbled down a bunch. >> For E-W I score it as the worst declarer play line and best defence that >> was at all probable (I can imagine a line which would lead to down 4); >> for N-S I decide the worst play line/best defence that was likely. >> (I could argue for down 2 or 3 depending on the players). >> >> So I would assign +500 NS, -1100 EW. >> >> -- David Metcalf >> >> >> From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 23:01:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:01:21 +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 XAA23184 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:01:07 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:02:53 +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 OAA02797 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:01:57 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:59:51 +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 RCraigH@aol.com wrote: >metcalf@cs.bu.edu > writes: > > << > I think that so long as 2S is an allowable response to the double > (most people play that it says "partner I dontr care what your suit is, > I want to play 2S"), then west must act as though east alerted, explained > the double as "showing a single suited hand, and asking me to bid 2C" > and then went ahead and bid 2S anyway. > > If this is the case, then (a) pass of 2S(dbl) is a L.A. > (b) the UI that partner didnt realize that the double was a 1-suiter > suggests that bidding 3D is more likely to be a good action, and > (c) the opponents would have done better had W passed the double. > > Thus I roll the contract back to 2S dbled down a bunch. > For E-W I score it as the worst declarer play line and best defence that > was at all probable (I can imagine a line which would lead to down 4); > for N-S I decide the worst play line/best defence that was likely. > (I could argue for down 2 or 3 depending on the players). > > So I would assign +500 NS, -1100 EW. > > -- David Metcalf > >> > > This result is again based on the conclusion that this pair had an agreement > as to the meaning of the double of 1NT in the balancing seat. The AC must > find that to be the case before it can establish any violation, which is a > prerequisite to making any score adjustment. The facts presented in the > original post do not establish an agreement. Hence no violation. Hence, no > adjustment. Do you mean that, because they had no agreement, the failure to alert the double conveyed no UI? I don't think this is true. I presume that the pair had agreed to play Brozel, in the direct seat at least, that the doubler assumed this agreement also applied in the balancing seat, but that his partner thought otherwise. It seems likely, then, that the doubler expected his partner to alert the double, and hence the failure to do so conveyed UI. It may be true that, in the absence of an agreement, a call should not be alerted, but this case seems to involve a difference of opinion as to whether an agreement applies rather than a clearcut situation where there is definitely no agreement. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 21 23:40:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:40:38 +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 XAA23328 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:40:32 +1000 Received: from client82fd.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.82.253] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yycgV-0005m7-00; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:42:27 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Novel System (? a romance) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:45:14 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdb4ad$c9d58f00$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----- Subject: Re: Novel System >> >> A pair are playing "YOUR System". "YOUR" is not an acronym nor the >> surname of some wacky inventor of new systems. "YOUR" means that they >> are playing exactly what their opponents,ie. "you", are playing. The >> system has many immediate benefits. > >[snip] >> >> The system has only got one obvious drawback and that is when a pair who >> are playing it come across a similar pair as opponents.> \X/ +++[ I think it may also have the drawback that it (a) may be held not to be "properly completed" in the manner exemplified in the regulations (b) fails to give notice on the front of understandings opponents should know about (c) fails to give the meanings of all but the simplest conventions (d) fails to specify fully the meanings of two suited overcalls and of conventional defences to 1NT (e) may fail to show what leads, signals and discards are used (f) fails to give brief details on the front of such things as short minors, canape, special doubles at high level, non-standard two level openings, two-suited overcalls (g) may be held to lack information in the event of a dispute, and may have failed to disclose explicit or implicit agreements (of which perhaps the player producing the card is unaware?!). All of these requirements are stated in the 1998/99 EBU regulations which call for disclosure whether or not opponents can be expected to know your methods. ~~~ Grattan ~~~ ] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 00:34:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:34:57 +1000 Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA25696 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:34:51 +1000 Received: from biigal2 (iits-01-121.sat.idworld.net [209.142.71.121]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA26965 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:36:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <35B4A720.379E@txdirect.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:35:12 -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: Emergency Departures References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been searching the Laws and ACBL Handbook, Regulations, and Tech files without success. Question One: What is the controlling citation to cover the emergency departure of a player - due to illness et al - when there is no available substitute {In both cases had a playing director}. Is there an Offending side to cause average plus scoring?? Question Two: If it is uncited in any Law or regulation. What is the best, method of handling this?? Average/Average; average/average plus; average-minus/average plus; Disqualification and not count the departing players results at all?? In the cases cited the illness, emergency departures are real and not contrived. Case one: Club game. Playing director. 15 Table game, round 7. Actualy round 7, second board of 2 - a score can be obtained on the second board. Exactly at the mid point of the match!! [no manipulation, it is where it happened] One party is unable to continue and has to be transported out. No substitute. How best is this to be scored?? Citations under the Law are required. [Anyone able to answer under ACBL rules & Regulations is also invited to respond - but a citation of the rule and where it may be found is required.] Historical Case two: Club game 9 rounds of 3 boards 9 or 10 tables. At round six a member is taken ill, transported and hospitalized for four days. In his absence first the scores were averaged. The departing pair, with a n 81% score wins. One member causes a re-score Average/average plus. Same pair wins. Okay it is re-scored average minus/average plus. Now the protester wins by 0.13 [that is 13/100ths] and the departed pair is second. No citation is ever given for why, and the club involved lost a pair of upset players for two years. Non-withstanding the ethics of re-computing the scores until a method of winning is devised is there any basis in Law or regulation for this?? Now comes case one [above] same deadhead is trying to influence method of scoring to whatever benefits him. -- 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. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 00:47:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:47:55 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA25741 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:47:49 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA30629 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:49:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27088; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:49:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:49:51 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807211449.KAA27088@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: RCraigH@aol.com > This result is again based on the conclusion that this pair had an agreement > as to the meaning of the double of 1NT in the balancing seat. The AC must > find that to be the case before it can establish any violation, which is a > prerequisite to making any score adjustment. The facts presented in the > original post do not establish an agreement. Hence no violation. Hence, no > adjustment. We should recall that doubtful points are to be resolved in favor of the NOS. Thus if the TD (or AC) cannot find out whether or not there was an agreement, the ruling should be that there was one. Even if there was no agreement, there may be a case for an adjustment. If I had agreed to play Brozel in direct position and had no agreement in balancing position, I would still alert the balancing double. (In fact, this very scenario once happened to me, except that it was Landy and not Brozel.) If asked, I'd explain what we had and had not agreed. Does anyone think this is wrong? The fact that East failed to alert the double is still UI to West. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 01:03:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:03:50 +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 BAA25797 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:03:32 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcjt6.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.79.166]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA28947 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:05:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980721110420.011fc96c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:04:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <199807202155.OAA02099@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 PM 7/20/98 -0700, Marv wrote: >I think both are overlooking the fact that West used the non-Alert, >at least in part, to determine that East was not on the same >wavelength. If the deal had been played with a curtain, West would >not have known about the failure to Alert. He would logically have >assumed that East had in effect said, "I don't care what your suit >is, I want to play spades." That is what the 2S bid means for Brozel >players, and that is what West (who thought he was using Brozel) >would normally think. > >To put it another way, West would have passed 2S doubled if East had >Alerted the double, so he must pass it in the absence of an Alert. > But this is NOT just "another way"-- it is rather a whole 'nother way with rather different implications, and it seems to me that the difference between these two analytical approaches is critical in such situations. I agree that if East had alerted, explained properly, and then bid 2S anyway, West might well have passed. But it is much less clear what West would have done in a bidding screen situation, where the presence or absence of an alert would be unavailable. For many relatively inexperienced players using puppet or transfer bids, a failure to accept the transfer/puppet is completely undiscussed territory, and virtually impossible. For such a player, the 2S would be entirely sufficient evidence in and of itself that "the wheels have come off," and passing would be quite inconceivable. Your original post provided no data on this EW pair, or on any agreements that they might have had about the possible meaning of 2S. But to me, the important question is which standard to apply in evaluating possible LA's: 1) How a player would have reacted if the bid had been properly alerted/not alerted/explained, or 2) How a player would have reacted if he had had no information at all about partner's alert/non-alert/explanation? Perhaps an easier analogy for #2 is OKBridge with self-alerts. In this case, a West with some uncertainty about balance-seat agreements and hearing partner's 2S bid would very likely bail. My own preferance is for the second approach, but it seems to me that #1 is the more usual basis for analysis. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 01:45:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:45:10 +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 BAA26117 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:45:03 +1000 Received: from client150b.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.15.11] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yyed0-0007wK-00; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:46:59 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: summertime Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:42:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdb4be$33069fe0$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 : Subject: RE: summertime >> >> ########### Declarer is in a slam and has cut himself off from a >> dummy that contains a long running suit. The slam is unmakable >> without the tricks in dummy's long suit. What should the ruling be if >> Declarer leads from the wrong hand (dummy) and his RHO carelessly >> follows suit? I would like to adjust the score to the slam going off >> for Declarer but leave the slam making score for the careless >> Defenders. Is this wrong? If not wrong then should I use a Law 90 >> PPf to achieve this or should I adjust under Law 72B1? If I use Law >> 72B1 then IMO the adjusted score to be given is defined by Law 12C2 >> and I would have to adjust both sides' scores to the slam going off. >> Thus, IMO, a Law 90 PPf should be used in this case as the Defenders >> are damaged by their own carelessness in accepting the LOOT rather >> than Declarer's infraction. What do others, in particular Grattan and >> DWS, think? ########## >> +++ [ If I dig around I should find a letter from Edgar on the subject - I did have occasion to discuss the case with him some years ago. His reply was that Law 11 caters for that case and that after applying 11A the Director can penalize offender under 11C. I suspect that Colker is following the Kaplan line, as I have myself, in saying that the penalty can match the crime ~Grattan~] +++ ***All please NOTE: Ton would like to avoid using a PP for offender where opponent has made a blunder. We are putting it on the agenda for Lille. A possible path is to say that in such circumstances the penalty should normally take the form of an adjusted score for the offending side, more or less invoking 84E. Ton suggests that a way might be to redefine 'damage' in Law 16 and elsewhere so that it includes both consequent and subsequent damage; I am wary of this because it might pull in some situations we do not intend, although I am not against his purpose. Fairly enough Ton as the incoming Chairman will have some points of difference with past attitudes. ~~~ comments please, especially from the North Americas. ++ Grattan ++ *** From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 04:06:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:06:32 +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 EAA26792 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:06:24 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h1.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id WAA21708; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:08:20 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35B573C1.7388@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:08:17 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling References: <199807210625.QAA22320@octavia.anu.edu.au> <35B4E504.1573@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) As I used Brothel - I have to underline that Pass was not LA - it was preferrable call under the circumstanes. Thomas was wrong about possibilities that 2Sp might be strong: with strong hang (at least invitational) one shd bid artificial 2nt (in Brothel) That's why I agreed with Marvin completely: adjusting, 2Sp doubled:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 06:53:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:53:48 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f245.hotmail.com [207.82.251.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA28368 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:53:41 +1000 Received: (qmail 13833 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jul 1998 20:55:02 -0000 Message-ID: <19980721205502.13832.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.131.116 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:55:02 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.131.116] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:55:02 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk About the Brozel issue... First, the way I learned Brozel, that is a clear pass. I don't want partner to pass with a balanced hand with a couple of entries, expecting to set up my suit. And I'm not sure I'm going to be able to remove this thought from my arguments, but I'll try. If that auction came to me, and I had QT9xxxx xxx xxx -- I'd pass. What's the worst that can happen? Pd's going to have a very good strength hand (opps are limited to 23 or so). I expect 2C is only going for 200 or so - and I can't guarantee 6 tricks in spades. And it's probably about one in two that he has clubs (instead of either other suit). And if 2C gets doubled, I can pull. Sure 2S won't be undoubled then, but would it otherwise? Especially when pd has -- KTx AQ8x KQJxxx or x KTx AQx KQJxxx? In fact, I can't think of any hand I'd bid 2S directly on after that auction that I wouldn't double with the first time around. OTOH, I'm not a brilliant bridge player - maybe I'm wrong, and running immediately is going to seriously improve my chances of playing undoubled. But I can't think of a hand that can say "my suit is better than your suit" that wouldn't have already said it (through a double). All this is saying to me that it's important to determine their agreements about single-suiters. If they commonly bid on that kind of trash, then we may have a case for 2S being "here, ****it". But, at least in partnerships I've taught Brozel to, I'd allow 2S to be a wake-up call, and therefore passing 2Sx is not a LA. OTOH (again), in any partnerships I've taught Brozel to, there wouldn't be a misunderstanding about whether it applied in balancing seat. Michael (sure that he's missed something stupid somewhere) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 09:14:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:14:35 +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 JAA29080 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:14:25 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yyldt-0004B4-00; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:16:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:26:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980720210146.006df7d0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980720210146.006df7d0@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 04:53 PM 7/20/98 -0400, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes: >> >>> At 10:42 AM 7/20/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >> >>>> S- T S- J973 >>>> H- KQT7 H- J52 >>>> D- K98532 D- Q74 >>>> C- Q3 C- A84 >> >>>> West North East South (usual directions) >>>> P >>>> P 1NT P P >>>> Dbl P 2S Dbl >>>> 3D All pass >> >>>> Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor >>>> declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was >>>> not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel >>>> applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card >>>> said this. >> >>> No adjustment for UI. If West thought that East "was supposed to bid 2C" >>> (I don't play this convention), then East's actual 2S bid is enough for me >>> to presume that West would have "woken up" to the fact that the wheels had >>> somehow come off without the UI from the lack of an alert, so he's entitled >>> to take his best shot. >> >>Is 2S impossible, or merely unlikely? Most players who play Brozel will >>bid an independent suit in response if they hold it. If East held >>somthing like QJ9xxx Axx xx xx, 2Sx is probably down one and 3D could be >>worse. I think passing 2Sx is an LA here, given that East would only >>bid 2S with a suit he expected to be better than West's. > >Sounds right to me, if that is in fact how the convention is played (I take >it West is allowed to pass 2C). I'd have described that as East "supposed >to bid 2C unless he has a suit of his own". If the hand David gives above >is a 2S bid, then pass is certainly an LA to 3D. > >>I don't think this is the same situation as a theoretically possible >>bid, such as 1NT-2H(intended as transfer)-3H. With no agreements here, >>it is unlikely that the transfer would be broken to any bid other than >>3S, and the 2H bidder can thus use the odd break to conclude that there >>has been a misunderstanding and bid 4S. > >...which is how I read Marv's original post. (Trying to be humble, for the >first time here...) I shouldn't have responded so quickly; next time I'll >look up Brozel first. > >And now it's a much harder question. Whether I adjust might depend on the >sense I get from talking to West as to whether what Marv describes as >"intended as Brozel" actually meant that he thought he had agreed to play >Brozel in the passout seat or that he knew he didn't have an agreement and >was hoping partner would read his double as Brozel. > >There's an evil little demon inside of me that wants to adjust this score >just so that East will get what he deserves for that awful 2S bid, which >doesn't look right no matter what West's passed-hand double was. > > >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 > what would east have bid holding KQxxxx xxx x xxx The doubler holding S AJxx ? It's not as though West has enough to make a game try, or even find another bid (although in the UK we all open that 2 or 3D, given the oppo likely have a spade fit, never mind about our possible heart fit). 2S doubled down about 3 I'd rule -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 14:25:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:25:37 +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 OAA29735 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:25:31 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA20824 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199807220426.VAA20824@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: summertime Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:26:13 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > The laws are specific in requiring that the damage > >shall be caused by the infraction. They do not provide > >for redress where the infraction has merely provided > >opportunity for opponent to do something stupid. > > If a player infringes the law but his action is not > >the cause of damage the procedural penalty is > >available to the Director but score adjustment is not, > >as the laws and precedents stand today. Logic, Kaplan, Kooijman, Stevenson, all say otherwise. One can be damaged and still not get redress. If I remember, Kaplan's words were "no redress," not "no damage," when the NOS does something really bad subsequent to the infraction, and not a consequence of it. The word "egregious" was further explained by him, if I remember right, as "far out," and something else I can't remember. > >There cannot > >be advantage to the offender without there is disadvantage > >(damage) to non-offender in my book since the advantage > >has to be reflected in the result obtained.~~Grattan~~]+++ > > I'm very glad to see that this is your opinion. Of course I > agree 100%. > > The problem is that TDs and ACs are adjusting for the OS only. The problem is that TDs and ACs are adjusting for both sides, often with illegal artificial adjustments (avg+, avg-) > > The same effect as an adjustment for the OS only can of course be > achieved by a PP. This is legal if you consider that the NOS was > not damaged. It's pretty silly to use a PP for this purpose, pretending that good ethics constitute a "procedure." Besides, a PP does *not* have the same effect. If you record a top that the OS scores illegally, then assess the OS a PP equal to a top, you rob every other pair in that field of the matchpoint they earned by bettering the offending pair. > > We often hear about adjustments for the OS only that is > calculated to match a gain by the irregularity. As Grattan says, > if it really is a gain by the irregularity, then surely there was > damage to the NOS. And in that case they should have had an > adjusted score as well. Why, if they don't have it coming? > > I would prefer to follow the current laws literally, and adjust > for both sides, even in the case of the double shot. Okay, follow the laws literally. L12 starts out by saying "The director may award an adjusted score (or scores) on his own initiative..." If your interpretation is correct, that language is a mistake. Law 12C2 says that the score can be adjusted for the OS *or* (really an *and/or*) for the NOS. If your interpretation is correct, the *or* is a mistake and should be an *and*. L16 is the only Law that deals with "damage" rather than "damage to the non-offending side." Is that a mistake? Doesn't stealing a good result through UI damage the field? L72B1 says that a TD may award "an adjusted score..." If your interpretation is correct, that wording is a mistake and should be "adjusted scores." I prefer to believe that these are not mistakes, also preferring to "follow the current laws literally." Excuse any blunders, I'm leaving for Chicago and don't have time to edit. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 17:19:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:19:20 +1000 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA29869 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:19:05 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id IAA24762 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:20:31 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Jul 98 08:19 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <199807201744.KAA05251@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Jul 20 18:52:18 1998 > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by mail-relay.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA00461 > for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:52:15 +0100 (BST) > X-Envelope-From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) > id DAA20383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 03:43:35 +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 > DAA20378 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 > 03:43:28 +1000 > Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n79.san.rr.com [204.210.49.121]) > by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05251 > for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:44:55 -0700 > (PDT) > Message-Id: <199807201744.KAA05251@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> > Reply-To: > From: "Marvin L. French" > To: > Subject: Ruling > Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:42:58 -0700 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Priority: 3 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > Vulnerability: Both > Dealer: South > > S- AK82 > H- A94 > D- AT6 > C- JT2 > > S- T S- J973 > H- KQT7 H- J52 > D- K98532 D- Q74 > C- Q3 C- A84 > > S- Q654 > H- 863 > D- J > C- K9765 > > West North East South (usual directions) > P > P 1NT P P > Dbl P 2S Dbl > 3D All pass > > Result, down one, for 9-1/2 matchpoints with 12 top (despite the poor > declarer play). The double, intended as Brozel (one-suited hand), was > not Alerted. East, who was supposed to bid 2C, did not think Brozel > applied in the reopening position, although nothing on the E-W card > said this. > I read this as the card said Brozel over 1nt (with no mention of when it might be off) rather than no mention of Brozel per se, so I would assume that the X was actually Brozel. > Your ruling? It sounds as if there are three "sensible" ways to play Brozel a) 2C Compulsory b) Bid 2C unless you have a good suit and very short clubs c) Bid 2C unless you have a good suit I would allow "wake-ups" in a) and b) but only in c) if the OS can demonstrate that any hand good enough to bid 2S would already have bid Brozel over 1NT. Regardless I think an adjustment may be in order for MI (assuming East/West did not correctly inform NOS before play) South may well be able to double 3D and play there or in 3S. I'll assume West would still misplay diamonds and give +200/-200. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 17:49:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:49:18 +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 RAA29921 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:49:11 +1000 Received: from modem109.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.109] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0yytfy-0003na-00; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:51:02 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:46:09 +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 "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Ruling > > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > > >Is 2S impossible, or merely unlikely? Most players who play > Brozel will > > >bid an independent suit in response if they hold it. If East held > > >somthing like QJ9xxx Axx xx xx, 2Sx is probably down one and 3D > could be > > >worse. > +[The immediate 2S should perhaps show a hand which is only considered fit to play in Spades and totally worthless in any other denomination. Maybe with an extra Spade instead of that ace ? There is a difference if he responds 2C and then removes partner's next call, or a double of 2C, to 2S; presumably he was then prepared to consider some other spot - a suit in which he has A.x.x. maybe if partner lands in it. Grattan] + From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 17:49:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:49:16 +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 RAA29920 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:49:09 +1000 Received: from modem109.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.109] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yytfx-0003na-00; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:51:01 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:43:36 +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 "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > Subject: Re: Ruling > > From: RCraigH@aol.com > > This result is again based on the conclusion that this pair had an agreement > > as to the meaning of the double of 1NT in the balancing seat. The AC must > > find that to be the case before it can establish any violation, which is a > > prerequisite to making any score adjustment. The facts presented in the > > original post do not establish an agreement. Hence no violation. Hence, no > > adjustment. ++++[ Hold on a second. West *thought* he had an agreement and acted upon it; then when he heard East bid 2S he removed it - leading to the suggestion that, if West had the agreement he had doubled on, Pass was a L.A. If that is so then the question is whether he has UI and whether he has made use of that UI in changing his mind about having an agreement. The Director does not have to consider whether he actually did have an agreement; he cannot be reminded that he does not by the UI. ~~ Grattan ~~] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 18:36:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:36:48 +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 SAA29990 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:36:41 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-104.uunet.be [194.7.13.104]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28197 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:38:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35B5071D.F5B674F8@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:24:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Emergency Departures X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35B4A720.379E@txdirect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Albert "biig-Al" Lochli wrote: > > I have been searching the Laws and ACBL Handbook, Regulations, > and Tech files without success. > > Question One: What is the controlling citation to cover > the emergency departure of a player - due to illness et al - > when there is no available substitute {In both cases had a playing > director}. > Is there an Offending side to cause average plus scoring?? > If there is an ACBL regulation, I don't know it (of course I wouldn't). If there is a WBF regulation, I've never heard of it. I hope it exists and if it doesn't I'm sure Ton has just put it on his list of items to add before Lille (snel doen, Ton). If there is no regulation, let me propose what I think is the best one: -results against such a pair remain. -all other pairs failing to meet the missing pair get the same treatment as if there were a bye -the pair itself, although receiving regular scores and thus a final result, is probably scrapped from the final table. I apply that regulation whenever a complete round of boards is lost. I might do something else for a pair that start the tournament fighting and leave after three rounds. I'd probably consider scrapping the three rounds altogether, but I would have to be sufficiently convinced they had bad results through their bad temperament at all three rounds. All in all, better never to scrap results once played. > Question Two: If it is uncited in any Law or regulation. What > is the best, method of handling this?? Average/Average; average/average > plus; > average-minus/average plus; NO : no score at all. > Disqualification and not count the departing > players results at all?? certainly not. In the cases cited the illness, emergency > departures > are real and not contrived. > > Case one: Club game. Playing director. 15 Table game, round 7. > Actualy round 7, second board of 2 - a score can be obtained on the > second board. > Exactly at the mid point of the match!! [no manipulation, it is where it > happened] > One party is unable to continue and has to be transported out. > No substitute. How best is this to be scored?? Citations under the > Law are required. [Anyone able to answer under ACBL rules & Regulations > is also invited to respond - but a citation of the rule and where it may > be found is required.] > All subsequent boards (including the one at the unfinished table and even the unfinished board if the player got sick half way through it) simply omitted. > Historical Case two: Club game 9 rounds of 3 boards 9 or 10 tables. At > round > six a member is taken ill, transported and hospitalized for four days. > In his absence first the scores were averaged. The departing pair, with > a > n 81% score wins. One member causes a re-score Average/average plus. > Same > pair wins. Okay it is re-scored average minus/average plus. Now the > protester wins by 0.13 [that is 13/100ths] and the departed pair is > second. > No citation is ever given for why, and the club involved lost a pair of > upset players for two years. Non-withstanding the ethics of > re-computing > the scores until a method of winning is devised is there any basis in > Law or regulation for this?? Now comes case one [above] same deadhead > is > trying to influence method of scoring to whatever benefits him. > See why a regulation is needed ? Probably the regulation I propose will cause the least hassle. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 19:06:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:06:35 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA00162 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:06:26 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id LAA18981 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01IZP6CJ0YDC001ADX@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:07:44 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:07:39 +0000 (MED) Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:07:39 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: my proposal to the WBFLC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT/11C7B2C72300*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C7B2C72300 X400-MTS-identifier: [;3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We seem to have a problem. Let me start to describe what in my opinion the problem is. It is not the question whether a double shot is allowed, it is not. To be more precise: if damage occurs because a player chooses to deviate from normal bridge and normal bridge would have given him a good score in case of an infraction by an opponent, we do not redress the score. We follow the same line if a player not voluntarily plays 'not normal bridge'. This approach is not new, it exists for decades and may be discussed of course, but I don't see a reason to change it. The question remains where the line between normal and less than normal has to be drawn. We use the word 'normal' in the laws (69 -71) and take decisions in this respect regularly. We could follow the same line. If we do so that means that we enlarge the area of consequent-damage. The real problem is that in Europe, and in other places where I have been to explain the laws, in those cases where consequent damage does not exist but the offenders took advantage, the score for the offenders is adjusted. This is how we educate our TD's and in my opinion the laws allow us to do so. This is also the approach Edgar follows in his contributions explaining the laws. But some of us, including the ACBL, say that the laws do not allow this. I wouldn't mind about it if the discussion was academic. But it isn't. Giving PP's to restore equity does work for the offenders but not for other participants. And exactly that is the reason I don't like this solution. If a TD and/or an A.C. decides that 4spades after a hesitation is not allowed the score for that side should not exist anymore in the list of results. When Grattan assumes me to have some points of difference with past attitudes he is probably right, but this situation does not apply here. My approach is coherent with what we do (WBF, EBL etc. etc.) for years already. And I prefer that approach above the PP-solution. How to get there? We have to convince 'others' that the laws make it possible for us to adjust the score. Law 72B1 is clear: an adjusted score when the offenders took advantage. This covers the illegal lead from dummy accepted and allowing to make 6NT. It covers some hesitation cases as well (he could have known). More important is that 72B1 shows us that the lawmakers didn't have the intention to forbid an adjusted score if there is no consequent damage. If the laws use the word 'damage' they do not distinct consequent from subsequent damage. This gives us a solution. If the innocent side is not damaged (consequently nor subsequently) then the offending side din't take advantage and then there is no need for an adjusted score. If the innocent is damaged (consequently or subsequently) then the offending side took advantage and an adjusted score is needed. For both sides in case of consequent and only for the offending side in case of subsequent damage. I remember an article in tBW years ago in which Edgar described a case in which the innocent side was partly subsequently and partly consequently damaged. And they got redress for that consequent part. Which gives us another solution. In case of not normal bridge which gives the offenders advantage we define damage to be build up partly (with a bottom of 20%) consequently and partly subsequently (at most 80%). Now everyone has to admit that the laws allow us to give an adjusted score. And all those who allow the double shot are consequently and partly (at least 20%) satisfied. The above will be brought to our LC-meetings. I hope to get us in one line. Ton Kooijman From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 22 21:06:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:06:31 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA00431 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:06:24 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yywkw-0002bm-00; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:08:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:16:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >he has made use of that UI in changing his mind about having an >agreement. The Director does not have to consider whether he actually >did have an agreement; he cannot be reminded that he does not by the UI. It is not as simple as that. If a player has AI and UI leading to a conclusion then the TD must consider not just whether the UI reminded him: after all, if the AI will *definitely* remind him then it does not matter. Example: 1NT P 4H, complete signoff. Partner alerts and bids 4S. You know he has not taken it as a complete signoff when he bids 4S, and the fact that he also alerted is irrelevant: so long as you get full information from the AI it does not matter. In the current case, if 2S is *not* allowed by system, then a 2S bid tells you that your partner is not playing the same system [*], and you are entitled to use that information. The problems on this hand come when 2S is unlikely but possible. [*] You should remember this Grattan - we played as regular partners for two years ! :) -- 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 Jul 22 21:06:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:06:29 +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 VAA00430 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:06:21 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yywkr-0002b5-00; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:08:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:14:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Emergency Departures In-Reply-To: <35B4A720.379E@txdirect.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Albert "biig-Al" Lochli wrote: >I have been searching the Laws and ACBL Handbook, Regulations, >and Tech files without success. > >Question One: What is the controlling citation to cover >the emergency departure of a player - due to illness et al - >when there is no available substitute {In both cases had a playing >director}. >Is there an Offending side to cause average plus scoring?? > >Question Two: If it is uncited in any Law or regulation. What >is the best, method of handling this?? Average/Average; average/average >plus; >average-minus/average plus; Disqualification and not count the departing >players results at all?? In the cases cited the illness, emergency >departures >are real and not contrived. > >Case one: Club game. Playing director. 15 Table game, round 7. >Actualy round 7, second board of 2 - a score can be obtained on the >second board. >Exactly at the mid point of the match!! [no manipulation, it is where it >happened] >One party is unable to continue and has to be transported out. >No substitute. How best is this to be scored?? Citations under the >Law are required. [Anyone able to answer under ACBL rules & Regulations >is also invited to respond - but a citation of the rule and where it may >be found is required.] > >Historical Case two: Club game 9 rounds of 3 boards 9 or 10 tables. At >round >six a member is taken ill, transported and hospitalized for four days. >In his absence first the scores were averaged. The departing pair, with >a >n 81% score wins. One member causes a re-score Average/average plus. >Same >pair wins. Okay it is re-scored average minus/average plus. Now the >protester wins by 0.13 [that is 13/100ths] and the departed pair is >second. >No citation is ever given for why, and the club involved lost a pair of >upset players for two years. Non-withstanding the ethics of >re-computing >the scores until a method of winning is devised is there any basis in >Law or regulation for this?? Now comes case one [above] same deadhead >is >trying to influence method of scoring to whatever benefits him. While the person concerned is clearly anathema to a good bridge club, and should be dealt with by social pressure there is no doubt that any SO requires procedures to cover such cases. This not a matter of Law because L78D provides a requirement for the SO to decide things of this nature in advance. The solution in England/Wales is to purchase the EBU Supplement to the EBL TD Guide. This has regulations to cover ties, withdrawals, non- arrivals, late arrivals, and various other things. It is quite cheap [something like 3 ukp]. Enquiries should be made to EBU Bridge Shop , Tel +44 (0)1296 394414. [No, I am *not* on commission]. Any club can then say that the regulations therein apply if there is a difficulty. They can then put the Guide in a cupboard and forget about it until a difficulty arises. What about other clubs? I suggest that, if their National Authority does not publish regulations to cover such eventualities, they might seriously consider purchasing the EBU Supplement anyway. For withdrawals and so on the regulations will do admirably, even though the section on alerting is peculiar to England/Wales. According to the EBU Supplement: 80.25 Withdrawals/non-arrival and stand-by contestants 80.25.4 Not all play all - withdrawal part way through a session All scores obtained against the withdrawn contestant stand. Any contestant required to sit out as a result of the withdrawal receives, in a standard pairs contest, 60% per board not played or session average, whichever is higher. So anyone using the book will give A/A+ for any boards not played, and will not permit the departing player to feature in the final ranking [because they have 'withdrawn']. Is this right? Is it fair? It does not matter: it is a regulation, so I just apply it, and *that* saves argument. If I had to decide a regulation myself, I would probably decide fairer is the following: If a pair withdraws without adequate reason then they do not appear in the final ranking list and 80.25.4 applies. If a pair withdraws because of accident, illness or emergency, having completed two-thirds of the boards, then they receive average-minus for any unplayed boards: 80.25.4 applies. If a pair withdraws because of accident, illness or emergency, having not completed two-thirds of the boards, then they do not appear in the final ranking list and 80.25.4 applies. -- 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 Jul 23 01:01:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 01:01:04 +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 BAA03311 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 01:00:52 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA12185; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:02:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-19.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.51) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012095; Wed Jul 22 10:01:34 1998 Received: by har-pa1-19.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDB55F.88885AC0@har-pa1-19.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:57:35 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDB55F.88885AC0@har-pa1-19.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Grattan'" Subject: RE: Ruling Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:49:52 -0400 Encoding: 14 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 3:43 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling Grattan "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) Here's another "law" the ACBL will probably opt out on...we need every dues paying member we can get in this zone. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 23 03:02:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:02:37 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03833 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:02:26 +1000 Received: from cph36.ppp.dknet.dk (cph36.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.36]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA24766 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:04:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:04:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35b90b4f.3919535@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT/11C7B2C72300*@MHS> In-Reply-To: <3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT/11C7B2C72300*@MHS> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:07:39 +0000 (MED), KOOYMAN wrote: >We seem to have a problem. Let me start to describe what in my opinion = the >problem is. It is not the question whether a double shot is allowed, it = is not. My problem with the double shot is primarily that the laws do not seem to say that it is illegal. >To be more precise: if damage occurs because a player chooses to deviate= from >normal bridge and normal bridge would have given him a good score in = case of an >infraction by an opponent, we do not redress the score. This could almost be used directly as a law forbidding the double shot and allowing adjusting for the OS only. I would personally prefer the double shot to be legal, but I do not find it very unreasonable that it is illegal. >We follow the same line >if a player not voluntarily plays 'not normal bridge'.=20 Yes, and this is IMO quite unreasonable. Why should an offender be allowed to suddenly require his innocent opponents to play reasonably well against an illegally bid slam when they should have been playing against a game contract? The worst-case situation for the current practice I can imagine is this: in the last round of a tournament, the two top ranking pairs meet. One side bids 6S using UI; the other side lets it win by an egregious error. Adjust for the OS only; the OS now wins the tournament because the irregularity caused the oppenents to get -1430 instead of -680. Do we really want that? As a TD, I'd find it impossible to explain to the NOS why they should lose. >This approach is not new, it exists for decades and may be discussed of = course, >but I don't see a reason to change it.=20 There seems to be a reason to write it clearly into the next revision of the laws. >The question remains where the line >between normal and less than normal has to be drawn. We use the word = 'normal' >in the laws (69 -71) and take decisions in this respect regularly. We = could >follow the same line. If we do so that means that we enlarge the area of >consequent-damage.=20 > >The real problem is that in Europe, and in other places where I have = been to >explain the laws, in those cases where consequent damage does not exist = but the >offenders took advantage, the score for the offenders is adjusted. This = is how >we educate our TD's and in my opinion the laws allow us to do so. This = is also >the approach Edgar follows in his contributions explaining the laws. But= some >of us, including the ACBL, say that the laws do not allow this. I = wouldn't mind >about it if the discussion was academic. But it isn't. Giving PP's to = restore >equity does work for the offenders but not for other participants. And = exactly >that is the reason I don't like this solution. If a TD and/or an A.C. = decides >that 4spades after a hesitation is not allowed the score for that side = should >not exist anymore in the list of results.=20 I think this is wrong. As I've also answered Marvin, if the NOS is considered to have deserved its bad result, then that result is a reasonable result of the board to be compared with other tables. If the NOS had played correspondingly badly without an irregularity, then the result would have been just as bad. If not, then (at least some of) the damage must have been consequent, and the NOS should have an adjustment. To put it another way: if the achieved result is fair to the NOS, then surely it is also fair to the other tables. And if it is not fair to the NOS, then surely they should have redress - after all, they're the NOS. I basically think that we should _never_ consider it a problem if a NOS ends up with a good score that they might not have had without the irregularity. Whenever one side plays badly, the other side gets a good score. Committing an irregularity is a way of playing badly, and it should not be considered a problem if it gives the opponents a good score. When the irregularity is a revoke, we accept that; why not when it is a UI infraction? To my mind, the double shot is quite analogous to taking advantage of your opponent's penalty card. Why is the one considered practically cheating, while the other is perfectly correct? (The double shot is even quite risky, since you cannot know for sure that the presumed offender had a logical alternative.) >When Grattan assumes me to have some points of difference with past = attitudes >he is probably right, but this situation does not apply here. My = approach is >coherent with what we do (WBF, EBL etc. etc.) for years already. And I = prefer >that approach above the PP-solution.=20 So do I. >How to get there? We have to convince 'others' that the laws make it = possible >for us to adjust the score. Law 72B1 is clear: an adjusted score when = the >offenders took advantage. This covers the illegal lead from dummy = accepted and >allowing to make 6NT. It covers some hesitation cases as well (he could = have >known). More important is that 72B1 shows us that the lawmakers didn't = have the >intention to forbid an adjusted score if there is no consequent damage.=20 I still cannot understand how there can be advantage without damage to the other side. >I remember an article in tBW years ago in which Edgar described a case = in which >the innocent side was partly subsequently and partly consequently = damaged. And >they got redress for that consequent part.=20 If a reasonable redress for the consequent part can be calculated, that would be fine. The problem is that it usually cannot. >Which gives us another solution. In >case of not normal bridge which gives the offenders advantage we define = damage >to be build up partly (with a bottom of 20%) consequently and partly >subsequently (at most 80%). Now everyone has to admit that the laws = allow us to >give an adjusted score. And all those who allow the double shot are >consequently and partly (at least 20%) satisfied. How would you calculate this? I'd like to see an example, so I can understand exactly what you mean. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 23 03:02:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:02:35 +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 DAA03835 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:02:27 +1000 Received: from cph36.ppp.dknet.dk (cph36.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.36]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA24755 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:04:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: summertime Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:04:21 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35bd1a41.7745567@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, 20 Jul 1998 17:53:12 +0100, David Martin wrote: >> ########### Declarer is in a slam and has cut himself off from a >> dummy that contains a long running suit. The slam is unmakable >> without the tricks in dummy's long suit. What should the ruling be if >> Declarer leads from the wrong hand (dummy) and his RHO carelessly >> follows suit? Even following the current practice of not adjusting for the NOS if they've taken "wild or gambling" action, I think I'd adjust for both sides. Carelessly following suit is IMO not "wild or gambling". But when we're discussing more theoretically what is legal according to the book, I think the only legal way is to adjust for both sides. And I find it reasonable, too. RHO has made an ordinary mistake in a situation that he should never have been in. He has clearly been damaged by the irregularity. When a player revokes, his opponents usually get a good board as a result, even though they may have played badly. No-one seems to find this particularly unreasonable. Correspondingly, I do not find it unreasonable if the NOS often gets a good score (even if they have played badly) when a player commits an irregularity that leads to an adjusted score. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 23 03:02:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:02:36 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA03834 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:02:27 +1000 Received: from cph36.ppp.dknet.dk (cph36.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.36]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA24750 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:04:18 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: summertime Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:04:17 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35be1a7c.7803991@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199807220426.VAA20824@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199807220426.VAA20824@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:26:13 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > The laws are specific in requiring that the damage >> >shall be caused by the infraction. They do not provide >> >for redress where the infraction has merely provided >> >opportunity for opponent to do something stupid. >> > If a player infringes the law but his action is not >> >the cause of damage the procedural penalty is >> >available to the Director but score adjustment is not, >> >as the laws and precedents stand today. > >Logic, Kaplan, Kooijman, Stevenson, all say otherwise. One can be >damaged and still not get redress. As for logic: we disagree about that. As for Kaplan and Kooijman: you seem to be right. As for Stevenson, what David really said was: > Note that I do not believe the approach to be clearly illegal >otherwise I would not support it: I consider their is sufficient >ambiguity and flexibility in the relevant Laws that there is no reason >not to follow the accepted interpretations. That attitude is not far from mine. >If I remember, Kaplan's words were >"no redress," not "no damage," when the NOS does something really bad >subsequent to the infraction, and not a consequence of it. The word >"egregious" was further explained by him, if I remember right, as >"far out," and something else I can't remember.=20 But he did not write those words into the laws. The laws say that when there is damage (in the situations we're talking about, e.g. L16A), the NOS gets "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". They do not mention any exceptions in which there should be no redress even though there is damage. Marv: >The problem is that TDs and ACs are adjusting for both sides,=20 That is not a problem in itself. >often with illegal artificial adjustments (avg+, avg-) Yes, that is a problem (not in Denmark, I hope, but clearly in the ACBL). >> The same effect as an adjustment for the OS only can of course be >> achieved by a PP. This is legal if you consider that the NOS was >> not damaged. > >It's pretty silly to use a PP for this purpose, pretending that good >ethics constitute a "procedure."=20 Certainly. We quite agree about that. >> We often hear about adjustments for the OS only that is >> calculated to match a gain by the irregularity. As Grattan says, >> if it really is a gain by the irregularity, then surely there was >> damage to the NOS. And in that case they should have had an >> adjusted score as well. > >Why, if they don't have it coming? Because they _have_ it coming. They were damaged by the irregularity, so the laws say that we must adjust the score. >> I would prefer to follow the current laws literally, and adjust >> for both sides, even in the case of the double shot.=20 > >Okay, follow the laws literally. L12 starts out by saying "The >director may award an adjusted score (or scores) on his own >initiative..." No, Marv, it does not. Leaving out what the "..." stands for here is completely misleading. In addition, you've left out a few other words. This is the second time in this discussion that you have manipulated what seemed to be a quotation of L12 to better suit your argument. We may disagree on BLML, but surely we should be able to argue without misrepresenting the words of the law? L12 begins: "The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or: " followed by three subsections that are not interesting here. The important part is of course "but only when these Laws empower him to do so". > If your interpretation is correct, that language is a >mistake. Law 12C2 says that the score can be adjusted for the OS *or* >(really an *and/or*) for the NOS. If your interpretation is correct, >the *or* is a mistake and should be an *and*. We've discussed this before. The wording is not perfectly clear; your interpretation differs from mine. See my message from 1998-07-14 with Message-ID <35b0a008.6453850@pipmail.dknet.dk>. >L16 is the only Law >that deals with "damage" rather than "damage to the non-offending >side." Is that a mistake? Doesn't stealing a good result through UI >damage the field? Of course. But it can only do so by also damaging the opponents. If (as you seem to argue) the opponents deserve to keep their bad result, then that is also the correct result for the field. > L72B1 says that a TD may award "an adjusted >score..." If your interpretation is correct, that wording is a >mistake and should be "adjusted scores." I prefer to believe that >these are not mistakes, also preferring to "follow the current laws >literally." It is quite clear to me that the laws use the word "score" somewhat inconsistently. It is used in singular for the score of a board (for both sides), and it is also used for the individual scores assigned to the two sides. See for instance L12C1: "... the Director awards an artificial adjusted score ..."; this is an example of singular "score" where it often means 40% to one side and 60% to the other side. The immediately following sentence uses "score" in the other way: "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance". The "score (or scores)" in the beginning of L12 probably simply refer to the fact that the adjusted scores for the two sides may or may not be equal. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 23 06:35:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 06:35:10 +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 GAA04531 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 06:35:03 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yz5dD-0006mN-00; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:37:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:09:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Procedural Penalties MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why do we issue Procedural Penalties in the form of fines? It is not because we wish to make players suffer. It is not as revenge to teach players a lesson because they have caused work for TDs. So why? The reason to issue PPs is so as to persuade players to follow procedure in future. It is because it seems the best method of making the game as enjoyable as possible for as many people as possible. One of the points made on this list from time to time is that it is wrong not to fine people when there is an adjustment, but to fine them if there is no adjustment. What is wrong with it? It is certainly legal. There is nothing in the Laws that says when a fine should be issued, and thus it is left as a judgement matter for TDs and ACs, or a matter of interpretation or regulation for SOs. It seems to me that the objection to it is some abstract notion that it is unfair to fine for an offence but not to fine for a similar offence in another situation. This abstract notion of justice ignores the realities of the game, and points TDs in the wrong direction. It is similar to the notion of "protecting the field", where totally trivial amendments in people's scores are given as an excuse for BLs to act unreasonably - in other words it puts an abstract notion ahead of the good of the game. I believe that when a TD or AC decides to issue a PP, and when they decide whether it should be a warning or a fine, and how much a fine should be, the last thing in their minds should be some abstract notion of absolute justice. The greater good of the game of bridge and its players would be a far preferable basis for deciding these matters. I am happy with an approach that fines are given in situations where trouble has been caused by a failure to follow procedure, but that there is no damage ensuing. I am happy that when damage results in an adjustment against the Os that there is no need to fine because the adjustment will act as a deterrent against a repetition of the offence. I am happy that this method is legal and acts for the greater good. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 23 10:23:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:23:30 +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 KAA04947 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:23:23 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yz9CD-0000uA-00; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 01:24:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Why do we issue Procedural Penalties in the form of fines? > > > I am happy with an approach that fines are given in situations where >trouble has been caused by a failure to follow procedure, but that >there is no damage ensuing. I am happy that when damage results in an >adjustment against the Os that there is no need to fine because the >adjustment will act as a deterrent against a repetition of the offence. >I am happy that this method is legal and acts for the greater good. > > I have as a matter of course issued a 10% fine for any misboarding at the YC (strong nights only) for about the last three years. The players at the next table may count and find a 14-12, which I can correct but the PP is still issued (to either one or both pairs). If the new table doesn't count they get one too. I was brought to this position simply because there were a few players who *insisted* on looking at curtain cards after the hand (which I condone in a club game provided they are left face up over the slots in the board as this reduces the chance of them going in the wrong slot), or looking at partner's hand, or picking up dummy's last card when dummy is at the bar and generally spoiling the game for others by misboarding. The end result is that instances of misboarding have declined from 2 or three per night (20+ tables) to about one per week. Further the players in general know that the PP is automatically issued (no appeal, no discussions, no problem). I believe that this is for the greater good. Am I being too draconian, or is this a reasonable approach? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 23 12:31:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:31:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05156 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:31:06 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yzBBl-0007JD-00; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 02:33:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:32:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties 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 >> >> Why do we issue Procedural Penalties in the form of fines? >> >> >> I am happy with an approach that fines are given in situations where >>trouble has been caused by a failure to follow procedure, but that >>there is no damage ensuing. I am happy that when damage results in an >>adjustment against the Os that there is no need to fine because the >>adjustment will act as a deterrent against a repetition of the offence. >>I am happy that this method is legal and acts for the greater good. >> >> >I have as a matter of course issued a 10% fine for any misboarding at >the YC (strong nights only) for about the last three years. The players >at the next table may count and find a 14-12, which I can correct but >the PP is still issued (to either one or both pairs). If the new table >doesn't count they get one too. > >I was brought to this position simply because there were a few players >who *insisted* on looking at curtain cards after the hand (which I >condone in a club game provided they are left face up over the slots in >the board as this reduces the chance of them going in the wrong slot), >or looking at partner's hand, or picking up dummy's last card when dummy >is at the bar and generally spoiling the game for others by misboarding. > >The end result is that instances of misboarding have declined from 2 or >three per night (20+ tables) to about one per week. Further the players >in general know that the PP is automatically issued (no appeal, no >discussions, no problem). I believe that this is for the greater good. > >Am I being too draconian, or is this a reasonable approach? You have come up with a solution to a peceived problem: that is *exactly* what PPs are for. -- 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 Jul 23 21:27:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:27:51 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06241 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:27:43 +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 NAA27713 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:29:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35B712E0.20CA5CEC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:39:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties 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: > > Why do we issue Procedural Penalties in the form of fines? > > It is not because we wish to make players suffer. It is not as > revenge to teach players a lesson because they have caused work for > TDs. So why? > > The reason to issue PPs is so as to persuade players to follow > procedure in future. It is because it seems the best method of making > the game as enjoyable as possible for as many people as possible. > > One of the points made on this list from time to time is that it is > wrong not to fine people when there is an adjustment, but to fine them > if there is no adjustment. What is wrong with it? > I have read David's post and agree with it. It may seem the "points made on this list from time to time" seems to include my point about not accepting AC's to award PP's. This is not the same issue, as you for sure will understand. If the ACs in general think that giving a PP for an ethical violation when no damage has resulted, then I as TD will go along with that and start giving the same sort of PP's, whenever a similar case comes up. I would like the list to give some examples of the type of situations where PP's seem appropriate. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 23 23:34:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:34:43 +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 XAA06657 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:34:35 +1000 Received: from client86ae.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.86.174] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0yzLXr-0001Gv-00; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:36:31 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: summertime - apologetically long Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:25:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdb63d$620818c0$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 : -From: Marvin L. French > >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > The laws are specific in requiring that the damage >> >shall be caused by the infraction. They do not provide >> >for redress where the infraction has merely provided >> >opportunity for opponent to do something stupid. >> > If a player infringes the law but his action is not >> >the cause of damage the procedural penalty is >> >available to the Director but score adjustment is not, >> >as the laws and precedents stand today. > >Logic, Kaplan, Kooijman, Stevenson, all say otherwise. One can be >damaged and still not get redress. If I remember, Kaplan's words were >"no redress," not "no damage," when the NOS does something really bad >subsequent to the infraction, and not a consequence of it. The word >"egregious" was further explained by him, if I remember right, as >"far out," and something else I can't remember. > >> >There cannot >> >be advantage to the offender without there is disadvantage >> >(damage) to non-offender in my book since the advantage >> >has to be reflected in the result obtained.~~Grattan~~]+++ >> >> I'm very glad to see that this is your opinion. Of course I >> agree 100%. >> >> The problem is that TDs and ACs are adjusting for the OS only. > >The problem is that TDs and ACs are adjusting for both sides, often >with illegal artificial adjustments (avg+, avg-) >> >> The same effect as an adjustment for the OS only can of course be >> achieved by a PP. This is legal if you consider that the NOS was >> not damaged. > >It's pretty silly to use a PP for this purpose, pretending that good >ethics constitute a "procedure." Besides, a PP does *not* have the >same effect. If you record a top that the OS scores illegally, then >assess the OS a PP equal to a top, you rob every other pair in that >field of the matchpoint they earned by bettering the offending pair. >> >> We often hear about adjustments for the OS only that is >> calculated to match a gain by the irregularity. As Grattan says, >> if it really is a gain by the irregularity, then surely there was >> damage to the NOS. And in that case they should have had an >> adjusted score as well. > >Why, if they don't have it coming? > >> >> I would prefer to follow the current laws literally, and adjust >> for both sides, even in the case of the double shot. > >Okay, follow the laws literally. L12 starts out by saying "The >director may award an adjusted score (or scores) on his own >initiative..." If your interpretation is correct, that language is a >mistake. Law 12C2 says that the score can be adjusted for the OS *or* >(really an *and/or*) for the NOS. If your interpretation is correct, >the *or* is a mistake and should be an *and*. L16 is the only Law >that deals with "damage" rather than "damage to the non-offending >side." Is that a mistake? Doesn't stealing a good result through UI >damage the field? L72B1 says that a TD may award "an adjusted >score..." If your interpretation is correct, that wording is a >mistake and should be "adjusted scores." I prefer to believe that >these are not mistakes, also preferring to "follow the current laws >literally." > ++++ There is a misunderstanding here of my interpretation; it does not preclude adjustment for one side only; it does preclude describing a remedy as *score adjustment* where opponent is not damaged - and this is based upon the teachings of Kaplan. Where there is nothing to adjust *any* action against an offender is by way of being a penalty for breaking the law.++++ .+++ I am finding it difficult to snip this one in view of what I want to add. Sorry folks! I need to put it on record that in all my extensive dealings with Edgar he *never* conceded redress (score adjustment) in respect of damage that was "subsequent" rather than "consequent". So in saying that score adjustment for the OS is appropriate you are saying, in Edgar's book, that NOs have been damaged by the infraction. And in truth this is what I think Ton and David S *are* saying when they want to adjust the score for OS although NOs have given away their right to adjustment by some subsequent "wild or reckless action", or even by a negligent mechanical fault (e.g. revoke), or as Ton phrases it 'a blunder'. There is as I see it no problem in the principle which I thought to have wide acceptance; to apply it is a matter of judgement. A difficulty does arise in any situation where there is a wish to *adjust the score* for OS even though NOs have not suffered damage. Firstly Edgar educated us to understand that players at other tables had no legitimate interests in events at 'table 1'; to reinforce the point he had words inserted in Law 92A to exclude people from questioning rulings given at tables other than their own. The concept of damage caused to the field was not entertained by Edgar, and wisely not. And it was Edgar certainly who said that an irregularity where redress for damage is not an issue should be handled with a procedural penalty; procedural penalties do not affect the scores of other players around the room who *should* be comparing scores with any score that is not due for adjustment. Secondly the laws consistently require consequent damage as the basis for score adjustment and currently we are distorting them if we think 'score adjustment' where there is no damage that comes from the infraction. Anyone who worked with Edgar will know how far he went to enshrine this in the Law Book. After all, a pair who perform stupidly and get -1700 are creating a score which it is quite proper for the rest of the room to compare with; stupidity is a normal feature of the game. If we are to change our attitude so that an infraction which does not cause an inferior score for opponents is to lead to an adjusted score for the offender we do need to be very careful about the way we do it. If the effect were thought desirable it seems to me that the way forward will lie in allowing that application of a procedural penalty where appropriate may be realized by a change in the contestant's personal score but leaving the remainder of the field unaffected. I just wonder if we are not opening up a large kettle of squirming eels, and I hope you will live with my scepticism. ~~~Grattan~~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 01:46:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:46:54 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09308 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:46:46 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA31046 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 11:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA28896; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 11:48:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 11:48:56 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807231548.LAA28896@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: summertime - apologetically long X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > If we are to change our attitude so that an infraction which > does not cause an inferior score for opponents is to lead > to an adjusted score for the offender we do need to be > very careful about the way we do it. It is this word "cause" that seems to be causing (heh) the difficulty. If the damage is subsequent and not consequent, it may still be "caused" by the irregularity. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 01:51:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:51:50 +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 BAA09328 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:51:44 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yzNgd-000372-00; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 15:53:44 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:28:08 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:28:05 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: SNIP > How to get there? We have to convince 'others' that the laws make it > possible > for us to adjust the score. Law 72B1 is clear: an adjusted score when > the > offenders took advantage. This covers the illegal lead from dummy > accepted and > allowing to make 6NT. > > ######### But do you adjust for both sides or just for Declarer? > ############ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 04:29:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:29:36 +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 EAA09915 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:29:27 +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 OAA07371 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807231830.OAA08939@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <35B712E0.20CA5CEC@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:39:28 +0200) Subject: Re: Procedural Penalties Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > I have read David's post and agree with it. > It may seem the "points made on this list from time to time" seems to > include my point about not accepting AC's to award PP's. > This is not the same issue, as you for sure will understand. > If the ACs in general think that giving a PP for an ethical violation > when no damage has resulted, then I as TD will go along with that and > start giving the same sort of PP's, whenever a similar case comes up. This is certainly necessary. In the ACBL appeals casebooks, I find a lot of AC's upholding the TD's ruling of no damage but adding a PP. Had there been no appeal by the non-offenders, there would be no PP. Effectively, when the AC awards a PP for something which happened at the table, it is ruling that the TD should have awarded the same PP had he been aware of the same facts. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 06:54:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 06:54:57 +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 GAA10342 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 06:54:50 +1000 Received: from modem108.bugs-bunny.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.108] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yzSPx-0003Kg-00; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:56:49 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 23:46:23 +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 "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > From: David Stevenson > > In the current case, if 2S is *not* allowed by system, then a 2S bid > tells you that your partner is not playing the same system [*], and you > are entitled to use that information. The problems on this hand come > when 2S is unlikely but possible. > +++ Although the systemic agreements may not allow of it partner is always entitled to judge it the bid to make on his hand; the question then is what kind of hand he will have to judge the bid opportune. And that is how it should be 'understood' when there is a UI problem. The fact that he bids 2S does *not* reveal a system misunderstanding since it is open to partner to use bridge judgement on the hand in full awareness of the meaning of the double. +++ > > [*] You should remember this Grattan - we played as regular partners > for two years ! :) ++ I do not recall that we ever had a misunderstanding :-) ++ . From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 08:50:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:50:31 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10570 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:50:23 +1000 Received: from modem79.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.207] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yzUDl-0008RU-00; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:52:21 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:38:10 +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 "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > From: Tim West-meads > > It sounds as if there are three "sensible" ways to play Brozel +++ [ I think there is only one sensible way to play bridge, and that is to recognize, no matter what the agreement is about Brozel, partner will always be entitled to use bridge judgement in deciding to make some other bid on some hand than the one that the convention demands ~~~ Grattan] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 08:50:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:50:31 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10571 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:50:24 +1000 Received: from modem79.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.207] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yzUDm-0008RU-00; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:52:23 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:49:53 +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 "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > From: KOOYMAN > > > Ton wrote: > How to get there? We have to convince 'others' that the laws make it possible > for us to adjust the score. Law 72B1 is clear: an adjusted score when the > offenders took advantage. This covers the illegal lead from dummy accepted and > allowing to make 6NT. It covers some hesitation cases as well (he could have > known). More important is that 72B1 shows us that the lawmakers didn't have the > intention to forbid an adjusted score if there is no consequent damage. > +++ I do not have a difficulty with Ton's objective but I am certainly anxious that we explain ourselves clearly. Our problem at the moment is that we do not seem to be doing so (!). 'An adjusted score when the offenders took advantage' : I have still not understood what advantage if there is no damage to offenders. I tend to feel the discussion is going in circles because if there is advantage gained by offender I would say there must be damage to NO. 72B1 does *not* in fact say "offenders took advantage" it says the Director is to judge whether "the offending side *gained* an advantage", which is not the same thing - this law is concerned with the factual outcome of the hand not with offender's behaviour. The slam hand mentioned is a red herring; the actual case is exactly one I corresponded with Kaplan about a few years ago and when I finish putting together papers for our meetings in Lille I will go through twenty plus box files of such things to find, if I can, his actual letter. But I can tell you for certain that he said Law 11 was designed with that sort of situation in mind and is the one to apply. What Ton says about 72B1 surprises me. If the offending side "gained an advantage" through the irregularity that advantage must be visible in the score obtained at the table, in which case there is consequent damage. The whole Law 72B1 is written in such a way as to require the Director to wait and see if an advantage is *gained* and that advantage is in terms of gain to the offending side where the offender could have known "*the irregularity* would be likely to damage the non-offending side". The opening statement of 72B1 tells us that it exists precisely to deal with that possibility. If the result of the hand is unaffected there is nothing gained. This law is targeted on consequent damage. Where we draw the line between what is a consequence of the irregularity, and what is not, is a separate issue; I have sympathy for the view that we have drawn it too narrowly although Edgar would not concede it. ~~~ Grattan ~~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 08:55:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:55:43 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10599 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:55:37 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA08093 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29290; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:57:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:57:50 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807232257.SAA29290@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: KOOYMAN > We use the word 'normal' in the > laws (69 -71) and take decisions in this respect regularly. We could > follow the same line. If we do so that means that we enlarge the area > of consequent-damage. Thanks very much for the chance to comment. This is a clever proposal. Make no mistake, though, it will legalize the dreaded double shot in a lot of situations. If my opponents bid something potentially based on UI, and I choose to double holding no points and no trumps, who is to say it is irrational? After all, partner _might_ have them beaten. Personally, I still think this is a fine approach. I don't care whether the double shot is legal or not, but I think it is important to have clear rules about how to handle it. > Giving PP's to restore equity > does work for the offenders but not for other participants. Hear, hear! > How to get there? We have to convince 'others' that the laws make it > possible for us to adjust the score. Law 72B1 is clear: an adjusted > score when the offenders took advantage. L72B1 is marvellously phrased! I hadn't appreciated its full beauty until rereading it in response to this note. > I remember an article in tBW years ago in which Edgar described a case > in which the innocent side was partly subsequently and partly > consequently damaged. And they got redress for that consequent part. > Which gives us another solution. In case of not normal bridge which > gives the offenders advantage we define damage to be build up partly > (with a bottom of 20%) consequently and partly subsequently (at most > 80%). Now everyone has to admit that the laws allow us to give an > adjusted score. And all those who allow the double shot are > consequently and partly (at least 20%) satisfied. The above sounds far too complicated, and as people have argued in other contexts, there is no reason for there to be a floor or ceiling on the score. If the whole field is making game, and at one table there is some infraction in a part score contract (where game is never in the picture), equity is top/zero. You should not give 80%/20%. If you adopt "normal, including careless and inferior" as your standard, virtually all damage will be consequent, and we know how to deal with that. Simply saying "no adjustment to NOS for (rare) subsequent" damage seems good enough for practical cases. If a more complicated approach is needed, I'd suggest figuring separately the matchpoint (or IMP) result for each relevant result and adding and subtracting points separately for the infraction and for the abnormal play. Anyway, I hope you make good progress at your meeting. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 09:00:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:00:03 +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 IAA10619 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:59:57 +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 TAA07127 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA29310; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:02:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:02:11 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807232302.TAA29310@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Why should an offender > be allowed to suddenly require his innocent opponents to play > reasonably well against an illegally bid slam when they should > have been playing against a game contract? The argument as I understand it: Because bridge is no fun unless something is at stake. If the hand is over, why are we still playing? Both sides should have something to lose by bad play, or else play should cease. Of course not everyone will agree. I don't think either viewpoint is wrong. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 09:11:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:11:41 +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 JAA10645 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:11:34 +1000 Received: from modem35.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.163] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0yzUYH-0000Dh-00; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:13:33 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: summertime - apologetically long Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:01:32 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > From: Steve Willner > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > It is this word "cause" that seems to be causing (heh) the difficulty. > If the damage is subsequent and not consequent, it may still be > "caused" by the irregularity. ++++[ Yes; well maybe there is a case for including as consequences some things that have not been so regarded traditionally; that is a measure of the dynamics of the game and its changing attitudes. But we need consensus to do it, a willingness to make a fresh departure, and the skill to say what we mean.~ G ~]++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 24 20:26:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:26:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA11823 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:26:27 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yzf5O-000276-00; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:28:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:12:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <199807232302.TAA29310@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Why should an offender >> be allowed to suddenly require his innocent opponents to play >> reasonably well against an illegally bid slam when they should >> have been playing against a game contract? > >The argument as I understand it: >Because bridge is no fun unless something is at stake. If the hand >is over, why are we still playing? Both sides should have something >to lose by bad play, or else play should cease. How do you know it is over? What about further loss? >Of course not everyone will agree. I don't think either viewpoint >is wrong. I am not convinced that allowing the double shot loses the fun and interest in hands anyway. Would you really give up on a hand because you are *confident* about what the TD is about to rule? I think you are right that people have this view as to why the double shot is illegal but I do not think it would happen the way they expect if it were legal. In my view not allowing the double shot is against the general principles of sport and removes some fun and interest from the game by reducing the number of situations. -- 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 Jul 24 20:26:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:26:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA11824 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:26:27 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yzf5O-000275-00; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:28:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 04:01:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> From: Tim West-meads > >> It sounds as if there are three "sensible" ways to play Brozel >+++ [ I think there is only one sensible way to play bridge, >and that is to recognize, no matter what the agreement is >about Brozel, partner will always be entitled to use bridge >judgement in deciding to make some other bid on some >hand than the one that the convention demands ~~~ >Grattan] +++ Yes, of course, and the next time my partner responds 5NT to Stayman I shall remember this. In the real world, Grattan, people tend to follow the bids permitted by their system, and not make system up as they go along. I am not joking, but completely serious, when I say, Grattan, that you had a reputation as a player for not following this precept, so it really may be more difficult for you to realise that a majority of players do follow it. I think you are unduly harsh on players that never vary their system responses to suggest that you may not assume this. It is, after all, authorised information. Grattan wrote: >Grattan >> From: David Stevenson >> In the current case, if 2S is *not* allowed by system, then a 2S bid >> tells you that your partner is not playing the same system [*], and you >> are entitled to use that information. The problems on this hand come >> when 2S is unlikely but possible. >+++ Although the systemic agreements may not allow of it partner is >always entitled to judge it the bid to make on his hand; the question then >is what kind of hand he will have to judge the bid opportune. And that is >how it should be 'understood' when there is a UI problem. The fact >that he bids 2S does *not* reveal a system misunderstanding since it is >open to partner to use bridge judgement on the hand in full >awareness of the meaning of the double. +++ This is not correct. It is certainly AI whether partner would ever use such judgement. >> [*] You should remember this Grattan - we played as regular partners >> for two years ! :) >++ I do not recall that we ever had a misunderstanding :-) ++ . No, we didn't: you made up the system as you went along, and I guessed what we were playing . Mind you, I do remember 1D - 1H 1S 1NT - 2C which helped to bring the partnership to an end. -- 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 Jul 24 22:43:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:43:31 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA12245 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:43:23 +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 IAA10680 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980724084501.006e03ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:45:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <199807211246.IAA19779@sandpiper.bu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:46 AM 7/21/98 -0400, David wrote: >No, there need not have been an agreement about the meaning of the double. >The doubler clearly intended (hoped) that his double was to show a 1-suiter. >If the agreement was 1-suiter, then the doubler knew from the failure to >alert that his partner interpreted it differently, and that they had gone >off the rails (had he alerted, explained and bid 2S anyway, a pass would >have been clear). >If the agreement was not 1-suiter, then doubler was woken up to the fact >that he had misbid by the lack of alert. This too is UI. >In either case, the double had UI which suggested a 3D bid over passing. The doubler clearly hoped that his double "was to show" a one-suiter, but that could mean either: (a) He didn't remember what his agreements were, and hoped that the double would show a one-suiter by agreement, or (b) He knew full well that he had no agreement about this auction, but hoped that partner, who knew that a balancing double of a strong 1NT by a passed hand could hardly be natural (i.e. for penalty), and who knew that they had an agreement that it showed a one-suiter in the direct seat, would work out what he had. In the latter case, he would be alive to the possibility that partner would not interpret his double as he hoped, and might well have been prepared to "guess" that that was the case in the event of a response other than 2C, especially since, as several others have said, partner had plenty of chances to show a one-suiter of his own (although, admittedly, might not have chosen to do so). Before alerts, this would have been perfectly legitimate. But now, in positions like this, an alert or lack of an alert is *always* going to carry some UI. If we adjust, we are saying that the presence of alerts has made reasoning like this, in effect, an automatic infraction. So what is correct in these situations? Do we believe that: (1) There is a real difference between (a) and (b); the TD (or AC) must make his best effort to ascertain which is the case and the ruling should depend on what he decides, (2) There is no real difference; it shouldn't affect the ruling, or (3) There is a difference in theory, but we don't expect our TDs to be able to ascertain which is the case, so, presuming against the OS for lack of ability to read the players' minds, we assume (a) and rule accordingly? Personally, I don't like (2), but am torn between (1) and (3). (3) is certainly the practical answer, but I don't like the idea that the introduction of alerts has "illegalized" what strikes me as perfectly reasonable "bridge logic". 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 Jul 24 23:08:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 23:08:00 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12307 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 23:07:54 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA11272 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:16:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980724090934.006f32f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:09:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <01bdb4be$33069fe0$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:42 PM 7/21/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >***All please NOTE: Ton would like to avoid using a PP for offender >where opponent has made a blunder. We are putting it on the agenda >for Lille. A possible path is to say that in such circumstances the >penalty should normally take the form of an adjusted score for the >offending side, more or less invoking 84E. Ton suggests that a way >might be to redefine 'damage' in Law 16 and elsewhere so that >it includes both consequent and subsequent damage; I am wary of >this because it might pull in some situations we do not intend, >although I am not against his purpose. Fairly enough Ton as the >incoming Chairman will have some points of difference with past >attitudes. ~~~ comments please, especially from the North >Americas. ++ Grattan ++ *** Such a decision would, for the first time, introduce the notion of consequent vs. merely subsequent damage into the laws. Unless this is done with great care, it could mushroom into something very dangerous (not unlike the way North Americans are, more and more, applying the so-called "Kaplan doctrine"). This is a purely personal view, but I believe one sensible way to split the baby would be to say that the NOS can "break the connection between infraction and damage" (thus losing its rights to an adjustment) when the damage is the result of some subsequent application of the laws (a "legal error") rather than merely a bridge error. This would both cover Marv's example (NOs get a bad score by committing a subsequent infraction of their own) and Grattan's (NOs get a bad score by condoning a subsequent infraction by the OS). Critically, it would provide a clear line that such decisions couldn't stray beyond. We will open Pandora's box if we start denying adjustments in cases where the NOs got a bad score because, in somebody's opinion, they played bad bridge. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 00:07:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 00:07:15 +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 AAA12442 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 00:07:08 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19349 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:09:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980724090934.006f32f0@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Eric Landau wrote: (on the subject of subsequent and consequent damage) > > This is a purely personal view, but I believe one sensible way to split the > baby would be to say that the NOS can "break the connection between > infraction and damage" (thus losing its rights to an adjustment) when the > damage is the result of some subsequent application of the laws (a "legal > error") rather than merely a bridge error. This would both cover Marv's > example (NOs get a bad score by committing a subsequent infraction of their > own) and Grattan's (NOs get a bad score by condoning a subsequent > infraction by the OS). Critically, it would provide a clear line that such > decisions couldn't stray beyond. We will open Pandora's box if we start > denying adjustments in cases where the NOs got a bad score because, in > somebody's opinion, they played bad bridge. > Somewhere there has to be an allowance for "bad bridge." Take the following example (we were the non-offenders, non-bridge players :-() Matchpoints. Opponents agreed spades, bid some form of Blackwood, extensive hesitation by responder followed by denying an ace. His partner bid seven anyway, and dummy showed up with the Ace he said he hadn't got. Diector is called and the facts determined. We play the hand and through really bad defense allow the declarer to make all the tricks. a. What contract should the declarer be playing in according to the director (6S or 7S)? b. What result should be recorded? 6S? 6S+1? 7S making? 7S-1? b1. Should the result be different for the two sides? c. Should there be a procedural penalty? If so, how much? d. If we had defended reasonably, what result should have been recorded? For the record, it was scored as 6S+1 (I forget at which point the director said the contract was 6S). Most of the field (say 11/13) played in 6S, no-one else was in seven, and no-one else made all the tricks. (I did say the defense was poor). No procedural penalties were given. -- Richard Lighton |"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial (lighton@idt.net)| atomic globule. Consequently my family pride is something Wood-Ridge NJ | inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (The Mikado) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 00:47:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 00:47:53 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14767 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 00:47:46 +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 KAA14476 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980724104914.0069ab8c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:49:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980724090934.006f32f0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:09 AM 7/24/98 -0400, Richard wrote: >Somewhere there has to be an allowance for "bad bridge." I not only disagree, but would argue that the example below supports my view. >Take the following example (we were the non-offenders, non-bridge >players :-() > >Matchpoints. > >Opponents agreed spades, bid some form of Blackwood, extensive hesitation >by responder followed by denying an ace. His partner bid seven anyway, >and dummy showed up with the Ace he said he hadn't got. > >Diector is called and the facts determined. We play the hand and through >really bad defense allow the declarer to make all the tricks. > >a. What contract should the declarer be playing in according to the > director (6S or 7S)? 6S. >b. What result should be recorded? 6S? 6S+1? 7S making? 7S-1? 6S+1 (unless the NOS can show that they'd have defended differently against 6S, which appears not to be the case here). >b1. Should the result be different for the two sides? No. >c. Should there be a procedural penalty? If so, how much? Probably, since it sounds like the OS knowingly (and flagrantly) violated L16. But if they were absolute novices, who, in the opinion of the TD, didn't know that what they were doing was improper, a warning would be in order. But this has absolutely nothing to do with restoring equity on the hand, and the PP should be assessed (or not) regardless of the outcome of the unrelated equity adjudication. >d. If we had defended reasonably, what result should have been > recorded? Had the table result been 7S-1, it should stand. >For the record, it was scored as 6S+1 (I forget at which point the >director said the contract was 6S). Most of the field (say 11/13) >played in 6S, no-one else was in seven, and no-one else made all the >tricks. (I did say the defense was poor). No procedural penalties were >given. And (at least in the hand adjudication, if not in the separate matter of the PP) justice was served. The NOS slopped a trick that no other pair in the field managed to lose, and lost a well-deserved 10/12 matchpoints. This is what would have happened had there been no infraction. Had they kept their table result, as the Kaplan-doctrine believers would have it, they would have gotten 0 instead of 2. That would be nothing less than giving them a 2-matchpoint penalty for their opponents' infraction. IMO, this is a very clear example. 2 matchpoints' worth of damage was consequent on the infraction, the other 10 matchpoints were the result of the NOs bad bridge, merely subsequent but not consequent. The consequent damage was redressed as the law specifies; the merely subsequent damage remained. And nobody had to decide, in effect, whether the NOs bad bridge was "bad enough" to warrant the additional 2 matchpoint penalty. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 01:31:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:31:16 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14884 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:31:06 +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 LAA15593 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980724113241.006e1284@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:32:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: summertime In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980724104914.0069ab8c@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980724090934.006f32f0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:49 AM 7/24/98 -0400, I wrote: >And (at least in the hand adjudication, if not in the separate matter of >the PP) justice was served. The NOS slopped a trick that no other pair in >the field managed to lose, and lost a well-deserved 10/12 matchpoints. >This is what would have happened had there been no infraction. Had they >kept their table result, as the Kaplan-doctrine believers would have it, >they would have gotten 0 instead of 2. That would be nothing less than >giving them a 2-matchpoint penalty for their opponents' infraction. > >IMO, this is a very clear example. 2 matchpoints' worth of damage was >consequent on the infraction, the other 10 matchpoints were the result of >the NOs bad bridge, merely subsequent but not consequent. The consequent >damage was redressed as the law specifies; the merely subsequent damage >remained. And nobody had to decide, in effect, whether the NOs bad bridge >was "bad enough" to warrant the additional 2 matchpoint penalty. Oops. I reread my previous message and realized that I had misunderstood the example. The NOs got a zero (not a 2) for 6S+1 the other way, thus none of the damage was consequent, and the entire 12 matchpoints (the difference between 6S+1 (the equitable result) and 7S-1 (the result they'd have gotten if they'd defended as well as everyone else)) was lost at the table. This makes no difference at all to the principle behind the ruling, and, in fact, makes the example an even better one. Now the zero that the NOs deserved for their bad defense was what they got -- the same score they'd have gotten from those who would have applied the Kaplan doctrine to stick them with 7S= -- and still nobody had to (or got to) decide just how bad their bad bridge was. 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 Jul 25 03:41:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 03:41:58 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA15413 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 03:41:51 +1000 Received: from ip228.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.228]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980724174440.CCZL23996.fep4@ip228.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:44:40 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: summertime Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:43:45 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35bcbb1a.1791816@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980724090934.006f32f0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980724090934.006f32f0@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:09:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >This is a purely personal view, but I believe one sensible way to split = the >baby would be to say that the NOS can "break the connection between >infraction and damage" (thus losing its rights to an adjustment) when = the >damage is the result of some subsequent application of the laws (a = "legal >error") rather than merely a bridge error. I think this would be a good solution. It will also allow the double shot, which I happen to prefer. However, if the double shot were to be forbidden, all we'd need in addition to Eric's suggestion would be a law saying explicitly that the double shot is not allowed. I also agree completely with Eric's answers to Richard's example. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 10:48:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:48:49 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16617 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:48:41 +1000 Received: from modem43.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.171] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0yzsXp-0007Ie-00; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:50:42 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:47:11 +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 "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > From: David Stevenson > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: Jesper Dybdal > > > I am not convinced that allowing the double shot loses the fun and > interest in hands anyway. Would you really give up on a hand because > you are *confident* about what the TD is about to rule? > > I think you are right that people have this view as to why the double > shot is illegal but I do not think it would happen the way they expect > if it were legal. > > In my view not allowing the double shot is against the general > principles of sport and removes some fun and interest from the game by > reducing the number of situations. > ++++[ As I understand the term "Double Shot" it refers to action following an opponent's infraction which is preposterously unjustified by what the player knows and can see of the hand, but where, if it turns out badly, he relies upon score adjustment following the infraction to take away the 'extra' bad score he has incurred. The argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 11:00:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 11:00:14 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA16647 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 11:00:08 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yzsiu-0003HP-00; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:02:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 02:00:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >Grattan > > "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" > ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) > > > >---------- >> From: David Stevenson > > >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> >> >> I am not convinced that allowing the double shot loses the fun and >> interest in hands anyway. Would you really give up on a hand because >> you are *confident* about what the TD is about to rule? >> >> I think you are right that people have this view as to why the double >> shot is illegal but I do not think it would happen the way they expect >> if it were legal. >> >> In my view not allowing the double shot is against the general >> principles of sport and removes some fun and interest from the game by >> reducing the number of situations. >> >++++[ As I understand the term "Double Shot" it refers to action >following an opponent's infraction which is preposterously unjustified >by what the player knows and can see of the hand, but where, if it >turns out badly, he relies upon score adjustment following the >infraction to take away the 'extra' bad score he has incurred. The >argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player >has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope >of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] I had one at the YC last night where there was a UI leading to 6S bid (which I would have disallowed, but the oppo bid on to 7H off an A (when the double was obvious within the context of the auction). I let the score stand, on the basis of wild & reckless action. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 11:50:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 11:50:25 +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 LAA16710 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 11:50:18 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yztVQ-0002er-00; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:52:18 +0000 Message-ID: <112wqDATfTu1EwIC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 02:41:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Grattan > > "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" > ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) > > > >---------- >> From: David Stevenson > > >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> >> >> I am not convinced that allowing the double shot loses the fun and >> interest in hands anyway. Would you really give up on a hand because >> you are *confident* about what the TD is about to rule? >> >> I think you are right that people have this view as to why the double >> shot is illegal but I do not think it would happen the way they expect >> if it were legal. >> >> In my view not allowing the double shot is against the general >> principles of sport and removes some fun and interest from the game by >> reducing the number of situations. >++++[ As I understand the term "Double Shot" it refers to action >following an opponent's infraction which is preposterously unjustified >by what the player knows and can see of the hand, but where, if it >turns out badly, he relies upon score adjustment following the >infraction to take away the 'extra' bad score he has incurred. The >argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player >has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope >of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] It is a decision by the Lawmakers that it is unwarranted. In other sports it is normal to be allowed the full advantage from an infraction: it is bridge that is out of line. Consider an Offside in Rugby Union. The Referee holds off from halting play while the NOs seek to gain an advantage, quite possibly by some very risky action. If they gain no advantage then the Referee calls them back: he is not interested in whether their play was wild or gambling, or whether the failure to gain advantage was consequent or subsequent: no advantage, play is *always* called back. Of course people like Jesper and myself understand the Double Shot: we just believe the game would be better and fairer if it was allowed. We do not believe the risks taken are unwarranted. I come from the old school: you do something wrong: you pay. -- 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 Jul 25 19:55:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:55:45 +1000 Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA17365 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:55:36 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.43.135] by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0z013b-0005HF-00; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:56:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bdb7b2$82cee220$872b63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:56:34 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Prosbt wrote: >I had one at the YC last night where there was a UI leading to 6S bid >(which I would have disallowed, but the oppo bid on to 7H off an A (when >the double was obvious within the context of the auction). I let the >score stand, on the basis of wild & reckless action. This appears to me to be an error. The side who bid 7H should have kept their result, but the side that used UI should have been given whatever result they would have obtained had the 6S bid been cancelled. The offenders do not thereby profit from their infraction, and the "gamblers" lose their bet. Basically, this means that everyone gets a bottom, which is exactly what they deserve. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 20:18:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 20:18:06 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA17416 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 20:18:00 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA17366; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 02:19:56 -0800 Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 02:19:56 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: When to ask questions? Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This i not, per se, a question about law, but it has some implications as far as UI rules and the question-asking policies in various parts of the world. Now, it is fairly well established that the recommended procedure in ACBLand is to ask only if you have a reason to know during the acution, otherwise to wait until the end of the auction to enquire. And we've discussed before the pros and cons of always ask / enver ask / ask when you need to / ask at random times. Here is a real-life dilemma I found myself in at a tournament this spring. Pairs game, flight A opponents who can be counted on to thoroughly know their system: They are having an unopposed strong sequence that begins 1S; 2H (forcing to game); 3H; 3S. As I said, these people know their system. They have agreed on a trump suit and are now beginning to probe for slam. Of course, depending on partnership style they might have agreed spades or they might have agreed hearts. At the moment, I neither know nor have a reason to know, though I am slightly curious, as a system developer if for no other reason. The auction continues, and sooner or later my LHO bids 4NT, RKC Blackwood. And I realize I have a serious problem! I am pretty sure RHO is going to bid 5D. I want my partner to lead a diamond against 6H. But if the contract is 6S I want my AQxx of diamonds to be a surprise for the declarer. Problem is, if I now make inquiries obviously intended to find out who is goingto be the eventual declarer, it will be **really** obvious that I have suddenly gotten interested in the auction because I am thinking of doubling for a lead. Now I'm damned if I do (if I double I give away the position against 6S) and damned if I don't (I will surely be ruled against if I pass and pard leads a dimaond against 6H -- or for that matter if partner gets in the lead later against 6S and switches to a diamond). The only way to avoid the dilemma was to have asked on the previous round, before it mattered to me what trump was. The prevailing climate discouraged me from asking though. Any thoughts as to how I should have handled the situation, or what should be done about it? [At the table I got off the hook. They were playing 1430 instead of straight RKC, and I didn't want to double 5C. Whew!] Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 25 22:35:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:35:44 +1000 Received: from mail.magi.com (InfoWeb.Magi.com [204.191.213.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA17628 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:35:37 +1000 Received: from ts18-09.ott.istar.ca (default) [198.53.6.184] by mail.magi.com with smtp (Exim 1.80 #5) id 0z03Zx-0006bR-00; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:37:38 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980725083633.007ab100@magi.com> X-Sender: david@magi.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:36:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: CNTC Quarterfinal Appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, I received the following email from my regular partner (Doug Heron). I will also be posting it to rgb. I changed nothing except that I removed the email addresses from Doug's writeup and removed all the '>>>>>' from it. Dave Kent ============================================================================ === Hi Dave... this is the official committee report from the quarter final at the CNTC.. for your info.. and could you post it in any bridge news group that you think would be appropriate.. it has generated a lot of negative publicity before the facts were known.. this may help.. i am also working on getting it in the NABC bulletin, and Acbl bulletin.. what do you think of the decision... doug ============================================================================ === CNTC 1998 APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISION JULY 16, 1998 BOARD NO.2 DEALER E VUL NS QUARTER-FINAL HARGREAVES(EW) VS DONER(NS) (Gerry McCully) AK98 92 KJ65 JT3 (Gord McOrmond) (Bryan Maksymetz) QJT73 42 KQ4 T7653 Q984 T732 4 87 (Felipe Hernandez) 65 AJ8 A AKQ9652 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH P 1C 1S 3NT P 4C P 5C# P 5D P 5S P 6H P 7C P P P # approximately 2 minute hesitation, acknowledged by all players The director was called to the table at this time. RESULT: 7 clubs made 7 (NS +2140) DIRECTOR'S RULING: Table result stands THE FACTS : EW appealed, claiming the long hesitation strongly implied that a bid other than 5 clubs was being considered. Even though the auction was being carried out behind screens, it appeared to be obvious to all that the hesitation was by North, and not by his screenmate (East). EW also claimed that North's slow 5 clubs made it much more likely that bidding on would be more successful than passing. North argued that he was considering whether or not 4 clubs was a request for a key card response, or for a cue bid. He eventually made the response which could be neither. Unfortunately it took a considerable amount of time to reach this decision. North argued that considerable time had been taken by the opponents in other auctions (implying the delay in returning the bidding tray could well have been caused by East). THE COMMITTEE'S REASONING AND DECISION: It was easy to conclude that there had been a hesitation. It was also evident that North-South had no agreements in this situation. We nonetheless had valuable information from some of the things said by South during the hearing. Our reasoning was based largely on South's comments. First with respect to the 5D call; had North decided to bid 4NT over 4C, there would have been a strong argument to force South to pass that call. The 5C call, showing a fit, was at least somewhat encouraging. Note that while North-South did not have agreements here, North did indicate that a cue bid over 4C would have promised first round control (he said he did not want to bid 4H as a response to Gerber since that would have shown the Ace of hearts). South likewise indicated that he would have expected a 4S bid to have shown the Ace of spades. Since South could still demonstrate that 6C was a possible contract (North might have the spade King) and that 5NT would not be in jeopardy (if North does not have a spade control then he must have either both red Queens or one red King-Queen, either of which gives them 11 tricks in NoTrump) the committee was in favour of allowing the 5D bid. While it is true that the hesitation suggests that bidding on over 5C will be more successful than passing, the fact that N-S might have a slam and cannnot get too high means that bidding on is not suggested by the hesitation, but rather by the cards held. Note that one consequence of South's argument is that if North had bid 5NT over 5D that should have denied any spade control. Now with respect to the 6H call: some may argue that the 5S bid must promise the spade Ace because North would have bid 6C instead with the spade King. As a matter of theory that is debatable, but is irrelevant here, where NS clearly had no such agreements. Here again, a comment by South was crucial. When asked why he bid 6H, he said it was because 5S promised a spade control, and he bid 6H "in case it was the Ace". So South did NOT believe that North's bidding alone had promised the spade Ace. Now the reasoning was: North's bidding has strongly suggested that he does not hold the spade Ace (and if he does, then his hand is somehow unsuitable for slam - why else would he not cue bid immediately while holding trump support?). The hesitation over 4C suggests he was considering some other call, that in the light of subsequent bidding WAS ALMOST SURELY 4S (the other option, 4N, is far less likely with a hand now known to hold trump support). For this partnership, 4S would surely have shown the spade Ace (see North's comment above). Therefore the BIDDING suggests that North does not have the spade Ace, while the HESITATION suggests that North does. South certainly has logical alternatives to the 6H call, namely 6C and 6NT, and the hesitation certainly suggests 6H over the other calls; in fact, without a strong likelihood that North has the spade Ace--a likelihood that in the committee's jugment was demonstrably suggested by the earlier hesitation--6H could be a very bad bid, since West would then be quite likely to hold both the spade Ace and the King of hearts, and in that case bidding 6H commits NS to 6NT, while guaranteeing that it goes down by allowing West to double for the lead. Thus in the committee's view it would be wrong to allow the 6H call, since it is demonstrably suggested over the logical alternatives by the hesitation. The decision between 6NT and 6C remained. From South's point of view, 6C is in some danger of a spade ruff, while 6N, played by North, is in some danger of a red suit lead setting up a King in West's hand while the Ace of spades is still outstanding - for instance give North KQX Qxx KQX JXXX, or any other hand missing the spade ace and heart king, and not containing the KQJX of diamonds... In accordance with the Laws, when the offending side has a choice of actions, of which any could easily be right, they are assumed to obtain the least favourable result which is at all possible. In this case a bid of 6C. As another point of interest, when on the actual auction the decisive moment arrived, the North South pair judged to bid 7C and not 7NT. Thus the committee felt there was no reason to assume that North South would choose NT as opposed to Clubs at the six level. As a final point, which was not discussed by the players at committee, the question of allowing a continuation over a theoretical call of 6C was explored by the committee. It was felt that had this been broached, it should be disallowed. The reasoning was that North, who was willing to play what he knew could be a likely slam, in 5C (5 clubs was, after all, non-forcing, and he could instead have jumped to 6 clubs at that point) out of fear of a greater disaster should they have a misunderstanding, was clearly not about to bid a speculative 6N or 7C if his partner signed off in 6C. DECISION: NS 6 CLUBS MAKING 7 +1390 COMMITTEE MEMBERS DOUGLAS HERON (CHAIRMAN) DOUGLAS FRASER DON KERSEY COMMENTS: This committee decided the result of the quarter-final of the Canadian National Team Championship. It was a difficult committee, as all committees are at this level, and has given rise to much debate, most of it negative toward the committee. I have heard comments attributed to members of the ACBL National Appeals committee, which have been disparaging to the members of the committee, before any report was written up, and before the reasoning of the committee has been heard. Letters have been written complaining of the lack of knowledge of the committee members, lack of bridge skills, and bias.. all this before the detailed analysis has been presented... I have no problem with hearing about other peoples views, and or hearing complaints about the ruling.. after all , one side is always on the losing side.. and our committee has great sympathy for the Doner Team, who lost a valiant struggle against the Hargreaves Team, who later went on to win the Championship...but I feel that the committee fairly examined all the issues and used its best judgment in reaching a decision. We are hopeful the above explanation, which lays out our reasoning, will quell at least some of the criticism to date, much of which was made without full knowledge of the facts. With respect to the makeup of the committee... it would have been an improvement to have had a five person committee.. but at close to 1AM it is often difficult to assemble a good 3 person committee who are willing to serve (and then take the heat for their decision) The committee was chaired by a co-chairman of the ACBL National Appeals Committee, and the other 2 members were non biased experienced committee members, with no reason to be biased against one or the other of the western teams. With regard to Bridge skill and ability of the committee members.... DON KERSEY is one of Canada's best bridge writers and analysts, and has published countless excellent lead articles in the BRIDGE WORLD, as well as winning many events. DOUG FRASER is one of the top masterpoint holders in Canada, has won the CNTC,and two North American Championships.. and is Chairman of District 1 Conduct Committee. I have won the CNTC, played in the Bermuda Bowl for Canada, and won the COPC in Montreal.. as well as the Canadian National KO Teams in Toronto at Easter, and at least a hundred regionals. So... I am not saying we got it right.... it was a tough one... all I am saying is we did our best, are experienced, and were certainly unbiased... If we got it wrong, on behalf of all of us , i apologize to the Doner team... There ought to be another way to decide matches than by committee. Committee Members: Doug Heron (chairman) Doug Fraser (member) Don Kersey (member) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 00:33:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 00:33:51 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20035 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 00:33:45 +1000 Received: from ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.119]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980725143641.DEDL23996.fep4@ip119.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 25 Jul 1998 16:36:41 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 16:35:45 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35bce5c8.1864330@post12.tele.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 Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:47:11 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >The=20 >argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the = player >has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope >of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan = ~] The primary way for a double shot to "go wrong" is when it turns out that there was no irregularity because the opponent had no logical alternative. Then the price is paid, and it is often large. The player has taken a risk, and I personally do not believe the laws should label some risks as "unwarranted". When my opponent revokes and gets a penalty card, I can often take a completely risk-free finesse; I do it "knowingly and purposefully" and "in the hope of gain", and there is no price to pay if it goes wrong, because it cannot go wrong. Why is this more acceptable than a double shot after a (suspected) UI infraction? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 11:08:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:08:57 +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 LAA21149 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:08:50 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.16] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0z0FIR-0001Dk-00; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 02:08:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bdb832$487143e0$102e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 02:11:12 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 25 July 1998 15:48 Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC On Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:47:11 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: [GE] >The >argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player >has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope >of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] [JD] The primary way for a double shot to "go wrong" is when it turns out that there was no irregularity because the opponent had no logical alternative. Then the price is paid, and it is often large. The player has taken a risk, and I personally do not believe the laws should label some risks as "unwarranted". When my opponent revokes and gets a penalty card, I can often take a completely risk-free finesse; I do it "knowingly and purposefully" and "in the hope of gain", and there is no price to pay if it goes wrong, because it cannot go wrong. Why is this more acceptable than a double shot after a (suspected) UI infraction? [DALB] "Would you go to bed with a man for ten thousand pounds?" asked Bernard Shaw of a pretty girl once. "Well", said the girl, "that would depend on what kind of a man he was." "Would you do it for ten shillings?" persisted the playwright. "What do you take me for?" retorted the girl indignantly. "We have already established that", said Shaw. "All we are discussing now is the price." Now, suppose this auction occurs: South West North East 1H 1S 4H Pass (slow) Pass 4S 5H All pass North's 5H is absurd, and the contract accordingly goes down. "I knew that I was safe to bid 5H", says North, "for I knew that if it turned out to be the wrong thing to do, we could almost certainly get West's 4S bid cancelled." He is, of course, quite right - Jesper Dybdal rules (as we all would rule, given the hand - which in this case does not matter) that West had no vestige of a 4S bid, so the score is rolled back to 4H making four. Suppose, then, that the auction went like this: South West North East 1H 1S 4H Pass (slow) Pass 4S 7H All pass "I knew", says North, "that I was safe to bid 7H. If it made, we would get a good score; if it did not make, we could get West's 4S bid cancelled." Well, Jesper? Are you prepared to concede that there may in principle exist "wild and gambling action" for which the Laws should rightly give no redress? Or are we merely discussing the price? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 11:38:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:38:20 +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 LAA21212 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:38:14 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.251] by praseodumium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0z0Fkv-0004oH-00; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 02:37:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bdb836$63ed9020$102e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 02:40:36 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 25 July 1998 03:01 Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC >Grattan wrote: >>Grattan >> >> "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" >> ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) >> >> >> >>---------- >>> From: David Stevenson >> > >>> Steve Willner wrote: >>> >> From: Jesper Dybdal >>> >>> >>> I am not convinced that allowing the double shot loses the fun and >>> interest in hands anyway. Would you really give up on a hand because >>> you are *confident* about what the TD is about to rule? >>> >>> I think you are right that people have this view as to why the double >>> shot is illegal but I do not think it would happen the way they expect >>> if it were legal. >>> >>> In my view not allowing the double shot is against the general >>> principles of sport and removes some fun and interest from the game by >>> reducing the number of situations. > >>++++[ As I understand the term "Double Shot" it refers to action >>following an opponent's infraction which is preposterously unjustified >>by what the player knows and can see of the hand, but where, if it >>turns out badly, he relies upon score adjustment following the >>infraction to take away the 'extra' bad score he has incurred. The >>argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player >>has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope >>of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] > [DWS] > It is a decision by the Lawmakers that it is unwarranted. In other >sports it is normal to be allowed the full advantage from an infraction: >it is bridge that is out of line. [DALB] No, it is not, and DWS's comment is typical of the muddled thinking that exists in this area. [DWS] > > Consider an Offside in Rugby Union. The Referee holds off from >halting play while the NOs seek to gain an advantage, quite possibly by >some very risky action. If they gain no advantage then the Referee >calls them back: he is not interested in whether their play was wild or >gambling, or whether the failure to gain advantage was consequent or >subsequent: no advantage, play is *always* called back. That is usually (but not always) so. However, the assumption that DWS makes is that following an infraction, the NOs enjoy a period of complete immunity, during which they can do what they like as long as the ref is "playing advantage". They cannot. If, immediately following a knock-on [a technical infraction, for non-rugby-playing readers of BLML] a member of the non-offending side punches an opponent in the face, then he will be sent off the field, just as he would have been had he committed this offence in the course of "normal" play. Moreover, if during the period of "advantage" the offending side scores a try [5 points] as a result of a forward pass [another technical infraction] then that try will not be allowed. The NOs, in short, must continue to play rugby according to the Laws; if they do so successfully, then they are deemed to have declined the penalty that would have been awarded for the original infraction [this concept is actually made explicit in the game of American football]. > > Of course people like Jesper and myself understand the Double Shot: This is far from clear to me. If you really understood it, you would understand why it cannot be countenanced. > we >just believe the game would be better and fairer if it was allowed. We >do not believe the risks taken are unwarranted. I come from the old >school: you do something wrong: you pay. I went to an even older school than DWS, and I believe wholeheartedly in the principle that he cites. But in bridge, as in other sports, the rule is not (and ought not to be): if you do something wrong, you pay unless the other side immediately does something equally wrong. Rather, the rule is: if you do something wrong, you pay, and if the other side stops playing the game because they believe they are entitled to do so, they are wrong, and they also pay. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 22:16:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:16:13 +1000 Received: from mail-in1.inet.tele.dk (mail-in1.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.158]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA22173 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:16:06 +1000 Received: (qmail 24042 invoked from network); 26 Jul 1998 12:18:10 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in1.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 26 Jul 1998 12:18:10 -0000 Received: from ip13.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.13]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAB51418 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:18:09 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:18:09 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35be1d26.3972772@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <001301bdb836$63ed9020$102e63c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <001301bdb836$63ed9020$102e63c3@david-burn> 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, 26 Jul 1998 02:40:36 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >The NOs, in >short, must continue to play rugby according to the Laws; if they do >so successfully, then they are deemed to have declined the penalty >that would have been awarded for the original infraction [this concept >is actually made explicit in the game of American football]. "According to the Laws" - I do not believe anybody has argued that the NOS should be protected if it commits an irregularity itself and thus becomes another OS. So the rugby principle above would suit me fine if applied to bridge. But playing badly and taking silly chances is not the same as breaking the laws, and should not cause one to lose the right to adjustment. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 22:16:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:16:15 +1000 Received: from mail-in2.inet.tele.dk (mail-in2.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA22174 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:16:07 +1000 Received: (qmail 21054 invoked from network); 26 Jul 1998 12:18:09 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in2.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 26 Jul 1998 12:18:09 -0000 Received: from ip13.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.13]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA51418 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:18:08 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:18:07 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35bd1105.868108@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <000801bdb832$487143e0$102e63c3@david-burn> In-Reply-To: <000801bdb832$487143e0$102e63c3@david-burn> 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, 26 Jul 1998 02:11:12 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Suppose, then, that the auction went like this: > >South West North East >1H 1S 4H Pass (slow) >Pass 4S 7H All pass > >"I knew", says North, "that I was safe to bid 7H. If it made, we would >get a good score; if it did not make, we could get West's 4S bid >cancelled." > >Well, Jesper? Are you prepared to concede that there may in principle >exist "wild and gambling action" for which the Laws should rightly >give no redress? Or are we merely discussing the price? I like this example. The answer is that we are discussing principles for the very reason of avoiding a discussion of the price. I do not want every TD and AC to have to determine what they believe the "price" should be; whenever possible, I prefer rules based on principles instead. In this example (as in all examples where there is a clear and undoubted double shot), you are right to the degree that there is no particular need to adjust the score for NOS. I would not feel that E had been treated unfairly if he did not get an adjustment. However, and that is the important thing, I do not se anything particularly unfair in adjusting for both sides either. So to me, it does not really matter whether or not we adjust when we are really quite sure that there was a double shot. What does matter very much to me is that we should adjust if there is just the slightest chance that the NOS was actually trying to play bridge, but just did it poorly. And I believe that this is almost always the case - how often will N in an auction like the one above be so certain that pass was a logical alternative to 4S that it makes 7H a good gamble? The great advantage of allowing the double shot is that the TD and AC need not make the sometimes difficult distinction between the double shot and merely bad play. The basic principle of handling irregularities should IMO be the following: When one side has committed an irregularity and the other side has not, we must ensure that the NOS is not damaged by the irregularity. This should have the highest priority of all. If the only reasonably simple and practical way to ensure this is a way that sometimes give the NOS a much better score than they have "deserved", that is not to be considered a problem at all. This is also clearly the principle behind some of our current laws, primarily the revoke laws. So in your example, I would not even worry about whether it is unreasonable to give the NOS their good score; that is quite unimportant. Actually, I would not find it unreasonable - remember that E has run quite a risk here, since 7H will probably not be a success if it turns out that W had no logical alternative. I see no reason why taking that chance could not be a perfectly legitimate part of bridge. But even if we assume that E somehow knew for certain that W's 4S was an irregularity, I still fail to see why his taking advantage of the situation is any different from taking advantage of an opponent's penalty card. When you commit an irregularity, you sometimes give your opponents extra chances for a good score, just as you do when you play badly - I do not see that as a problem. There is also the practical positive effect of allowing the double shot that if such a 7H contract wins, it would teach the offender a lesson in a much more effective way than an ordinary adjusted score of 4H would! --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 22:24:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:24:27 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22224 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:24:21 +1000 Received: from modem8.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.8] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z0Psb-0001wE-00; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:26:23 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:05:33 +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 "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) ---------- > From: David Stevenson > > It is a decision by the Lawmakers that it is unwarranted. In other > sports it is normal to be allowed the full advantage from an infraction: > it is bridge that is out of line. > > Consider an Offside in Rugby Union. The Referee holds off from > halting play while the NOs seek to gain an advantage, quite possibly by > some very risky action. If they gain no advantage then the Referee > calls them back: he is not interested in whether their play was wild or > gambling, or whether the failure to gain advantage was consequent or > subsequent: no advantage, play is *always* called back. > > Of course people like Jesper and myself understand the Double Shot: we > just believe the game would be better and fairer if it was allowed. We > do not believe the risks taken are unwarranted. I come from the old > school: you do something wrong: you pay. ++++ [ O.K. The view that a 'double shot' should lose the protection of law goes back a long way; well before I started to debate laws with Kaplan, and it did come from the players of the time (at least as far as their views were articulate before the age of electronics). So it was written into the unwritten laws, by saying that the result it produced was not a consequence of the infraction but was subsequent to it. The fashion is apparently changing, with the opinion that it should be considered 'normal bridge' coming from some of today's thinkers. Personally I do not feel it right if the OS gains because NOS indulges in a double shot; on the other hand - maybe because all the committees I have attended took this view - I find it difficult to think it desirable that NOs should have the minus for their efforts taken away from them - that is the part of their bad score engineered by their own bridge judgement and not essential to the opponent's infraction. If the double shot succeeds the NOS has not been damaged and the question tends not to surface, but is it not a consequence of your opinion that when it does not succeed the score should also be considered just part of bridge for both sides? ~ Grattan ~] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 22:24:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:24:58 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22238 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:24:52 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h13.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id QAA16904; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 16:26:53 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35BBBB3A.7823@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 16:26:51 -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: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <112wqDATfTu1EwIC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) There are several threads where the matter of equity is discussed once more. And it becomes clear once more that the problem with necessarity is connected with basic principles: is duplicated bridge a kind of sport or not?:) Jesper Dybdal wrote: "In my view not allowing the double shot is against the general principles of sport and removes some fun and interest from the game by reducing the number of situations." DWS wrote: "It is a decision by the Lawmakers that it is unwarranted. In other sports it is normal to be allowed the full advantage from an infraction: it is bridge that is out of line." Both started with their arguments at the position that bridge does be a sport. I dare to have doubts: - my personal opinion is that bridge is first of all a kind of interhuman intercourse, secondly - sort of pretty pastime and only thirdly - sport-like doing - so current Laws (as previous Laws) describe duplicated bridge as kind of rubber bridge, with more sopfisticated and complicated rules (I wrote it in one of previous thread) I dare to underline that (on my personal opinion) there are only two places in the current Laws where one may feel a breeze of sportish principles: - definition of "opponent" was first time written in manner that one may understand as not only "the same table opponent" - possibility to award unbalanced adjust score (L12) Yes - I follow the current Laws (as followed previos ones and as will follow next edition) but it is not Laws of the kind of sport:) It seems that Kaplan's doctrine on UI cases is quite right and a most of us agree with it. It seems that Kaplan's position about right to appeal ("only direct participants of bridge conflict may appeal") is also quite right - and we agree with it too. But why from time to time we discuss the problem of equity, the penalty for infraction (in case when NOS made mistake and OS got good result) etc.? Because some of us understand (consciously or subconsciously) that there is a field and that field's rights shuold be saved too. That's why I (and some of us) prefer to award unbalanced adjust score in case where OS receives good result (then both side receive bad results: NOS - what they reached after their mistake, OS - what they would receive if infraction would not have happened). My position is that OS does have advantage (after mistake of NOS) - in compare of other pairs at the same side on other tables. And that this advantage should be redressed. By means of unbalanced adjusting - not by means of PP (that does not save the field). And there is another problem - David Burn pointed on it: NOS may concsiously try to make double shot. I have more strong case (that happened in reality): Your hand: xx - JT98xx - xxx - xx. RHO opened 1Heart, LHO rised to 3NT (you know their system, it was fit and slam invitation - you understood that LHO made mistakes and bid was natural). Then RHO rebid 4Hearts - exit from slam try. Now you (I underline once more that you know opponent's system) asked them about meaning of bids - and it provided (as you hoped) to generation of UI. Then you doubled. And beleived that if LHO bid more - you will receive your result by means of AC (UI case!!). LHO rebid 4nt, won the contract - AC changed the result... Is it what we want? Sure - not me. Guess - niether D.Burn. Guess - there are more TD with the same (or similar) position. It is interesting that "sportish" arguments were used for reaching anty-sportish position:)) As general sport position is "equal start" - that means: no advantage by means of infraction. And my point - no advantage by means of AC. And no double-shot:)) Sorry for mistakes. David (DWS) - sorry for rather long post:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 22:34:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:34:16 +1000 Received: from mail-in1.inet.tele.dk (mail-in1.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.158]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA22316 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:34:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 24754 invoked from network); 26 Jul 1998 12:36:13 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in1.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 26 Jul 1998 12:36:13 -0000 Received: from ip193.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.193]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA51392 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:36:12 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:36:11 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c222a2.5377171@post1.dknet.dk> References: <000801bdb832$487143e0$102e63c3@david-burn> <35bd1105.868108@pipmail.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <35bd1105.868108@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 I seem to have been suffering from a bad case of N/E confusion. I wrote: >that E had been treated unfairly if he did not get an adjustment. That E should be N, of course. >Actually, I would not find it unreasonable - remember that E has >run quite a risk here, since 7H will probably not be a success if And so should that one. >But even if we assume that E somehow knew for certain that W's 4S >was an irregularity, I still fail to see why his taking advantage And that one. Sorry! --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 26 23:37:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 23:37:18 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.maine.rr.com (ns1.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22526 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 23:37:12 +1000 Received: from default.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 JAA13613 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 09:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980726093727.007b7140@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 09:37:27 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: CNTC Quarterfinal Appeal In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980725083633.007ab100@magi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:36 AM 7/25/98 -0400, David Kent wrote: > There ought to be another way to decide matches than by committee. Few would object to enforcing the prescribed penalty for a revoke. If the penalty assessed were to make the difference between winning and losing, no one would say that a director decided the match. Yet, a committee is often referred to as 'deciding' a match or event. In my view, a committee did not decide the outcome of the match in question -- the players did. Unfortunately for the DONER team, one of their players was unsure of the meaning of his partner's bid. He thought about it for a while and then made his bid. This hesitation provided his partner with unauthorized information. The laws prescribe a procedure for dealing with situations in which unauthorized information arises, the committee was merely there to carry out that prescription. It was not the committee, but rather the actions of the players involved, which decided the match. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 03:14:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 03:14:56 +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 DAA25354 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 03:14:48 +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 NAA13546 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:16:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807261716.NAA20691@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <001301bdb836$63ed9020$102e63c3@david-burn> (Dburn@btinternet.com) Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: > From: David Stevenson >> Consider an Offside in Rugby Union. The Referee holds off from >> halting play while the NOs seek to gain an advantage, quite possibly >> by some very risky action. If they gain no advantage then the >> Referee calls them back: he is not interested in whether their play >> was wild or gambling, or whether the failure to gain advantage was >> consequent or subsequent: no advantage, play is *always* called back. > That is usually (but not always) so. However, the assumption that DWS > makes is that following an infraction, the NOs enjoy a period of > complete immunity, during which they can do what they like as long as > the ref is "playing advantage". [If they commit an infaction of their > own, it will be penalized or the score is disallowed] I'm not familiar with rugby, but I am familiar with a similar situation allowing clearly abnormal play in ice hockey. When a foul occurs, play is not stopped until the offending team has the puck; this prevents the defensive penalty from destroying an offensive scoring chance. When a delayed penalty is signaled, the non-offenders' goalie returns to his bench, and if the non-offenders still have the puck, another offensive player comes out to replace the goalie. This is a legal play, but the risk is so great that the play is normally used only when the team trails by one or two goals very late in the game, so that the gain from a goal scored is much greater than the cost of a goal allowed. > The NOs, in short, must continue to play rugby according to the Laws; > if they do so successfully, then they are deemed to have declined the > penalty that would have been awarded for the original infraction [this > concept is actually made explicit in the game of American football]. This is the situation in ice hockey as well. For a minor penalty, the offender is sent off the ice for two minutes or until the opposition scores a goal. If the goal scores under the delayed penalty, this satisfies the requirement. American football needs the explicit option because plays are discrete and results are not clearly ordered. When there has been a foul, play continues until the conclusion of the play, and at that point, the non-offenders choose to take the penalty for the foul or the result on the field. The decision in other sports would be automatic; a hockey penalty is declined if a goal is scored and accepted othewise. But it's not a universal principle in sport. In basketball, for example, a penalty cannot be declined, even when the offenders could have known that it would work to their advantage. A team trailing by one or two points at the end of a basketball game may deliberately foul an opposing player, forcing the offensive team to shoot free throws immediately rather than run out the clock. > I went to an even older school than DWS, and I believe wholeheartedly > in the principle that he cites. But in bridge, as in other sports, the > rule is not (and ought not to be): if you do something wrong, you pay > unless the other side immediately does something equally wrong. > Rather, the rule is: if you do something wrong, you pay, and if the > other side stops playing the game because they believe they are > entitled to do so, they are wrong, and they also pay. This is possible in bridge because split scores are allowed, and it's a good principle. In other sports, this cannot happen; there is no way to rule that Team A loses a hockey game 5-6 and Team B ties it 5-5. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 04:23:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 04:23:47 +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 EAA25489 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 04:23:34 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0VUH-0007VY-00; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 18:25:37 +0000 Message-ID: <7BVzXDAeR3u1EwL5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:24:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dealing MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just back from Coventry. 18 tricky hands, six full simulations, yet another Panel TD training weekend is over. A couple of surprises. A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet and deals that our into the other four. Is it legal? RHO bids 1H: I bid 1D, and change it to double. Eventually I bid 1S, never bid again, and finish defending. What lead penalties has declarer got when partner is on lead? -- 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 Jul 27 07:50:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 07:50:49 +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 HAA25835 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 07:50:41 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0Yii-0000br-00; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:52:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:01:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000c01bdb7b2$82cee220$872b63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000c01bdb7b2$82cee220$872b63c3@david-burn>, David Burn writes >John Prosbt wrote: ^^^^^^ Not me guv > >>I had one at the YC last night where there was a UI leading to 6S bid >>(which I would have disallowed, but the oppo bid on to 7H off an A >(when >>the double was obvious within the context of the auction). I let the >>score stand, on the basis of wild & reckless action. > > >This appears to me to be an error. The side who bid 7H should have >kept their result, but the side that used UI should have been given >whatever result they would have obtained had the 6S bid been >cancelled. The offenders do not thereby profit from their infraction, >and the "gamblers" lose their bet. Basically, this means that everyone >gets a bottom, which is exactly what they deserve. > > In an EBU event I would have, but I dislike splitting scores in a club event where rough justice serves (within the laws) and when everyone is waiting for the results (and the software is not well designed to permit it) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 08:04:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:04:26 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25855 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:04:20 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0Yvk-0005WU-00; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:06:13 +0000 Message-ID: <0cggAWBLL6u1Ewac@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:42:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <001301bdb836$63ed9020$102e63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >[DWS] > >> It is a decision by the Lawmakers that it is unwarranted. In other >>sports it is normal to be allowed the full advantage from an >infraction: >>it is bridge that is out of line. > >[DALB] > >No, it is not, and DWS's comment is typical of the muddled thinking >that exists in this area. > >[DWS] > >> >> Consider an Offside in Rugby Union. The Referee holds off from >>halting play while the NOs seek to gain an advantage, quite possibly >by >>some very risky action. If they gain no advantage then the Referee >>calls them back: he is not interested in whether their play was wild >or >>gambling, or whether the failure to gain advantage was consequent or >>subsequent: no advantage, play is *always* called back. > >That is usually (but not always) so. However, the assumption that DWS >makes is that following an infraction, the NOs enjoy a period of >complete immunity, during which they can do what they like as long as >the ref is "playing advantage". They cannot. If, immediately following >a knock-on [a technical infraction, for non-rugby-playing readers of >BLML] a member of the non-offending side punches an opponent in the >face, then he will be sent off the field, just as he would have been >had he committed this offence in the course of "normal" play. That is hardly fair. OK, I accept that if we allow the double shot, we still ban a member of the non-offending side if he cheats/hits an opponent etc. You talk of my muddled thinking: introducing the effects of gratuitous violence [as you know] is nothing to do with the principle of the double shot, and is muddling the thinking about it. >Moreover, if during the period of "advantage" the offending side >scores a try [5 points] as a result of a forward pass [another >technical infraction] then that try will not be allowed. The NOs, in >short, must continue to play rugby according to the Laws; if they do >so successfully, then they are deemed to have declined the penalty >that would have been awarded for the original infraction [this concept >is actually made explicit in the game of American football]. I agree the try will not be allowed: this has nothing to do with what I said: they gained no advantage, **so the play is brought back**. They do not **lose** by it. I never suggested that the NOs could be allowed to keep a good score they gained by deliberately revoking. >> Of course people like Jesper and myself understand the Double Shot: >This is far from clear to me. If you really understood it, you would >understand why it cannot be countenanced. If I have not understood it, then you will need better examples than this to convince. In Rugby, you are allowed to play on, and try wild action to see if it gains: if it does not you still get the original penalty. That is what I said, that is what I meant, and your forward pass idea does not alter it at all. If you really want to be trivial, then I would allow the double shot [but not if the NOs commit a serious ethical or disciplinary action which requires disciplinary action]. I really am surprised that you would believe this needs saying. >> we >>just believe the game would be better and fairer if it was allowed. >We >>do not believe the risks taken are unwarranted. I come from the old >>school: you do something wrong: you pay. >I went to an even older school than DWS, and I believe wholeheartedly >in the principle that he cites. But in bridge, as in other sports, the >rule is not (and ought not to be): if you do something wrong, you pay >unless the other side immediately does something equally wrong. >Rather, the rule is: if you do something wrong, you pay, and if the >other side stops playing the game because they believe they are >entitled to do so, they are wrong, and they also pay. I stick by my principle, which is fairer in my view. -- 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 Jul 27 08:04:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:04:34 +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 IAA25861 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:04:27 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0Yvp-0005WT-00; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:06:19 +0000 Message-ID: <08rg4QBlK6u1Ew4K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:41:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <35bd1105.868108@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 02:11:12 +0100, "David Burn" > wrote: > >>Suppose, then, that the auction went like this: >> >>South West North East >>1H 1S 4H Pass (slow) >>Pass 4S 7H All pass >> >>"I knew", says North, "that I was safe to bid 7H. If it made, we would >>get a good score; if it did not make, we could get West's 4S bid >>cancelled." >> >>Well, Jesper? Are you prepared to concede that there may in principle >>exist "wild and gambling action" for which the Laws should rightly >>give no redress? Or are we merely discussing the price? > >I like this example. The answer is that we are discussing >principles for the very reason of avoiding a discussion of the >price. I do not want every TD and AC to have to determine what >they believe the "price" should be; whenever possible, I prefer >rules based on principles instead. > >In this example (as in all examples where there is a clear and >undoubted double shot), you are right to the degree that there is >no particular need to adjust the score for NOS. I would not feel >that E had been treated unfairly if he did not get an adjustment. > >However, and that is the important thing, I do not se anything >particularly unfair in adjusting for both sides either. > >So to me, it does not really matter whether or not we adjust when >we are really quite sure that there was a double shot. > >What does matter very much to me is that we should adjust if >there is just the slightest chance that the NOS was actually >trying to play bridge, but just did it poorly. And I believe >that this is almost always the case - how often will N in an >auction like the one above be so certain that pass was a logical >alternative to 4S that it makes 7H a good gamble? > >The great advantage of allowing the double shot is that the TD >and AC need not make the sometimes difficult distinction between >the double shot and merely bad play. > >The basic principle of handling irregularities should IMO be the >following: > > When one side has committed an irregularity and the other > side has not, we must ensure that the NOS is not damaged by > the irregularity. This should have the highest priority of > all. If the only reasonably simple and practical way to > ensure this is a way that sometimes give the NOS a much > better score than they have "deserved", that is not to be > considered a problem at all. > >This is also clearly the principle behind some of our current >laws, primarily the revoke laws. > >So in your example, I would not even worry about whether it is >unreasonable to give the NOS their good score; that is quite >unimportant. > >Actually, I would not find it unreasonable - remember that E has >run quite a risk here, since 7H will probably not be a success if >it turns out that W had no logical alternative. I see no reason >why taking that chance could not be a perfectly legitimate part >of bridge. > >But even if we assume that E somehow knew for certain that W's 4S >was an irregularity, I still fail to see why his taking advantage >of the situation is any different from taking advantage of an >opponent's penalty card. When you commit an irregularity, you >sometimes give your opponents extra chances for a good score, >just as you do when you play badly - I do not see that as a >problem. > >There is also the practical positive effect of allowing the >double shot that if such a 7H contract wins, it would teach the >offender a lesson in a much more effective way than an ordinary >adjusted score of 4H would! I also would like to hear the conversation if the 7H bid made 12 tricks: "You prat", yells his partner, "you could have bid a perfectly safe 6H!". I have no difficulty in allowing 7H if it makes. I love watching the quarter-back throw a *really* exciting long pass which rarely works - and occasionally he finds the wrong side gets the penalty! -- 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 Jul 27 08:29:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:29:17 +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 IAA25906 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:29:13 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA31966 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:31:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:31:19 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: <7BVzXDAeR3u1EwL5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Just back from Coventry. 18 tricky hands, six full simulations, yet > another Panel TD training weekend is over. A couple of surprises. > > A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet and > deals that our into the other four. Is it legal? As much as I dislike it, I don't see this procedure as being in conflict of Law 6B. > RHO bids 1H: I bid 1D, and change it to double. Eventually I bid 1S, > never bid again, and finish defending. What lead penalties has declarer > got when partner is on lead? I would rule that Law 26A2 was applicable and not 26B. I would argue that 1D was a withdrawn call, while the double is an attempted substitution that is automatically cancelled. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 10:10:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:10:03 +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 KAA26156 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:09:56 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Sun, 26 Jul 98 20:11:56 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa04459; 26 Jul 98 20:10 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA05630 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:10:03 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199807270010.UAA05630@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Dealing To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:10:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Laurie Kelso" at Jul 27, 98 08:31:19 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 >From Laurie: > >On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > >> RHO bids 1H: I bid 1D, and change it to double. Eventually I bid 1S, >>never bid again, and finish defending. What lead penalties has declarer >>got when partner is on lead? > >I would rule that Law 26A2 was applicable and not 26B. I would argue that >1D was a withdrawn call, while the double is an attempted substitution >that is automatically cancelled. Why, then, does Law 27B3 refer to Law 26? Had the double been replaced with a 2D call, L26B definitely would apply. Personally, I would rule that L26A2 and L26B both apply, since the lack of a legal diamond call kicks in L26A2 and the double kicks in L26B. Declarer may demand a diamond lead (L26A2) or forbid the lead of any one suit (diamonds by L26A2, any one suit by L26B). John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 10:21:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:21:29 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA26193 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:21:23 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0b4W-0004Kp-00; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:23:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 01:22:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: <7BVzXDAeR3u1EwL5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <7BVzXDAeR3u1EwL5@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > Just back from Coventry. 18 tricky hands, six full simulations, yet >another Panel TD training weekend is over. A couple of surprises. > > A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet and >deals that our into the other four. Is it legal? > > RHO bids 1H: I bid 1D, and change it to double. Eventually I bid 1S, >never bid again, and finish defending. What lead penalties has declarer >got when partner is on lead? > For the record: I bought David his orange juice and argued with him all weekend I got told off for not reading the whole law from the book (justifiably) I learnt a heck of a lot both from DWS and from the other TDs -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 10:21:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:21:32 +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 KAA26192 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:21:22 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0b4W-0006oc-00; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:23:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 01:20:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: undercall (was Dealing) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laurie Kelso writes > >> RHO bids 1H: I bid 1D, and change it to double. Eventually I bid 1S, >> never bid again, and finish defending. What lead penalties has declarer >> got when partner is on lead? > >I would rule that Law 26A2 was applicable and not 26B. I would argue that >1D was a withdrawn call, while the double is an attempted substitution >that is automatically cancelled. > but the question is "What are the lead penalties" -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 11:08:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:08:20 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.maine.rr.com (ns1.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA26323 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:08:13 +1000 Received: from default.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 VAA09559 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980726210833.00815eb0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:08:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: <7BVzXDAeR3u1EwL5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:24 PM 7/26/98 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > Just back from Coventry. 18 tricky hands, six full simulations, yet >another Panel TD training weekend is over. A couple of surprises. Does anyone know if the ACBL holds TD training weekends or the like? Seems to me that it would be a good idea to hold a one or two day "training" program before at least one NABC every year. I put training in quotes because I think the program should be for directors of all experience levels - sort of continuing education. Not all directors attend the nationals, but regional programs could also be held, again, prior to reasobaly big tournaments seems like a good time. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 16:53:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:53:35 +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 QAA26922 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:53:27 +1000 Received: (qmail 24770 invoked from network); 27 Jul 1998 06:55:14 -0000 Received: from pool-173.vossnet.co.uk (HELO dhassan) (195.188.90.183) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 27 Jul 1998 06:55:14 -0000 Message-ID: <001601bdb92a$f684b860$b75abcc3@dhassan> From: "Damian Hassan" To: Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 07:51:19 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 July 1998 00:02 Subject: Re: Dealing > >On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Just back from Coventry. 18 tricky hands, six full simulations, yet >> another Panel TD training weekend is over. A couple of surprises. >> >> A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet and >> deals that our into the other four. Is it legal? > >As much as I dislike it, I don't see this procedure as being in conflict >of Law 6B. >Laurie > This method of dealing is equivalent in effect to a deal which goes 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 4 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 2 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 1 etc. This results in hands 1 and 4 getting two consecutive cards several times during the deal. The question seems to hang on what is meant by "one card at a time, into four hands of thirteen cards each". If this refers simply to the physical act of dealing, then it is presumably legal to deal a 'goulash', as long as you deal the cards one at a time. I must admit that that is how the law reads to me. Did the law-givers intend that each hand should not receive more than one card consecutively? Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 17:04:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:04:42 +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 RAA26949 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:04:34 +1000 Received: (qmail 25638 invoked from network); 27 Jul 1998 07:06:37 -0000 Received: from pool-173.vossnet.co.uk (HELO dhassan) (195.188.90.183) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 27 Jul 1998 07:06:37 -0000 Message-ID: <002201bdb92c$8ce59e40$b75abcc3@dhassan> From: "Damian Hassan" To: Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:02:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BDB934.EAA287C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BDB934.EAA287C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 27 July 1998 00:02 Subject: Re: Dealing > >On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Just back from Coventry. 18 tricky hands, six full simulations, = yet >> another Panel TD training weekend is over. A couple of surprises. >> >> A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet = and >> deals that our into the other four. Is it legal? > >As much as I dislike it, I don't see this procedure as being in = conflict >of Law 6B. >Laurie > This method of dealing is equivalent in effect to a deal which goes 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 4 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 3 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 2 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 1 etc. This results in hands 1 and 4 getting two consecutive cards several = times during the deal. The question seems to hang on what is meant by "one card at a time, into four hands of thirteen cards each". If this refers simply to the physical act of dealing, then it is = presumably legal to deal a 'goulash', * sorry, posted too soon :( *Of course, a goulash is illegal because it is dealt without shuffle = from *a sorted deck. as long as you deal the cards one at a time. I must admit that that is how the law reads to me. Did the law-givers intend that each hand should not receive more than = one card consecutively? Damian Hassan ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BDB934.EAA287C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Kelso <Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au&g= t;
To:=20 bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 27 July 1998 00:02
Subject: Re: Dealing


>
>On = Sun, 26 Jul=20 1998, David Stevenson wrote:
>
>>   Just back = from=20 Coventry.  18 tricky hands, six full simulations, yet
>> = another=20 Panel TD training weekend is over.  A couple of=20 surprises.
>>
>>   A player deals into five = packets,=20 then picks up the fifth packet and
>> deals that our into the = other=20 four.  Is it legal?
>
>As much as I dislike it, I don't = see=20 this procedure as being in conflict
>of Law=20 6B.

>Laurie
>

This method of dealing is = equivalent in=20 effect to a deal which goes
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 4
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - = 3
1 - 2 -=20 3 - 4 - 2
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 1
etc.
This results in hands 1 and 4 = getting=20 two consecutive cards several times
during the deal.

The = question=20 seems to hang on what is meant by
"one card at a time, into four = hands=20 of thirteen cards each".
If this refers simply to the physical = act of=20 dealing, then it is presumably
legal to deal a 'goulash',
 
* sorry, posted too soon :(
*Of course, a goulash is illegal because it is dealt without = shuffle from=20 *a sorted deck.
 
 as long as you deal the cards one at a time.
I must admit = that=20 that is how the law reads to me.

Did the law-givers intend that = each hand=20 should not receive more than one card consecutively?
 
Damian Hassan
 
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BDB934.EAA287C0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 17:27:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:27:06 +1000 Received: from ns1.tudelft.nl (ns1.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA26976 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:26:57 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #29220) with SMTP id <0EWQ00GV2SSB2U@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:29:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA18278; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:28:49 +0200 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:28:48 +0000 (METDST) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: When to ask questions? In-reply-to: ; from "G. R. Bower" at Jul 25, 98 2:19 am To: fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EWQ00GV3SSB2U@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk snip > > They are having an unopposed strong sequence that begins 1S; 2H (forcing > to game); 3H; 3S. As I said, these people know their system. They have > agreed on a trump suit and are now beginning to probe for slam. Of course, > depending on partnership style they might have agreed spades or they might > have agreed hearts. At the moment, I neither know nor have a reason to snip > > The auction continues, and sooner or later my LHO bids 4NT, RKC Blackwood. > And I realize I have a serious problem! I am pretty sure RHO is going to > bid 5D. I want my partner to lead a diamond against 6H. But if the > contract is 6S I want my AQxx of diamonds to be a surprise for the > declarer. Problem is, if I now make inquiries obviously intended to find > out who is goingto be the eventual declarer, it will be **really** obvious > that I have suddenly gotten interested in the auction because I am > thinking of doubling for a lead. > > Now I'm damned if I do (if I double I give away the position against 6S) > and damned if I don't (I will surely be ruled against if I pass and pard > leads a dimaond against 6H -- or for that matter if partner gets in the > lead later against 6S and switches to a diamond). The only way to avoid > the dilemma was to have asked on the previous round, before it mattered to > me what trump was. The prevailing climate discouraged me from asking > though. > > Any thoughts as to how I should have handled the situation, or what should > be done about it? > > [At the table I got off the hook. They were playing 1430 instead of > straight RKC, and I didn't want to double 5C. Whew!] > > Gordon Bower > ------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO if you have such kind of problems, you can ask the TD, take him aside and tell him your problem. IF I was the TD I would send your partner away and then you can ask questions to the opponents. I sometimes as player ask my partner to move when in different situations things happens where I don't want that my partner will hear it. But of course normally the TD has to be called. By the way I don't have system agreements with my partner about asking him to move. Evert. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 17:40:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:40:36 +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 RAA27011 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:40:29 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h23.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id LAA20223; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:42:29 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35BCCA12.30F3@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:42:26 -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: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <08rg4QBlK6u1Ew4K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jesper Dybdal wrote: "The great advantage of allowing the double shot is that the TD and AC need not make the sometimes difficult distinction between the double shot and merely bad play" Sorry, Jesper, but for my opinion the Laws are for making play bridge more comfortable and enjoyable for players - not for making TD's and AC's job easier. David Stevenson wrote: "I have no difficulty in allowing 7H if it makes. I love watching the quarter-back throw a *really* exciting long pass which rarely works - and occasionally he finds the wrong side gets the penalty!" Well, David and Jesper! I do not beleive that you do not understand Burn's example of 7Hearts! There is no problem if Declarer wins the grand - let him be happy, result stands. But the problem is - 7Hearts, doubled, down 3. Where is your love (joy, etc.) now? Will you adjust this score? My (guess - Burn's and some more TDs) position is that in such a case the result should be stands for Declarer. And OS's result should be adjust to that would be reached if infraction would not have happened (worse of possible). And such proseeding will save field, spirit and sportish integrity of bridge. TD and AC have to make the distinction between double shot and bad play. The life does be difficult and full of traps:) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 27 23:49:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 23:49:45 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA27909 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 23:49:38 +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 PAA12079 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:51:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35BC6151.E3A09334@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:15:29 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dealing X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <7BVzXDAeR3u1EwL5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Just back from Coventry. 18 tricky hands, six full simulations, yet > another Panel TD training weekend is over. A couple of surprises. > > A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet and > deals that our into the other four. Is it legal? > I wouldn't think so : The cards end up : 1 2 3 4 5) 6) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19) 20) and so on. I interpret the "one card at time" (is there really no A between at and time ?) to mean that all following cards must end up in two different hands, which is not the case. It is in the way I deal nowadays : 1 2 3 4 5 9 8 7 6 10 11 12 13 17 16 15 14 .. 49 50 51 52 with both extreme packets making up one hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 00:13:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:13:46 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29536 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:13:35 +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 KAA19569 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980727101537.006b6760@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:15:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:47 AM 7/25/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >++++[ As I understand the term "Double Shot" it refers to action >following an opponent's infraction which is preposterously unjustified >by what the player knows and can see of the hand, but where, if it >turns out badly, he relies upon score adjustment following the >infraction to take away the 'extra' bad score he has incurred. The >argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player >has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope >of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] This is perfectly reasonable in theory, but is rather problematic in its application, since too many ACs (at least in the ACBL) seem unable to distinguish between "preposterously unjustified" and "none of us would have done that". One purely practical argument for allowing double shots is that they'd be held sufficiently in check by the heavy price the double-shotter pays if what goes wrong is his reliance on the score adjustment. In hesitation situations, for example, the potential double-shotter knows that there has been a hesitation, but can't tell whether the opponents actually committed an infraction (taking an action suggested over LAs etc) until the committee decision is in. 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 Jul 28 00:17:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:17:35 +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 AAA00372 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:17:24 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0o7Y-0006AC-00; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:19:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:08:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: When to ask questions? In-Reply-To: <0EWQ00GV3SSB2U@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >IMO if you have such kind of problems, you can ask the TD, take him aside >and tell him your problem. IF I was the TD I would send your partner away and >then you can ask questions to the opponents. Sorry Evert, that does not work. Partner will know exactly what you are asking back at the table - and why. -- 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 Jul 28 00:59:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:59:09 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA00484 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:59:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA10375 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:00:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-09.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.73) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010369; Mon Jul 27 10:00:30 1998 Received: by har-pa2-09.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDB94D.35F7E220@har-pa2-09.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:56:30 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDB94D.35F7E220@har-pa2-09.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:52:23 -0400 Encoding: 67 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ++++[ As I understand the term "Double Shot" it refers to action following an opponent's infraction which is preposterously unjustified by what the player knows and can see of the hand, but where, if it turns out badly, he relies upon score adjustment following the infraction to take away the 'extra' bad score he has incurred. The argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] But ARE all double shots preposterously unjustified? Or is there a gradient, rather than a clear discontinuity involved? What if there is one of those all too common play it safe to make five or take the hook for four or six choices to make, and the reasonable likelihood is that the field will take the risk based on the bidding? There has been some UI in the opponents auction. Are you then justified in playing for the safe five and seeking redress if the guess was wrong? After all, there's a quite good chance that the safe five is the winning play anyway, so your action isn't by any means preposterous...it is just more justified given the additional possibility (not even certainty) of adjustment if it is wrong. What if the game is IMPS, there is no particular reason to be swinging, and the hook gives you a 3 or 5 while eschewing it brings home the contract just making? The other table is most likely going for the sure but unspectacular make. Do you take the hook risking 10 IMPS for a one IMP gain, but relying on the opponents UI to bail you out if you are wrong? Here we a talking careless or inferior play by anyone but a novice...but not irrational surely since there appears to be a better than even chance of gain on the play even absent the UI. Is this preposterously unjustified? I think there is much to recommend "normal" over any other standard as it's meaning is well-documented and understood throughout the world . If this allows more double shots, at least it does so equally for all contestants. BL's will be around whatever the rules...at least this way the average superior player has a chance of knowing how to cope without compromising either ethics or legality. DWS gave an excellent example from what Americans call football as a justification of double shots. In the NFL when there has been a flag thrown against the defence, the quarterback can and often does hurl a long bomb in hopes of a lucky touchdown. If he misses or is intercepted, the play is called back anyway...if he connects, 6 points. How does this differ in substance from understanding ones options with a major penalty card? You may use the laws to your benefit there with no hint of bad ethics. Taking a risky play knowing a resultant bad outcome will be cancelled by a foul is not unsporting; there is no philosophical reason to ban the practice. In fact one of the penalties for an offence would be that you give better opportunity to the opposing side, which seems equitable. Avoid the offence, and you avoid the penalty. So I would come down on the side of allowing the double shot as well. What is MOST important is that the laws be made as clear as possible in this currently rather murky area. Ton's approach, if I understand it, seems to be a step in the right direction here. Even Edgar might have shifted his viewpoint over time...please note his final editorials on "Sportsmanlike Dumping" (with which I have some disagreement) that seem to indicate he favoured taking full advantage of what laws and conditions of contest permitted in an effort to secure victory. NOT trying to win by such lawful means appeared to be wrong to him. (Even more wrong were conditions of contest that allowed such action to be advantageous.) While he may have preferred laws to say non-consequent damage should produce no redress, they did and do NOT say so. I suspect he would have liked unclear laws even less that ones that redressed subsequent damage...but you would know better than I on that having had the privilege of knowing the man and not only his writings. I do believe that making the standard of consequent damage relate to "normal" (i.e. including careless and inferior but not irrational) bidding and play following the infraction, then barring redress for the more limited cases of subsequent damage that remain is a workable settlement for this problem, and should be given serious consideration by our lawmakers. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 01:26:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:26:15 +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 BAA00632 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:26:06 +1000 Received: from client840f.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.84.15] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z0pC4-0002Hf-00; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:28:09 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:21:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdb959$2097f760$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 29 June 1998 16:39 Subject: Re: What are the limitations of Law 73A? Comments, Please. >> 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? > +++ Law 73A concerns itself with communication *during* the auction and play of the hand; not between close of play and opening of next auction. Regulations may say something on this (not laws except see 74A 1 & 2). ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 01:32:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:32:52 +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 BAA00664 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:32:45 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA14868 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01341; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:34:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:34:50 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807271534.LAA01341@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Craig Senior > I do believe that making the standard of consequent damage relate to > "normal" (i.e. including careless and inferior but not irrational) bidding > and play following the infraction, then barring redress for the more > limited cases of subsequent damage that remain is a workable settlement for > this problem, and should be given serious consideration by our lawmakers. It's worth noting the effect on the example David Burn proposed. The 5H bid might be careless or inferior, but it could hardly qualify as irrational. It might make, or it might be a good sacrifice. The 7H bid is surely irrational. The pair were prepared to pass the hand out in 4H. If 7H makes, surely 6H would be a good score, and even 5H would be pretty good. Of course if the example had been 6H, it might be much more difficult to decide. No rule is perfect! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 01:39:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:39:25 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00683 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:39:19 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA22488 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980727114123.006b6ec0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:41:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:00 AM 7/25/98 +0100, John wrote: >I had one at the YC last night where there was a UI leading to 6S bid >(which I would have disallowed, but the oppo bid on to 7H off an A (when >the double was obvious within the context of the auction). I let the >score stand, on the basis of wild & reckless action. This is the sort of decision that makes me firmly oppose the whole notion of refusing redress for "egregious errors". "Double was obvious", but TO WHOM? It was, clearly, obvious to John. Assuming John's judgment is not totally unreasonable, then if doubling 6S was obvious, 6S must have been going down. If bidding 7H was a "wild & reckless action", then 7H must have been a heavy favorite to go down. If 7H went down and John subsequently gave the NOS the benefit of an adjustment, they would have gotten the score for 5S=, or 4S=, or 5S-2, or whatever was appropriate, rather than the score for 7H-1. There is no way that that adjusted score could have been as good a result for the NOS as they would have achieved against 6SX. So we are forced to conclude that IF DOUBLING 6S WAS OBVIOUS TO THE 7H BIDDER, HE'D HAVE DOUBLED 6S. He could not possibly expect to get as good a result by doing anything else. Put another way, if it was obvious TO HIM to double 6S, then he is not guilty of an egregious error or an attempted double shot; he is guilty of deliberately throwing matchpoints. The innocent NO here was, to put it bluntly, punished because what was obvious to John was not obvious to him. He lost out because, in John's opinion, his bridge was bad enough to warrant a "bad bridge penalty". The adjustment should not have been denied. 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 Jul 28 01:51:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:51:45 +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 BAA00727 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:51:37 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA15485 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01415; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:53:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:53:43 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807271553.LAA01415@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: When to ask questions? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "G. R. Bower" > Now, it is fairly well established that the recommended procedure in > ACBLand is to ask only if you have a reason to know during the acution, > otherwise to wait until the end of the auction to enquire. This is not how I have understood the recommended ACBL procedure. It sounds much closer to the recommended EBU procedure. I would have said that in North America, the recommended procedure is to ask if _the auction_ (with any alerts and explanations already given) makes it likely that you would need to know _some of the time._ This is without reference to the hand you actually hold or whether or not you need to know _on this hand._ Unfortunately, this doesn't solve the problem given. Near the beginning of the auction, it did seem fairly unlikely that there would be any need to know anything during the auction. I'm afraid the only real answer is to play with screens. Or perhaps one might use more imagination about how the auction could develop. In a slam auction, maybe it isn't all that rare to throw in a lead-directing double (at least on some hands), so maybe it is right to ask about the auction as soon as it becomes clear that the opponents are probing for slam. I confess I don't really recommend this approach except _perhaps_ in the highest levels of competition. (But then why aren't you using screens?) If it's any comfort, the EBU players will have this problem far more often than we do. (Our approach has different problems, of course.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 01:56:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:56:33 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00745 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:56:27 +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 MAA23200 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980727115836.006b59a8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:58:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <000801bdb832$487143e0$102e63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:11 AM 7/26/98 +0100, David wrote: >Now, suppose this auction occurs: > >South West North East >1H 1S 4H Pass (slow) >Pass 4S 5H All pass > >North's 5H is absurd, and the contract accordingly goes down. "I knew >that I was safe to bid 5H", says North, "for I knew that if it turned >out to be the wrong thing to do, we could almost certainly get West's >4S bid cancelled." He is, of course, quite right - Jesper Dybdal rules >(as we all would rule, given the hand - which in this case does not >matter) that West had no vestige of a 4S bid, so the score is rolled >back to 4H making four. > >Suppose, then, that the auction went like this: > >South West North East >1H 1S 4H Pass (slow) >Pass 4S 7H All pass > >"I knew", says North, "that I was safe to bid 7H. If it made, we would >get a good score; if it did not make, we could get West's 4S bid >cancelled." > >Well, Jesper? Are you prepared to concede that there may in principle >exist "wild and gambling action" for which the Laws should rightly >give no redress? Or are we merely discussing the price? I hope Jesper is not prepared to concede. David's argument depends on the relevance of the assumption that Jesper would rule "as we all would rule, given the hand". But how is that relevant, since the 5H/7H bidder was NOT "given the hand", and therefore could not know how Jesper (or we all) would rule? 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 Jul 28 03:01:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:01:17 +1000 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01091 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:01:09 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Mon, 27 Jul 98 13:03:06 EDT Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa01175; 27 Jul 98 13:02 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA23366 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:02:52 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199807271702.NAA23366@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Dealing To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:02:52 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <002201bdb92c$8ce59e40$b75abcc3@dhassan> from "Damian Hassan" at Jul 27, 98 08:02:36 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 >From Damian: > as long as you deal the cards one at a time. > I must admit that that is how the law reads to me. > > Did the law-givers intend that each hand should not receive more than = > one card consecutively? I don't know if it's a world-wide or an ACBL regulation, but someone intended that each hand not receive consecutive cards. A deal such as Hand: 1 2 3 4 Card: 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 9 10 11 12 16 15 14 13 etc. is not allowed in ACBL-land. Is this not allowed elsewhere? John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 03:41:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:41:43 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA01184 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:41:37 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA13562 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:43:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: <199807271702.NAA23366@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've deleted the original from DWS and the objections to dealing in 5 piles and then dealing the 5th pile again. The objections were that the first card on the 5th pile was adjacent to a card on the first pile in the original 52-card pile. BUT when you have dealt 52 cards into 5 piles, the first two piles have more cards on them, so the redeal of the 5th pile has to start on the THIRD pile. Therefore the deal is legal (assuming you manage to get thirteen cards in each hand!) -- Richard Lighton |"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial (lighton@idt.net)| atomic globule. Consequently my family pride is something Wood-Ridge NJ | inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (The Mikado) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 05:15:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:15:31 +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 FAA01430 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:15:25 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0sm1-0006sL-00; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 19:17:29 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 19:44:32 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 19:44:31 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > John Prosbt wrote: > > >I had one at the YC last night where there was a UI leading to 6S bid > >(which I would have disallowed, but the oppo bid on to 7H off an A > (when > >the double was obvious within the context of the auction). I let the > >score stand, on the basis of wild & reckless action. > > > This appears to me to be an error. The side who bid 7H should have > kept their result, but the side that used UI should have been given > whatever result they would have obtained had the 6S bid been > cancelled. The offenders do not thereby profit from their infraction, > and the "gamblers" lose their bet. Basically, this means that everyone > gets a bottom, which is exactly what they deserve. > > ######### Don't we need to know what would have happened to 7H first? > After all, if it only went one off then adjusting for the OS to 4S+2 > is helping them and we surely would not do that. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 05:38:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:38:37 +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 FAA01532 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:38:31 +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 PAA29727 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980727154041.006bba38@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:40:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: References: <199807271702.NAA23366@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:43 PM 7/27/98 -0400, Richard wrote: >I've deleted the original from DWS and the objections to dealing >in 5 piles and then dealing the 5th pile again. The objections >were that the first card on the 5th pile was adjacent to a card on >the first pile in the original 52-card pile. > >BUT > >when you have dealt 52 cards into 5 piles, the first two piles have >more cards on them, so the redeal of the 5th pile has to start on the >THIRD pile. Therefore the deal is legal (assuming you manage to get >thirteen cards in each hand!) That's not how the 5-pile technique works. You deal to piles 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2..., so you get piles of 7, 13, 13, 13 and 6. Piles 1 and 5 combine to produce hand 1, so the order of dealing to hands (as opposed to piles) is 1-2-3-4-1-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-1-4-3-2... 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 Jul 28 05:43:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:43:02 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f12.hotmail.com [207.82.250.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA01554 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:42:56 +1000 Received: (qmail 9771 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jul 1998 19:44:28 -0000 Message-ID: <19980727194428.9770.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.105 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:44:28 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.105] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dealing Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:44:28 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Richard Lighton >when you have dealt 52 cards into 5 piles, the first two piles have >more cards on them, so the redeal of the 5th pile has to start on the >THIRD pile. Therefore the deal is legal (assuming you manage to get >thirteen cards in each hand!) But in this case, the second card in the redealt pile goes to the fourth hand - and that means that the 9th and 10th cards in the original pack are dealt to fourth hand. Similarly the third card in the redealt pile (the 15th card) goes to first hand (as does the 16th). In fact, no matter how the redealt pile is redealt, any cards going to the first and fourth piles will have started the deal next to another card that ends up in that pile. However, my question is the same as others: does "...must be dealt, one at a time, into four hands..." mean that successive cards in the original pack can't end up in the same hand? I would say so, but I don't know. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 05:46:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:46:25 +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 FAA01572 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:46:19 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA05070 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:44:03 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199807271944.OAA05070@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:44:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I think there is much to recommend "normal" over any other standard as > it's meaning is well-documented and understood throughout the world . If > this allows more double shots, at least it does so equally for all > contestants. BL's will be around whatever the rules...at least this way the > average superior player has a chance of knowing how to cope without > compromising either ethics or legality. > DWS gave an excellent example from what Americans call football as a > justification of double shots. In the NFL when there has been a flag thrown > against the defence, the quarterback can and often does hurl a long bomb in > hopes of a lucky touchdown. If he misses or is intercepted, the play is > called back anyway...if he connects, 6 points. How does this differ in > substance from understanding ones options with a major penalty card? You Because in the case of a major penalty card both sides know that there has been an infraction, what that infraction was, and exactly what options it allows. Football is more nebulous [a big yellow flag has been thrown on the field, so you know there's a penalty, but you don't know for _certain_ what penalty and against what team]. But UI, mis-explanation, etc. situations are very different--very often, one side doesn't even have the faintest idea that anything has gone wrong. > may use the laws to your benefit there with no hint of bad ethics. Taking a > risky play knowing a resultant bad outcome will be cancelled by a foul is > not unsporting; there is no philosophical reason to ban the practice. In > fact one of the penalties for an offence would be that you give better > opportunity to the opposing side, which seems equitable. Avoid the offence, > and you avoid the penalty. So I would come down on the side of allowing the > double shot as well. There are crucial difference between these cases [Amer. football, rugby, hockey, etc.] and the double-shot in bridge, and these differences need to be emphasized: 1) In any of those sports, you _know_ whether a penalty has been committed. [In hockey, you even know for certain which side has committed the penalty and what the penalty will be.] In bridge, you do not. Some people have proclaimed this as an advantage, as the fear that one has misjudged the 'infraction' will discourage double-shots. I claim that it is a big _dis_advantage. Allowing the double-shot will greatly favor the lawyers, because they _know_ how to look for penalties, while less experienced players do not. If a lawyer uses UI to reach a contract, very often his opponents won't know it, and so he will receive no penalty. But he will make sure to be on the lookout for any infraction by the opponents, no matter how slight, since he will now be able to use it as justification for a wild gamble. We will not have eliminated any difficult committee decisions, we will simply have re-directed them. Consider the following [the example may not be the best--I made it up on the spot--but consider the principle]: East opens 1 diamond. I am South, with a balanced 15 count. I know that E-W are playing Precision, and that in my area a Precision 1D opening must be alerted. I know there has been a failure to alert. If the double-shot is allowed, why shouldn't I bid, say, 3 no-trump? [If you like, assume my partner dealt and passed before East's bid.] If the bid makes, it is very likely to be an excellent score. If it fails, I can now claim _damage_ from the failure to alert, since had 1D been alerted I almost certainly wouldn't have ended in 3 NT going down! We cannot rule that there was no damage because the damage was merely subsequent and not consequent--that is the distinction we are abolishing. Will you legalize the double-shot but still retain rules saying that I cannot get redress if I "should have known" to protect myself? Isn't that just as messy a concept as the one we're trying to eradicate? Shouldn't we just say that we are from the old school, and if you make a mistake you should pay the price? In sum, I think that legalizing the double-shot will add extra appeals [from infractions which could previously be ignored but now must be dealt with because a double-shot has been based on them], and will greatly benefit lawyers at the expense of the less experienced or more timid players. I suggest that if we allow the double-shot, we should also have TD's at every table to throw a yellow flag in the air after all infractions. 2) The penalty for an infraction is much higher in bridge than in those other sports, because a bridge hand must be played out to a conclusive score and a play in sports need not be. Consider American football again. There is a penalty on the defense. My team tries a risky offensive play, which fails. The play is called back, and the penalty assessed. What is the penalty? A few yards of field and _run the play over_. What I have actually gained by the penalty itself is very little--in particular, the offense may never score points as a [direct] result of a penalty. Not so in bridge. If you commit an infraction, and my double-shot fails, I will not recieve a token penalty and be told to play the board over again--instead, I will recieve the best score that I was likely to get absent the infraction, which is almost always a good score! When penalties are small [as in football] the 'double-shot' is a way of making up for that. Penalties in bridge are already very large--we don't _need_ to add the extra compensation of the free double-shot. > I do believe that making the standard of consequent damage relate to > "normal" (i.e. including careless and inferior but not irrational) bidding > and play following the infraction, then barring redress for the more > limited cases of subsequent damage that remain is a workable settlement for > this problem, and should be given serious consideration by our lawmakers. I have no quarrel with this standard. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 06:05:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:05:26 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f148.hotmail.com [207.82.251.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01643 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:05:19 +1000 Received: (qmail 8139 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jul 1998 20:06:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19980727200653.8138.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.105 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:06:53 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.105] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:06:53 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru >Hi all:) > >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >"The great advantage of allowing the double shot is that the TD andAC >need not make the sometimes difficult distinction between the double >shot and merely bad play" > >Sorry, Jesper, but for my opinion the Laws are for making play bridge >more comfortable and enjoyable for players - not for making TD's and >AC's job easier. > I agree, but... >David Stevenson wrote: >"I have no difficulty in allowing 7H if it makes. I love watching the >quarter-back throw a *really* exciting long pass which rarely works - >and occasionally he finds the wrong side gets the penalty!" > > Well, David and Jesper! I do not beleive that you do not understand >Burn's example of 7Hearts! There is no problem if Declarer wins the >grand - let him be happy, result stands. But the problem is - 7Hearts, >doubled, down 3. Where is your love (joy, etc.) now? Will you adjust >this score? > Assuming that the double shot is allowed (as they are arguing) unless the NOS do not commit an infraction (and that the "OS" really did offend - that is the gamble), then yes I do adjust the score. 4S making whatever. > My (guess - Burn's and some more TDs) position is that in such >a case the result should be stands for Declarer. And OS's result >should be adjust to that would be reached if infraction would not >have happened (worse of possible). Of course - if this happens in my game tomorrow, I assign a split score, and I assume that everyone on the list would do the same. > And such proseeding will save field, spirit and sportish integrity of bridge. I'm not sure about that. If the Laws were such that it matches Canadian football (close enough to American Rules for this argument's sake) *and everyone knew it*, that no legal action, no matter how irrational or wildly gambling, removes from the NOS the right to adjustment for the OS's irregularity, that would also save the field, the spirit, and the sportish integrity of the game. It would be a different game - but I think it would still be bridge. But I think that if we, the bridge community, wish to change from the "no double shot" idea to the "double shot ok" idea, it will require an explicit change to the Laws - nothing less impressive will change people's minds. > TD and AC have to make the distinction between double shot and >bad play. The life does be difficult and full of traps:) Currently, yes. But this is (or has evolved into, anyway) a thread about how good an idea changing the philosophy that requires us to do so is. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 06:52:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:52:27 +1000 Received: from mail-in1.inet.tele.dk (mail-in1.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.158]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01778 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:52:19 +1000 Received: (qmail 13243 invoked from network); 27 Jul 1998 20:54:22 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in1.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 27 Jul 1998 20:54:22 -0000 Received: from ip161.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.161]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA51842 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:54:20 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:54:20 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35bee0d7.3252627@post1.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 Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:05:33 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ [ O.K. The view that a 'double shot' should lose the = protection=20 >of law goes back a long way; well before I started to debate laws with=20 >Kaplan, and it did come from the players of the time (at least as far as >their views were articulate before the age of electronics). So it was=20 >written into the unwritten laws, by saying that the result it produced = was=20 >not a consequence of the infraction but was subsequent to it. The = fashion=20 >is apparently changing, with the opinion that it should be considered >'normal bridge' coming from some of today's thinkers. Perhaps I have not made it clear enough that the true double shot does not bother me at all. I believe that it occurs extremely rarely, and would occur extremely rarely even if it were legal, simply because the very small chance of success that a "wild or gambling" action has needs to be weighed against the risk that the opponent had no logical alternative and therefore has committed no infraction. =46or the rare true double shot it does not really matter to me whether it is considered legal or not. I believe that most of those situations that TDs and ACs judge to be double shots are really just bad play. Such bad play is possibly influenced by confusion about the possible adjustment after a hesitation, but confusion is also legal. And I really hate the idea of penalizing bad play made in a situation that would not have occurred without an opponent's infraction. So I would like the double shot to be legal primarily to remove the risk that ordinary bad play is penalized because it is mistaken for a double shot. (Though I do not consider that aspect very important, I personally also happen to believe that a legal double shot would be quite entertaining on the rare occasions it would occur.) > Personally I do not feel it right if the OS gains because = NOS >indulges in a double shot; on the other hand - maybe because all the >committees I have attended took this view - I find it difficult to think= it >desirable that NOs should have the minus for their efforts taken away >from them - that is the part of their bad score engineered by their own >bridge judgement and not essential to the opponent's infraction. The NOS gets a bad score which would have been avoided if either the irregularity had not occurred or the NOS had played better. The problem is that it is usually impossible to determine how much damage was caused by which of the two. So let's make it a simple rule: to make quite sure that the NOS is not damaged by the irregularity (which is priority one to me), let us simply allow them to get away with their bad/wild/gambling play after the irregularity. If the opponents do not like that, they'll have to stop using UI. This is not inconsistent with other laws, notably the revoke laws, which give the NOS a great advantage for the sake of simplicity. When both sides do something terrible bad in bridge, the one side that had the smallest disaster usually gets a really good result despite their bad play. I want to consider a UI infraction to be equivalent to so "terribly bad" play by the OS that the NOS gets a good score despite their own subsequent terribly bad play. >If=20 >the double shot succeeds the NOS has not been damaged and the=20 >question tends not to surface, but is it not a consequence of your=20 >opinion that when it does not succeed the score should also be=20 >considered just part of bridge for both sides? ~ Grattan ~] ++++ No. If there is damage (of any kind) to the NOS, I believe that we should adjust for both sides. Of course there is still a judgement to be made: was there any damage? I would have some sympathy for the point of view that in David Burn's extreme jump-to-7H example there was no damage, consequent or subsequent, and therefore no adjustment _for either side_. But I still personally prefer the simple "The NOS would have had a better score without the irregularity; therefore there was damage"-style, though. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 06:52:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:52:28 +1000 Received: from mail-in2.inet.tele.dk (mail-in2.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01779 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:52:20 +1000 Received: (qmail 3813 invoked from network); 27 Jul 1998 20:54:24 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in2.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 27 Jul 1998 20:54:24 -0000 Received: from ip161.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.161]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAB51842 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:54:23 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:54:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35bddc5e.2107420@post1.dknet.dk> References: <08rg4QBlK6u1Ew4K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35BCCA12.30F3@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <35BCCA12.30F3@elnet.msk.ru> 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, 27 Jul 1998 11:42:26 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >"The great advantage of allowing the double shot is that the TD and AC >need not make the sometimes difficult distinction between the double >shot and merely bad play" > >Sorry, Jesper, but for my opinion the Laws are for making play bridge >more comfortable and enjoyable for players - not for making TD's and >AC's job easier.=20 When it is obvious that it is practically impossible for TDs and ACs to rule consistently and correctly on a certain type of infraction, simpler rules are called for. If your principle were to be applied generally, we would need only one law about irregularities: "When there is an irregularity, the TD assigns an adjusted score". That would be much more fair than for instance our current revoke rules, but it would cause a lot of work and it would not be applied consistently by different directors - so instead we have simple rules for such things as revokes. >David Stevenson wrote: >"I have no difficulty in allowing 7H if it makes. I love watching the >quarter-back throw a *really* exciting long pass which rarely works - >and occasionally he finds the wrong side gets the penalty!" > > Well, David and Jesper! I do not beleive that you do not understand >Burn's example of 7Hearts! There is no problem if Declarer wins the >grand - let him be happy, result stands. But the problem is - 7Hearts, >doubled, down 3. Where is your love (joy, etc.) now? Will you adjust >this score? Certainly. Wihout the irregularity, the NOS would have won 4H. Look at it this way: the OS has done something that is just as bad as a terrible bridge error; if they had made a terrible bridge error instead, the NOS would have had a really good score. The good score that I'd assign to the NOS is to be considered a gift from OS rather than an award for good play. UI irregularities are not, and should not be, a part of normal bridge. They are, and should be, so rare that we can afford to give the NOS a score that is certain to be good enough to be fair to them, even if we thereby sometimes give them more than they deserve. David Burn's example is extreme: it simply does not occur in practice. The situations that occur in practice are generally much more difficult to diagnose as double shots or just bad play. > My (guess - Burn's and some more TDs) position is that in such a case >the result should be stands for Declarer. And OS's result should be >adjust to that would be reached if infraction would not have happened >(worse of possible). And such proseeding will save field, spirit and >sportish integrity of bridge. What will save "field, spirit and sportish integrity of bridge" is any initiative to teach players not to commit the infractions we are talking about. Good scores to non-offenders are not a problem at all - the problem is the irregularities. Do you also believe that the revoke penalty - which usually gives the NOS an undeserved good score - is bad for bridge? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 06:52:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:52:43 +1000 Received: from mail-in1.inet.tele.dk (mail-in1.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.158]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01790 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:52:30 +1000 Received: (qmail 13246 invoked from network); 27 Jul 1998 20:54:26 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in1.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 27 Jul 1998 20:54:26 -0000 Received: from ip161.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.161]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAC51842 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:54:25 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:54:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c1e665.4674521@post1.dknet.dk> References: <112wqDATfTu1EwIC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35BBBB3A.7823@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <35BBBB3A.7823@elnet.msk.ru> 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, 26 Jul 1998 16:26:51 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >"In my view not allowing the double shot is against the general >principles of sport and removes some fun and interest from the game by >reducing the number of situations." Actually, I didn't. I think David wrote that. > And there is another problem - David Burn pointed on it: NOS may >concsiously try to make double shot. I have more strong case (that >happened in reality): > Your hand: xx - JT98xx - xxx - xx. RHO opened 1Heart, LHO rised to 3NT >(you know their system, it was fit and slam invitation - you understood >that LHO made mistakes and bid was natural). Then RHO rebid 4Hearts - >exit from slam try. Now you (I underline once more that you know >opponent's system) asked them about meaning of bids - and it provided >(as you hoped) to generation of UI. Then you doubled. And beleived that >if LHO bid more - you will receive your result by means of AC (UI >case!!). LHO rebid 4nt, won the contract - AC changed the result... Is >it what we want? Sure - not me. Guess - niether D.Burn. Guess - there >are more TD with the same (or similar) position. IMO asking questions for the sole purpose of forcing the opponents to give each other UI should be made illegal. Though it would usually be impossible to prove violations, such a law would at least stop BL types who follow the laws literally from doing it. In this case, however, LHO already has the UI from RHO's missing alert of 3NT (assuming the alert rules are anything like ours). Apart from that, what really happened here? Opponents have bid 4H on a 7-card fit, obviously with a bidding mistake, and with partner's expected values, I can certainly defeat it. Yes, they may be able to make 4NT. A double here can be caused by many things: (a) Bad bridge - I forgot the 4NT danger, (b) Bad bridge - I took a chance that 4NT will also go down, (c) I gambled on LHO not removing the double, (d) I know that LHO cannot bid 4NT because of UI. (d) is somewhat like a real double shot, but not quite - there has been no irregularity yet (other than a missing alert). The double is made on the assumption that LHO will follow the laws and not bid 4NT. This may not be the kind of bridge we like to play, but it is legal, and it is not a double shot. If a TD rules that my opponent must pass, I'm allowed to take advantage of it; similarly when my LHO must pass because it is obviously a logical alternative. And if (d) were a double shot, which it is not, I would not like to have to decide whether what happened was (d) or one of the other three. Note (c). That is not even bad bridge - it is quite reasonable bridge. What if there had been no UI (screens, or no alert rule and no question)? Well, my hand shows clearly that LHO has a balanced hand and RHO believes LHO to have heart support. Why in the world should I expect LHO to take out his partner, who already once has chosen to play a heart contract rather than a NT contract? It seems to me that not only is pass a logical alternative for LHO, but that it almost surely (we haven't seen the hand) is the normal call, and that 4NT probably was a case of real use of UI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 07:20:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:20:17 +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 HAA01889 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:20:11 +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 RAA29415 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:22:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01751; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:22:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:22:19 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807272122.RAA01751@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > The NOS gets a bad score which would have been avoided if either > the irregularity had not occurred or the NOS had played better. Yes. > The problem is that it is usually impossible to determine how > much damage was caused by which of the two. Why is it impossible? It doesn't even seem difficult. We have the table score, with both irregularity and bad play. We can assign a score with no irregularity and no bad play. We can assign a score with the irregularity but without bad play. And sometimes, but not always, we can assign a score with no irregularity but with bad play. Even if we cannot do the last (the contract would have been entirely different with no opportunity for the bad play), the first three suffice to assign an amount of loss separately to the irregularity and to the bad play. There is no _unique_ way to do this, but there are several reasonable ways if this is an approach we wish to adopt. I am not sure this is the best approach, but please don't say it isn't a possible one. At least it retains an incentive for the NOS to "play bridge" and puts them at risk if they don't. Also, nobody needs to judge "bad play;" the cards and scores do that. > I would have some sympathy for the point of view that in David > Burn's extreme jump-to-7H example there was no damage, consequent > or subsequent, and therefore no adjustment _for either side_. How can there be no damage?! The NOS went minus in 7H, whereas without the irregularity, they would have gone plus in 4S. The auction would have ended before the player could have bid 7H. Clearly both the irregularity and the 7H bid were necessary elements in the loss. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 07:23:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:23:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01903 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:23:41 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA29968 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01758; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:25:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:25:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807272125.RAA01758@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > How can there be no damage?! The NOS went minus in 7H, whereas without > the irregularity, they would have gone plus in 4S. Sorry, that should have been "plus in 4H." From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 08:09:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:09:07 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01984 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:09:00 +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 RAA12860 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807272128.RAA29535@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199807271944.OAA05070@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> (cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu) Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling writes: > There are crucial difference between these cases [Amer. football, > rugby, hockey, etc.] and the double-shot in bridge, and these differences > need to be emphasized: > 1) In any of those sports, you _know_ whether a penalty has been > committed. [In hockey, you even know for certain which side has committed > the penalty and what the penalty will be.] In bridge, you do not. Some > people have proclaimed this as an advantage, as the fear that one has > misjudged the 'infraction' will discourage double-shots. I claim that it > is a big _dis_advantage. Allowing the double-shot will greatly favor the > lawyers, because they _know_ how to look for penalties, while less > experienced players do not. I think this is the best argument for not allowing the double shot. The ability to exploit double shots should not be part of the game. > Consider the following [the example may not be the best--I made it > up on the spot--but consider the principle] The example here was not good, as it involved a failure to alert (MI) which could not reasonably have influenced the subsquent choice of bid. In any case, a double shot in an MI situation should be impossible because the double-shotter, if aware of the MI, is not misinformed. A wild or gambling action in such a situation should be taken as evidence that the shooter knew there was MI and was trying for a double shot. A more likely double-shot problem is a UI case, something like this: N E S W P P 3H P(after 20 sec) P 3S P P X A good bridge lawyer sitting North can be reasonably sure that East's 3S will be disallowed on this auction, and thus the double is free if the contract will be rolled back to 3H. > 2) The penalty for an infraction is much higher in bridge than in > those other sports, because a bridge hand must be played out to a > conclusive score and a play in sports need not be. I think this analogy is incorrect because the penalty in sports is large relative to the specific play but small relative to a long game, while in bridge it is large relative to the specific hand but small relative to a 26-board session. > Not so in bridge. If you commit an infraction, and my double-shot > fails, I will not recieve a token penalty and be told to play the board > over again--instead, I will recieve the best score that I was likely to > get absent the infraction, which is almost always a good score! The ACBL's rule of thumb here is that you should get a score which you had at least a 1/3 chance of making by normal play, which isn't that much better for you than requiring you to replay the hand without the infraction. -- 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 Jul 28 09:08:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:08:16 +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 JAA02121 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:08:06 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0wPB-0001F5-00; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 23:10:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:04:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980727101537.006b6760@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:47 AM 7/25/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>++++[ As I understand the term "Double Shot" it refers to action >>following an opponent's infraction which is preposterously unjustified >>by what the player knows and can see of the hand, but where, if it >>turns out badly, he relies upon score adjustment following the >>infraction to take away the 'extra' bad score he has incurred. The >>argument for not restoring fully the health of his score is that the player >>has knowingly and purposefully taken an unwarranted risk in the hope >>of gain and there should be a price to pay if it goes wrong. ~ Grattan ~] >This is perfectly reasonable in theory, but is rather problematic in its >application, since too many ACs (at least in the ACBL) seem unable to >distinguish between "preposterously unjustified" and "none of us would have >done that". Now hold it right there, fella! The ACBL is not merely trying to get rid of the double shot, but is also trying to teach people to play good bridge at all times as well. Or to put it another way, I do not believe that subsequent v consequent is merely to get rid of the double shot: in fact nor is wild or gambling, which also caters for inanity. -- 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 Jul 28 09:36:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:36:37 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA02245 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:36:31 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.52.28] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0z0wpu-00029S-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:37:47 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bdb9b7$af2da5c0$1c3463c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:38:39 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 27 July 1998 21:05 Subject: Re: Dealing > >That's not how the 5-pile technique works. You deal to piles >1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2..., so you get piles of 7, 13, 13, 13 and >6. Piles 1 and 5 combine to produce hand 1, so the order of dealing to >hands (as opposed to piles) is 1-2-3-4-1-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-1-4-3-2... That is one version. The latest refinement of the 5-pile technique works like this: Deal to piles 1-2-3-4-5-5-4-3-2-1-1-2-3-4-5-5-4-3-2-1...5-4-3-2-1-1-2. Pick up pile 5, and deal 3-4-1-2-3-4-1. Forrester did this against us in the Spring Fours this year, and although it did not matter a hill of beans to me, it did have the result that hand 1 received two "consecutive" cards on four occasions, which is probably illegal. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 10:50:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:50:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02450 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:49:51 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0xza-0002C8-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:51:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:30:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980727114123.006b6ec0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980727114123.006b6ec0@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 02:00 AM 7/25/98 +0100, John wrote: > >>I had one at the YC last night where there was a UI leading to 6S bid >>(which I would have disallowed, but the oppo bid on to 7H off an A (when >>the double was obvious within the context of the auction). I let the >>score stand, on the basis of wild & reckless action. > >This is the sort of decision that makes me firmly oppose the whole notion >of refusing redress for "egregious errors". "Double was obvious", but TO >WHOM? > >It was, clearly, obvious to John. > The NOS screwed up on whether a double showed or denied the relevant first round control. The NOS agreed with me they'd stopped playing bridge when it got pulled to 7H. Not only abvious to me - it was pointed out to me by the NOS. I accept I could, even should, award 6H= and 7H-1 but have pointed out elsewhere why I didn't. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 10:50:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:50:03 +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 KAA02447 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:49:50 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0xza-0002zQ-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:51:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:47:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Richard Lighton writes >I've deleted the original from DWS and the objections to dealing >in 5 piles and then dealing the 5th pile again. The objections >were that the first card on the 5th pile was adjacent to a card on >the first pile in the original 52-card pile. > >BUT > >when you have dealt 52 cards into 5 piles, the first two piles have >more cards on them, so the redeal of the 5th pile has to start on the >THIRD pile. Therefore the deal is legal (assuming you manage to get >thirteen cards in each hand!) > except, as pointed out by my long suffering partner, the cards in the fifth pile were dealt consecutively after the cards in the fourth pile (and before the ones in the first, and so some of the cards being re- dealt into the fourth pile were originally consecutive in the deck. Also the first pile. IMO it makes this deal illegal. One which I feel should be legal is N E S W - 1 2 3 4 5 9 8 7 6 10 11 12 13 17 16 15 14 etc followed by putting the fifth pile on the first -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 10:50:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:50:04 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA02449 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:49:50 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0xza-0001oA-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:51:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:37:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <35bee0d7.3252627@post1.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >But I still personally prefer the simple "The NOS would have had >a better score without the irregularity; therefore there was >damage"-style, though. I completely agree. When the umpire calls "no-ball" the batsman gets half way down the track and tries to thump the ball over the bowler's head. If he fails, he still gets given a run, and essentially can only be given out if he is run out. if he succeeds he may well get 4. The action of stepping down the track is stupid in the normal course of events. The biggest six I've ever seen came off a no-ball (must have been 170 yards). -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 12:09:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:09:01 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02597 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:08:54 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z0zE9-00012D-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 02:10:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 03:00:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >The NOS screwed up on whether a double showed or denied the relevant >first round control. The NOS agreed with me they'd stopped playing >bridge when it got pulled to 7H. Not only abvious to me - it was pointed >out to me by the NOS. I accept I could, even should, award 6H= and 7H-1 >but have pointed out elsewhere why I didn't. ... because bridge is run for the sake of the software [afair]. Shows that things change. When I was young it was run for the Directors. -- 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 Jul 28 21:04:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:04:11 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA03496 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:04:04 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA27499 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:06:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article , > Richard Lighton writes > >I've deleted the original from DWS and the objections to dealing > >in 5 piles and then dealing the 5th pile again. The objections > >were that the first card on the 5th pile was adjacent to a card on > >the first pile in the original 52-card pile. > > > >BUT > > > >when you have dealt 52 cards into 5 piles, the first two piles have > >more cards on them, so the redeal of the 5th pile has to start on the > >THIRD pile. Therefore the deal is legal (assuming you manage to get > >thirteen cards in each hand!) > > > except, as pointed out by my long suffering partner, the cards in the > fifth pile were dealt consecutively after the cards in the fourth pile > (and before the ones in the first, and so some of the cards being re- > dealt into the fourth pile were originally consecutive in the deck. > Also the first pile. IMO it makes this deal illegal. OOPS! This has now been pointed out to me a number of times. Once again, I didn't think hard enough. Partners keep telling me that, too. > > One which I feel should be legal is > N E S W - > 1 2 3 4 5 > 9 8 7 6 > 10 11 12 13 > 17 16 15 14 etc > followed by putting the fifth pile on the first Somewhere I read a story that Santanu Ghose had said in an informal discussion that the change in Law 6B allowed this, but not 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 etc Grattan or Ton or others who were involved, was the intent of the change to allow non-cyclic dealing but prevent adjacent cards falling in the same hand, or was it merely an acknowledgment that players did things differently? Personally, I prefered the old law 6B but I can't say I've ever formally objected over anything but dealing two (or more) at a time after a token shuffle. -- Richard Lighton |"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial (lighton@idt.net)| atomic globule. Consequently my family pride is something Wood-Ridge NJ | inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (The Mikado) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 21:52:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:52:58 +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 VAA03610 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:52:52 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-168.uunet.be [194.7.14.168]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19375 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:54:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35BD8399.A84A68DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:54:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dealing X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: > > I've deleted the original from DWS and the objections to dealing > in 5 piles and then dealing the 5th pile again. The objections > were that the first card on the 5th pile was adjacent to a card on > the first pile in the original 52-card pile. > > BUT > > when you have dealt 52 cards into 5 piles, the first two piles have > more cards on them, so the redeal of the 5th pile has to start on the > THIRD pile. Therefore the deal is legal (assuming you manage to get > thirteen cards in each hand!) > let's try it : 1 2 3 4) 6 7 8 9 .. 21) 24) .. 41) 42 43 44) 46 47 48 49 51 52 50 45) 40) 35 30 25) 20) 15 10 5) no, won't work. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 22:45:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:45:58 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03789 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:45:50 +1000 Received: from mgate.nic.agro.nl (agro01.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.12]) by gatekeeper.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/5Jun1998) with ESMTP id OAA15176 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:47:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01IZXRQU2HGW0020CF@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:47:20 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:47:16 +0000 (MED) Disclose-recipients: prohibited Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:47:16 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: 0ne by one To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5416471428071998/A48139/EXPERT/11C7E3AF0C00*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential UA-content-id: 11C7E3AF0C00 X400-MTS-identifier: [;5416471428071998/A48139/EXPERT] Hop-count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The reason to change law 6B has a principal background, which exists also more generally in law-making in my country nowadays. You should not make a law if you know that it is impossible to get it working or to keep it. According to the drafting committee the rotation way of dealing the cards is regularly or even very often not followed. And they were not optimistic in getting education working here. That is why we changed it. I am afraid that the change means that we allow 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1- etc. now, taking one by one very litteraly (is that English or should it be letterly?). As I do when I say that I don't like opponents who pick up their cards one by one. Let us forbid that in the next edition. Ton K. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 22:52:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:52:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA03819 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:52:09 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z19Gf-00056c-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:54:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:49:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980727154041.006bba38@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau and others wrote an amazing amount of stuff like this: >>when you have dealt 52 cards into 5 piles, the first two piles have >>more cards on them, so the redeal of the 5th pile has to start on the >>THIRD pile. Therefore the deal is legal (assuming you manage to get >>thirteen cards in each hand!) >That's not how the 5-pile technique works. You deal to piles >1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2..., so you get piles of 7, 13, 13, 13 and >6. Piles 1 and 5 combine to produce hand 1, so the order of dealing to >hands (as opposed to piles) is 1-2-3-4-1-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-1-4-3-2... OK. There seem to me to be the following possibilities. [1] You deal cards one at a time to four piles, never two consecutively to one pile. [2] You deal cards one at a time to four piles, sometimes two consecutively to one pile. [3] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively to one pile: you then deal out the fifth pile to the other four, but cards that were originally adjacent never finish in the same pile. [4] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively to one pile: you then deal out the fifth pile to the other four, and cards that were originally adjacent sometimes finish in the same pile. [5] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively to one pile, the fourth and fifth piles having fewer cards in them: you then put the fifth pile on top of the fourth, but cards that were originally adjacent never finish in the same pile. [6] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively to one pile, the fourth and fifth piles having fewer cards in them: you then put the fifth pile on top of the fourth, and cards that were originally adjacent sometimes finish in the same pile. It does not matter which you do, but what I want to know, which are legal? For those of you who are looking at ACBL regulations, please will you also RTFLB. Richard Lighton wrote: >Grattan or Ton or others who were involved, was the intent of the >change to allow non-cyclic dealing but prevent adjacent cards falling >in the same hand, or was it merely an acknowledgment that players did >things differently? Personally, I prefered the old law 6B but I can't >say I've ever formally objected over anything but dealing two (or more) >at a time after a token shuffle. Perhaps we could *first* decide what is legal, and then consider what the lawmakers intended. -- 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 Jul 28 22:52:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:52:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA03823 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:52:13 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z19Gj-00056u-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:53:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Lead penalties In-Reply-To: <199807270010.UAA05630@t5.mscf.uky.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A Kuchenbrod wrote: >From Laurie: >>On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, David Stevenson wrote: >>> RHO bids 1H: I bid 1D, and change it to double. Eventually I bid 1S, >>>never bid again, and finish defending. What lead penalties has declarer >>>got when partner is on lead? >>I would rule that Law 26A2 was applicable and not 26B. I would argue that >>1D was a withdrawn call, while the double is an attempted substitution >>that is automatically cancelled. >Why, then, does Law 27B3 refer to Law 26? Had the double been replaced >with a 2D call, L26B definitely would apply. > >Personally, I would rule that L26A2 and L26B both apply, since the lack of >a legal diamond call kicks in L26A2 and the double kicks in L26B. Declarer >may demand a diamond lead (L26A2) or forbid the lead of any one suit >(diamonds by L26A2, any one suit by L26B). Perhaps I should have made this a different thread! It seems to have been submerged by dealing! You see above the question, and the only two answers, diametrically opposed to each other. The more general question: two withdrawn calls, part of the same general infraction: are there two sets of lead penalties? If I withdraw a natural D bid and a double, can declarer ban a D lead and a S lead? -- 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 Jul 28 23:06:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:06:54 +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 XAA03884 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:06:45 +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 PAA19196 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:08:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199807281308.PAA19196@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, 28 Jul 1998 15:12:47 +0000 Subject: Re: Dealing Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <7BVzXDAeR3u1EwL5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet and > deals that out into the other four. Is it legal? > Law 6B: The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise. Does this law prescribe in any way HOW the end result - four hands of 13 cards each - has to be accomplished? No. It only makes a *recommendation* to this end. So, as long the deck is thouroughly shuffled (L6A), IMO you are allowed to deal four piles of thirteen cards each any way you like, provided you do this one at a time, for instance by dealing cards 1-13 into pile 1 (North), 14-26 into pile 2 (East), etc. The letter of the law, isn't it?? 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 Jul 28 23:36:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:36:34 +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 XAA03976 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:36:26 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h45.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id RAA23263; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:27 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:24 -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: my proposal to the WBFLC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_THIRD.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_THIRD.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) We have a discussion:) Jesper Dybdal's quotes are written in inverted commas. Thank you, Jesper, for your posts. >"The great advantage of allowing the double shot is that the TD and AC >need not make the sometimes difficult distinction between the double >shot and merely bad play" > >Sorry, Jesper, but for my opinion the Laws are for making play bridge >more comfortable and enjoyable for players - not for making TD's and >AC's job easier "When it is obvious that it is practically impossible for TDs and ACs to rule consistently and correctly on a certain type of infraction, simpler rules are called for. If your principle were to be applied generally, we would need only one law about irregularities: "When there is an irregularity, the TD assigns an adjusted score". You treated my words rather too free:) Let us try to follow strictly with statements. I said that bridge and its Laws are for players' comfort and enjoy. Well - it might be understood that allowing double-shot will make the game LESS enjoyable for a MOST of players - but for lawyers (as Grant S. Sterling remarked). And for TD/AC. Please, do not treat them wider. > Well, David and Jesper! I do not believe that you do not understand >Burn's example of 7Hearts! There is no problem if Declarer wins the >grand - let him be happy, result stands. But the problem is - 7Hearts, >doubled, down 3. Where is your love (joy, etc.) now? Will you adjust >this score? "Certainly. Without the irregularity, the NOS would have won 4H." And without allowing double-shot NOS would not bid 7Hearts - with no risk to lose their advantage, consequent with irregularity. E.Kaplan was right: "except wild etc..". NOS has right to bid 7Hearts in Burn's example - but on their risk. As NOS does in case of penalty card: Declarer may take risk in attempt to receive extra trick - and may lose (rare, but may). And there is no following redress for such Declarer's decision. Why should it be here?:) "UI irregularities are not, and should not be, a part of normal bridge. They are, and should be, so rare that we can afford to give the NOS a score that is certain to be good enough to be fair to them, even if we thereby sometimes give them more than they deserve." Yes - but only if NOS did not try to made double-shot. And it were TD and AC that should make decision. "David Burn's example is extreme: it simply does not occur in practice. The situations that occur in practice are generally much more difficult to diagnose as double shots or just bad play." 1. D.Burn's example is extremely good for making clear positions in this discussion. 2. Do not be so careful about AC: as it was underlined in several posts - nowadays ACs are quite good for resolving the problems:) > My (guess - Burn's and some more TDs) position is that in such a case >the result should be stands for Declarer. And OS's result should be >adjust to that would be reached if infraction would not have happened >(worse of possible). And such proceeding will save field, spirit and >sportish integrity of bridge. "What will save "field, spirit and sportish integrity of bridge" is any initiative to teach players not to commit the infractions we are talking about. Good scores to non-offenders are not a problem at all - the problem is the irregularities." Hmmm - right. But: 1. For teaching numerical ordinary players (don't you mind that very bridge is still living due them?) rules should be clear and fair. Fair! Without rather sophisticated examples from other sports (I do not know what are they. Neither an ordinary player knows) - do not you see that double shot conflicts with fairness - as common sense treats it?:) Don't you feel that lots of starting players will resign after they receive (against bridge-lawyer-players) their first double-shot experience? Because the ruling will be in accordance with unfair Laws... 2. We might better teach bridge with use numerical examples of our great (and fair) Masters. By means of the Legend. Did we? Do you seriously propose to pupils to learn the Laws? They will go out after second lesson. The Legend is more useful and interesting. But who teaches the Legend?:))) Yeah - it is point where I am a bit odd (or even not a bit?) "Do you also believe that the revoke penalty - which usually gives the NOS an undeserved good score - is bad for bridge?" The Law about revoke is quite fair and not too simple. NOS may not reach double shot in using that Law. But nevertheless - if I dare to have an opinion - similar Law for rubber bridge is simpler and more fair:)) Might be - because it is in more tight connection with tradition (Legend, common sense)? > And there is another problem - David Burn pointed on it: NOS may >consciously try to make double shot. I have more strong case (that >happened in reality): > Your hand: xx - JT98xx - xxx - xx. RHO opened 1Heart, LHO rose to >3NT (you know their system, it was fit and slam invitation - you understood >that LHO made mistakes and bid was natural). Then RHO rebid 4Hearts - >exit from slam try. Now you (I underline once more that you know >opponent's system) asked them about meaning of bids - and it provided >(as you hoped) to generation of UI. Then you doubled. And believed that >if LHO bid more - you will receive your result by means of AC (UI >case!!). LHO rebid 4NT, won the contract - AC changed the result... Is >it what we want? Sure - not me. Guess - neither D.Burn. Guess - there >are more TD with the same (or similar) position. "IMO asking questions for the sole purpose of forcing the opponents to give each other UI should be made illegal. Though it would usually be impossible to prove violations, such a law would at least stop BL types who follow the laws literally from doing it". Really - it was unable to prove. I know it from my personal recognising:) "In this case, however, LHO already has the UI from RHO's missing alert of 3NT (assuming the alert rules are anything like ours)." There was alert from RHO. LHO was the first asked (after alert and 4Hearts bid) and answer (according with his understanding (he forgot system) that Declarer showed good 6-cards suit. His had was 14 bad points with singleton Hearts. I did not wrote it for being short - sorry. "Apart from that, what really happened here? Opponents have bid 4H on a 7-card fit, obviously with a bidding mistake, and with partner's expected values, I can certainly defeat it. Yes, they may be able to make 4NT. A double here can be caused by many things: (a) Bad bridge - I forgot the 4NT danger, (b) Bad bridge - I took a chance that 4NT will also go down, (c) I gambled on LHO not removing the double, (d) I know that LHO cannot bid 4NT because of UI." Defending pair who doubled 4Hearts (and then - doubled 4NT, just made) - first class players, well knowing Laws. "(d) is somewhat like a real double shot, but not quite - there has been no irregularity yet (other than a missing alert)." There was only point (d). Moreover - the case was planned in advance. Hardly to prove? For me - the case is crying about it (Kaplan's expression) "The double is made on the assumption that LHO will follow the laws and not bid 4NT. This may not be the kind of bridge we like to play, but it is legal, and it is not a double shot." The Laws (and the Legend) demands to play fair, not to see and/or to listen partner's alerts, explanations etc. That's why LHO (especially after Double, showed bad break of hearts) and in accordance with his hand and his previous understanding - might (even - should) bid 4NT. Nobody is able to demand the player to refuse of fight for result by legal means. Nobody is able to demand senseless doing. "And if (d) were a double shot, which it is not, I would not like to have to decide whether what happened was (d) or one of the other three." - But you should - at least just now. And only after double shot becomes allowable - you will not:) "It seems to me that not only is pass a logical alternative for LHO, but that it almost surely (we haven't seen the hand) is the normal call, and that 4NT probably was a case of real use of UI." Nevertheless - cause UI was generated - really, there might be found some players that will pass. And for purpose of UI-case it'll do for "make redress" - 4Hearts double, down 3. It was what was planned by Defender when he asked his question... I guess that E.Kaplan would not like it too. What did you wrote - "It is legal... etc."? Now - we try to make it legal. Just now, by trying to allow double shot. Is it right price for making TD's and AC's job easier?:) I absolutely agree with Grant C. Sterling (please, reread and rethink it). Moreover, even without legalising double-shot there happens clever lawyers that have already tried to use AC in UI-cases for gaining such double-shot. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 28 23:49:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:49:46 +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 XAA04002 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:49:40 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z1AAL-0006ci-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:51:45 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:30:29 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Lead penalties Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:30:27 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > If I withdraw a natural D bid and a double, can declarer ban a D > lead > and a S lead? > > ######## No. He can insist on the lead of a D *or* ban the lead of > any *one* suit, ie. he can ban a D lead or a S lead but not both. > ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 00:26:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:26:41 +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 AAA06384 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:26:35 +1000 Received: (qmail 10995 invoked from network); 28 Jul 1998 14:28:37 -0000 Received: from pool-135.vossnet.co.uk (HELO dhassan) (195.188.90.145) by serv4.vossnet.co.uk with SMTP; 28 Jul 1998 14:28:37 -0000 Message-ID: <000a01bdba33$74fd55e0$915abcc3@dhassan> From: "Damian Hassan" To: Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:24:09 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > OK. There seem to me to be the following possibilities. > >[1] You deal cards one at a time to four piles, never two consecutively >to one pile. >[2] You deal cards one at a time to four piles, sometimes two >consecutively to one pile. >[3] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively >to one pile: you then deal out the fifth pile to the other four, but >cards that were originally adjacent never finish in the same pile. >[4] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively >to one pile: you then deal out the fifth pile to the other four, and >cards that were originally adjacent sometimes finish in the same pile. >[5] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively >to one pile, the fourth and fifth piles having fewer cards in them: you >then put the fifth pile on top of the fourth, but cards that were >originally adjacent never finish in the same pile. >[6] You deal cards one at a time to five piles, never two consecutively >to one pile, the fourth and fifth piles having fewer cards in them: you >then put the fifth pile on top of the fourth, and cards that were >originally adjacent sometimes finish in the same pile. > > It does not matter which you do, but what I want to know, which are >legal? > OK. Law 6B: "The cards must be dealt face down, one card at (a) time, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise." I read the first sentence to mean that the cards must be dealt one at a time into four distinct piles of thirteen cards. If you deal into five or more piles, then you are not dealing into four hands - you may rearrange them afterwards to achieve this end, but you have not followed the letter of the law. However, I can see no reason to forbid dealing consecutive cards into the same hand, as long as they are dealt one at a time. It seems to me that on a literal construction of the law, the phrase "one at a time" refers to the act of dealing. So choices 1 and 2 are legal, 3 and 4 illegal, and 5 and 6 dubious - if you are merely stacking two piles from an illegal five pile deal to form a hand, you could as easily deal both together to make a legal four pile deal. Still, if the director doesn't like your method of dealing, can't he simply use law 6E(4) to require a different method? Damian Hassan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 03:38:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 03:38:32 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07121 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 03:38:23 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA19518 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:40:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02268; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:40:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:40:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807281740.NAA02268@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lead penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If I withdraw a natural D bid and a double, can declarer ban a D lead > and a S lead? I vote yes; L26 penalties apply to each call. L27B3 uses the broad language "attempts to substitute" and specifically references L26. Logic says that there should be a penalty for _all_ withdrawn calls, not just one of them. I take the "may" in L27 as alluding to the possibility that the OS will end up declaring, in which case there are no lead penalties. The counter argument that L26 refers to "call" (singular) I find unpersuasive. Each application of L26 refers to only one call, true, but there is no reason L26 should not be applied as many times as there are withdrawn calls. Is there any other counter argument? Of course one might make the usual exceptions (L9, 10) if the other side has somehow contributed to the problem, but that doesn't seem to be what is being asked. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 05:29:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:29:27 +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 FAA07424 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:29:20 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z1FSw-0004wT-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:31:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:34:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dealing In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip bits on dealing > > It does not matter which you do, but what I want to know, which are >legal? > > For those of you who are looking at ACBL regulations, please will you >also RTFLB. > > > Perhaps we could *first* decide what is legal, and then consider what >the lawmakers intended. > 6B .......... The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation clockwise. (my mother would approve) This *clearly* implies that other methods are acceptable. 6B The cards must be dealt face down, *one card at a time*, into four hands of 13 cards each ............ If one deals two cards singly onto the same pile one is dealing by 2's, so this bit says that consecutive cards must not be dealt to the same pile. There is nothing to stop me in the law dealing the NS hands off the first 26 cards and then the EW hands off the last 26. 1 2 27 28 3 4 29 30 This method is *not* recommended but IMO is legal As for intent, anything that improves the quality of the shuffle is a good idea. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 05:29:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:29:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA07417 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:29:14 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z1FSw-0004Ao-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:31:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:15:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC 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: > >>The NOS screwed up on whether a double showed or denied the relevant >>first round control. The NOS agreed with me they'd stopped playing >>bridge when it got pulled to 7H. Not only abvious to me - it was pointed >>out to me by the NOS. I accept I could, even should, award 6H= and 7H-1 >>but have pointed out elsewhere why I didn't. > > ... because bridge is run for the sake of the software [afair]. > unfair, the software will do this, it takes a few minutes tho' and there are 50 people waiting for the results. Getting the results out *fast* is the primary consideration of a commercial bridge club, and the YC is such. It is more important than anything else to give the punters what they want, and my ruling is still within the laws (and I was certainly getting no appeal) Maybe that's why EBU attendances drop when 280 players have to wait 20 minutes while an AC ponders an adjustment just before the last round assignment of a Swiss. (It happened. I was a TD there. I was appalled. I'd not play in that event again). By comparison a Swiss Pairs software failure is a mere pecadillo > Shows that things change. When I was young it was run for the >Directors. > Ah I remember it well, Qualifiers with 8 table sections and a top from 4 results, then swap the boards across the line. Those were the days :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 05:29:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:29:30 +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 FAA07416 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:29:14 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z1FSw-0004wV-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:31:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:02:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Lead penalties 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 > >> If I withdraw a natural D bid and a double, can declarer ban a D >> lead >> and a S lead? >> >> ######## No. He can insist on the lead of a D *or* ban the lead of >> any *one* suit, ie. he can ban a D lead or a S lead but not both. >> ########## L26A Call related to Specific Suit L26A1 Suit specified L26A2 Suit not specified L26B Other withdrawn calls simple case: S W N E 1S 1D* 2S P both asterisked calls P 2H* P are replaced with pass After I withdraw 1D, Law 26A2 is applied and declarer has the right to preclude or insist on a Diamond lead After I withdraw 2H, Law 26A2 is applied and declarer has the right to preclude or insist on a Heart Lead. It cannot be right that the second infraction cancels the first infraction, or that the first infraction gives me a free shot with the second. So I can be banned from leading a Diamond and simultaneously be banned from leading a Heart (at my first turn to lead) ... and presumably if I cannot comply then I can lead anything We have achieved this by applying L26A2 twice, once for each infraction Now try 1S 1D/1H 2S P Pass replaces 1H replaces 1D P P Same scenario. I get nailed for the 1D call and I get nailed for the 1H call. Same argument Now try 1S 1D/X 2S P Pass replaces double replaces 1D P P the double is the "other w/drawn call" I get nailed by L26A2 for the first effort and I get nailed by L26B (rather than 26A2) for the second. (Otherwise my double is a free shot) So ban the D by 26A2 and ban the S by 26B Now try 2S 1D/1N/X P P 3 withdrawn calls followed by a pass 26B says: "For other withdrawn calls .. prohibit .. any one suit. It does not say "For each other withdrawn call ... Nor does it say "For any other withdrawn call ... nor does it say "For any other withdrawn calls ... NB the plural Given that the law carefully does say "any one suit" one feels obliged to take the following view. Only one L26B penalty can apply (but as many L26A2 penalties as one likes) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 05:49:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:49:34 +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 FAA07500 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 05:49:28 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z1FmW-0000ut-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:51:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:47:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CNTC Quarterfinal Appeal In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980725083633.007ab100@magi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Kent wrote: >I received the following email from my regular partner (Doug Heron). I will >also be posting it to rgb. I changed nothing except that I removed the email >addresses from Doug's writeup and removed all the '>>>>>' from it. > >Dave Kent > >============================================================================ >=== > >Hi Dave... this is the official committee report from the quarter final at >the CNTC.. for your info.. and could you post it in any bridge news group >that you think would be appropriate.. it has generated a lot of negative >publicity before the facts were known.. this may help.. i am also working on >getting it in the NABC bulletin, and Acbl bulletin.. > >what do you think of the decision... doug The decision by the Appeals Committee looks correct. They have looked at the issues, talked to the people and come up with a most reasonable conclusion. I am a little surprised that the TD did not come to the same conclusion. Even if I had not thought the decision correct it is clear the AC did their best with a tricky case, and I can think of no reason at all why they should be criticised. Tim Goodwin wrote: >David Kent wrote: >> There ought to be another way to decide matches than by committee. >In my view, a committee did not decide the outcome of the match in question >-- the players did. Unfortunately for the DONER team, one of their players >was unsure of the meaning of his partner's bid. He thought about it for a >while and then made his bid. This hesitation provided his partner with >unauthorized information. The laws prescribe a procedure for dealing with >situations in which unauthorized information arises, the committee was >merely there to carry out that prescription. It was not the committee, but >rather the actions of the players involved, which decided the match. I agree with this, too. The only surprising thing about the whole affair is why there should be such heat involved in an AC taking trouble over a hand and coming to an eminently sensible conclusion. -- 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 Jul 29 06:14:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 06:14:33 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07534 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 06:14:28 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA27364 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02343; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:16:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:16:39 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807282016.QAA02343@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lead penalties X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From john@probst.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 28 15:32:33 1998 > Only one L26B penalty can apply (but as many L26A2 penalties as one > likes) I agree with this, and it may be worth noticing that the Laws even anticipate the situation where there are L26 penalties in all four suits. No doubt in real life, declarer will manage to find one suit he would like the defense to lead, but in theory he could prohibit all four. It looks as though L59 applies then. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 07:09:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 07:09:15 +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 HAA07697 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 07:09:02 +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 RAA09624 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807282111.RAA06563@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199807282016.QAA02343@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Lead penalties Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From john@probst.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 28 15:32:33 1998 >> Only one L26B penalty can apply (but as many L26A2 penalties as one >> likes) > I agree with this, and it may be worth noticing that the Laws even > anticipate the situation where there are L26 penalties in all four > suits. Or, for that matter, if L26A and l26B penalties in the case at hand were simultaneously applied. Offender can be required to lead a diamond (L26A) and forbidden from leading a diamond (L26B) All four suits could apply if a defender had exposed his hand, producing penalty cards in all four suits; his partner could then be forbidden to lead anything. > No doubt in real life, declarer will manage to find one suit he > would like the defense to lead, And the choice could be specified in an interesting way. Declarer could require a spade lead and allow the player to pick up all of his spades, or all of his non-spades. The difference is that the player required to lead a spade because of penalty cards in the three other suits would have to continue leading spades as long as he remained on lead (or until he ran out of spades). > but in theory he could prohibit all > four. It looks as though L59 applies then. :-) -- 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 Jul 29 08:33:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:33:10 +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 IAA07951 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:33:01 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.69] by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0z1IJ3-00073G-00; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:33:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bdba78$03e011a0$452d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Lead penalties Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:35:24 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 28 July 1998 21:09 Subject: Re: Lead penalties >In article , David Martin > writes >>DWS wrote: >> >> SNIP >> >>> If I withdraw a natural D bid and a double, can declarer ban a D >>> lead >>> and a S lead? >>> >>> ######## No. He can insist on the lead of a D *or* ban the lead of >>> any *one* suit, ie. he can ban a D lead or a S lead but not both. >>> ########## > >L26A Call related to Specific Suit >L26A1 Suit specified >L26A2 Suit not specified >L26B Other withdrawn calls > >simple case: > >S W N E >1S 1D* 2S P both asterisked calls >P 2H* P are replaced with pass > >After I withdraw 1D, Law 26A2 is applied and declarer has the right to >preclude or insist on a Diamond lead > >After I withdraw 2H, Law 26A2 is applied and declarer has the right to >preclude or insist on a Heart Lead. > >It cannot be right that the second infraction cancels the first >infraction, or that the first infraction gives me a free shot with the >second. So I can be banned from leading a Diamond and simultaneously be >banned from leading a Heart (at my first turn to lead) ... and >presumably if I cannot comply then I can lead anything You can indeed. But if you cannot comply with a request not to lead either red suit, I suggest that you ought to have done some more bidding. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 29 22:50:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:50:09 +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 WAA09619 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:50:01 +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 IAA07376 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980729085225.006baac0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:52:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <199807271944.OAA05070@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:44 PM 7/27/98 -0500, Grant wrote: > East opens 1 diamond. I am South, with a balanced 15 count. I >know that E-W are playing Precision, and that in my area a Precision 1D >opening must be alerted. I know there has been a failure to alert. If >the double-shot is allowed, why shouldn't I bid, say, 3 no-trump? [If you >like, assume my partner dealt and passed before East's bid.] If the bid >makes, it is very likely to be an excellent score. If it fails, I can now >claim _damage_ from the failure to alert, since had 1D been alerted I >almost certainly wouldn't have ended in 3 NT going down! We cannot rule >that there was no damage because the damage was merely subsequent and not >consequent--that is the distinction we are abolishing. Will you legalize >the double-shot but still retain rules saying that I cannot get redress if >I "should have known" to protect myself? Isn't that just as messy a >concept as the one we're trying to eradicate? Shouldn't we just say that >we are from the old school, and if you make a mistake you should pay the >price? We don't have to rule that the damage was not consequent; around here you'd get no adjustment on far more straightforward grounds. First of all, most ACBL ACs would not hesitate to deny redress on the grounds that "you should have protected yourself" -- a non-accusatory way of saying that you probably knew damned well that 1D might have been Precision, and avoided clarifying the situation just to create a later cause of action. Making double shots legal doesn't mean we must tolerate deliberate actions designed to set one up. This is analogous to the QB (American football) who sees the opponents offside and throws the interception only to have the referee rule that his side deliberately drew the opponents offside, so the interception stands. Granted, that may be "as messy a concept as the one we're trying to eradicate", but it's far more reasonable -- at least it's *directed* at what you're trying to eliminate (double shots) rather than at something else that might or might not conceal it (simple bad bridge). I'm in the let-it-be-legal camp on theoretical grounds, but stick with the football analogy: the QB can throw the pass hoping the opponents will be given an offside penalty, but if his team drew them offside he loses big. Beyond that, you'd have to be quite the bridge lawyer to convince the AC that you wanted to bid 3NT over a Standard (unlimited) 1D but wouldn't have made the same bid over a precision (max 15 HCP) 1D. In MI situations (as opposed to the usual UI examples, where the contract is demonstrably different than it would have been absent the infraction), the AC must not only find that there was an infraction, but that it affected the NO's subsequent actions; you would be denied an adjustment on those grounds alone. > In sum, I think that legalizing the double-shot will add extra >appeals [from infractions which could previously be ignored but now must >be dealt with because a double-shot has been based on them], and will >greatly benefit lawyers at the expense of the less experienced or more >timid players. I suggest that if we allow the double-shot, we should also >have TD's at every table to throw a yellow flag in the air after all >infractions. But what of the less experienced or more timid players who get drilled by the BLs now because they did something innocent but stupid which "is what they would have done had they been trying for the double shot (which they weren't); we don't try to read minds"? > 2) The penalty for an infraction is much higher in bridge than in >those other sports, because a bridge hand must be played out to a >conclusive score and a play in sports need not be. > Consider American football again. There is a penalty on the >defense. My team tries a risky offensive play, which fails. The play is >called back, and the penalty assessed. What is the penalty? A few yards >of field and _run the play over_. What I have actually gained by the >penalty itself is very little--in particular, the offense may never score >points as a [direct] result of a penalty. > Not so in bridge. If you commit an infraction, and my double-shot >fails, I will not recieve a token penalty and be told to play the board >over again--instead, I will recieve the best score that I was likely to >get absent the infraction, which is almost always a good score! When >penalties are small [as in football] the 'double-shot' is a way of making >up for that. Penalties in bridge are already very large--we don't _need_ >to add the extra compensation of the free double-shot. I don't see how we can say this (well, we are a bridge group, not a football group). An offside penalty can (and often does) result in an otherwise unobtainable first down that swings the outcome of the game; sometimes it turns third and 25 into third and 20, making no appreciable difference. We call that "rub of the green". Every year there are a fair number of games decided by those penalties, just as there are in bridge. (BTW, when the defense is offside in football, the play does continue to a result which may or may not be called back, just as in bridge.) Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 00:41:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:28 +1000 Received: from mail-in2.inet.tele.dk (mail-in2.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12195 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 27130 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1998 14:43:22 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in2.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1998 14:43:22 -0000 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.44]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAD49380 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:21 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:20 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d03491.12497490@post1.dknet.dk> References: <199807272122.RAA01751@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199807272122.RAA01751@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:22:19 -0400, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> The NOS gets a bad score which would have been avoided if either >> the irregularity had not occurred or the NOS had played better. > >Yes. > >> The problem is that it is usually impossible to determine how >> much damage was caused by which of the two. > >Why is it impossible? It doesn't even seem difficult. > >We have the table score, with both irregularity and bad play. We can >assign a score with no irregularity and no bad play. We can assign a >score with the irregularity but without bad play. And sometimes, but >not always, we can assign a score with no irregularity but with bad >play. Even if we cannot do the last (the contract would have been >entirely different with no opportunity for the bad play), the first >three suffice to assign an amount of loss separately to the >irregularity and to the bad play. There is no _unique_ way to do this, >but there are several reasonable ways if this is an approach we wish to >adopt. I think the difficulty of determining the score with the bad play but without the irregularity will often be a problem. >I am not sure this is the best approach, but please don't say it >isn't a possible one. It is certainly possible to make it the TD's and AC's job to determine as best they can how the damage is divided. And if it would work in practice, I think it would be a good idea. But I doubt that it would work in practice - I'm afraid that it would quite often get too complicated for TDs and ACs to do in a consistent way. >> I would have some sympathy for the point of view that in David >> Burn's extreme jump-to-7H example there was no damage, consequent >> or subsequent, and therefore no adjustment _for either side_. > >How can there be no damage?! The NOS went minus in 7H, whereas without >the irregularity, they would have gone plus in 4S. The auction would >have ended before the player could have bid 7H. Clearly both the >irregularity and the 7H bid were necessary elements in the loss. If I were to argue the "no damage" point of view here - which I don't really want to, since it is not my point of view even though I have sympathy for it - I would do it as follows: "N's 7H bid shows that he was not interested in playing just game; it must mean that he now considers his 4H bid on the previous round an error, which the opponents have now given him the opportunity to correct. He has therefore been helped, not damaged, by the opponents, even though it worked out badly for him." This argument would make sense provided the double shot is illegal; if the double shot is legal, it does not make much sense. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 00:41:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:23 +1000 Received: from mail-in2.inet.tele.dk (mail-in2.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12194 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:13 +1000 Received: (qmail 27126 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1998 14:43:15 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in2.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1998 14:43:15 -0000 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.44]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAB49380 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:14 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:13 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35ce340d.12366061@post1.dknet.dk> References: <199807272128.RAA29535@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199807272128.RAA29535@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:28:42 -0400 (EDT), David Grabiner wrote: >Grant C. Sterling writes: >> Allowing the double-shot will greatly favor the >> lawyers, because they _know_ how to look for penalties, while less >> experienced players do not. > >I think this is the best argument for not allowing the double shot. The >ability to exploit double shots should not be part of the game. Do not forget that the ability to exploit double shots is there only when opponents have committed an infraction, and thus made it part of the game. And the infraction has to be so blatant that even the NOS is almost certain that there was an infraction. It is obviously acceptable that opponents exploit bad bridge - I'd find it quite as acceptable to exploit irregularities. >A more likely double-shot problem is a UI case, something like this: > >N E S W >P P 3H P(after 20 sec) >P 3S P P >X > >A good bridge lawyer sitting North can be reasonably sure that East's 3S >will be disallowed on this auction, and thus the double is free if the >contract will be rolled back to 3H. Yes. E has made a bad error in the form of a UI infraction - the price is that his opponents gets an extra chance for a really good score. This is also the case with most penalty card and revoke penalties - one side's infraction gives the other side extra chances for a good score. I cannot see why that should be considered a problem at all. It is true that people who know the law are in a better position to take advantage of opponents' irregularities. However, that is also the case with the penalty card - how many novices are able to understand the penalty card rules when they're explained and take advantage of them? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 00:41:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:24 +1000 Received: from mail-in1.inet.tele.dk (mail-in1.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.158]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12191 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:08 +1000 Received: (qmail 2461 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1998 14:43:14 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in1.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1998 14:43:14 -0000 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.44]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA49380 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:12 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:10 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35cd3392.12242854@post1.dknet.dk> References: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> 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, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:24 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > "Do you also believe that the revoke penalty - which usually gives > the NOS an undeserved good score - is bad for bridge?" > > The Law about revoke is quite fair and not too simple. NOS may > not reach double shot in using that Law.=20 Why is it fair to get a top for free because an opponent revokes, but unfair to have a chance of getting a top by a double shot when an opponent violates L16A? It is a basic principle of bridge - as long as there are no irregularities - that when one side gets a really bad score, then the other side gets a corresponding really good score, even if they've done nothing in particular to deserve it. Since we accept that, we obviously also accept that when one side deserves a really bad score, then there is nothing unfair in the other side's getting a really good score, even if they've also played badly. IMO, this principle could quite naturally be extended to the case where one side (but not both) has committed an irregularity: when one side has deserved a really bad score (either by playing badly or by committing an irregularity that leads to an adjusted score), then there is nothing unfair in the other side's getting a really good score, even if they've also played badly - as long they have not also committed an irregularity. If a bad player scores -1700 by bidding 7NT with a wide-open suit, his opponents get +1700, even though they did nothing to earn it - other than take advantage of the situation and double. If a player commits an irregularity and gets an adjusted score of -1700, I see nothing wrong in his opponents getting +1700, even though they may have played badly or tried to take advantage of the situation. Such an irregularity should IMO be considered analogous to a really bad bridge mistake - it should cost, and it is quite natural that it gives the opponents a good score. Jesper: > "In this case, however, LHO already has the UI from RHO's missing > alert of 3NT (assuming the alert rules are anything like ours)." Vitold: > There was alert from RHO. LHO was the first asked (after alert and=20 > 4Hearts bid) and answer (according with his understanding (he=20 > forgot system) that Declarer showed good 6-cards suit. His had was=20 > 14 bad points with singleton Hearts. I did not wrote it for being=20 > short - sorry. I seem to have turned things around here. LHO did have the UI already, but not from a missing alert - from an alert that was made. > The Laws (and the Legend) demands to play fair, not to see and/or > to listen partner's alerts, explanations etc. That's why LHO=20 > (especially after Double, showed bad break of hearts) and in=20 > accordance with his hand and his previous understanding - might=20 > (even - should) bid 4NT. Nobody is able to demand the player to=20 > refuse of fight for result by legal means. Nobody is able to demand=20 > senseless doing. L16A is able to demand that LHO does not choose a logical alternative suggested by UI over another. > "And if (d) were a double shot, which it is not, I would not like > to have to decide whether what happened was (d) or one of the > other three." - > > But you should - at least just now. And only after double shot=20 > becomes allowable - you will not:) Correct. That is one of the reasons I'd like to make the double shot legal. > Nevertheless - cause UI was generated - really, there might be=20 > found some players that will pass. And for purpose of UI-case it'll=20 > do for "make redress" - 4Hearts double, down 3. It was what was=20 > planned by Defender when he asked his question... I guess that=20 > E.Kaplan would not like it too. What did you wrote - "It is=20 > legal... etc."? Now - we try to make it legal. Just now, by trying to=20 > allow double shot. Is it right price for making TD's and AC's job=20 > easier?:) Your case was not a double shot. It was a case of a player doubling a contract he could defeat, possibly influenced by the fact that he expected LHO to be prohibited from bidding 4NT by L16A. It is legal to assume that your opponents will follow the law. The UI was there already from the alert, so the question made no difference. If the UI had really been generated by a question asked solely to generate UI, then it would (unfortunately) still be legal (but I would then try to avoid playing against that player in the future). > I absolutely agree with Grant C. Sterling (please, reread and=20 > rethink it). Moreover, even without legalising double-shot there=20 > happens clever lawyers that have already tried to use AC in=20 > UI-cases for gaining such double-shot. That problem would not be a problem if the double shot was a legal part of the game. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 00:41:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:27 +1000 Received: from mail-in1.inet.tele.dk (mail-in1.inet.tele.dk [194.182.148.158]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12196 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:41:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 2464 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1998 14:43:20 -0000 Received: from post1.dknet.dk (194.239.134.175) by mail-in1.inet.tele.dk with SMTP; 29 Jul 1998 14:43:20 -0000 Received: from ip44.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.44]) by post1.dknet.dk (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAC49380 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:16 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:15 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35cf3439.12409694@post1.dknet.dk> References: <199807271944.OAA05070@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199807271944.OAA05070@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:44:03 -0500 (CDT), "Grant C. Sterling" wrote: >But UI, >mis-explanation, etc. situations are very different--very often, one = side >doesn't even have the faintest idea that anything has gone wrong. If a UI infraction is so blatant that even the opponents can see that there is an infraction (and that is of course a necessary condition for a double shot to be relevant), then the OS should also be able to know that it has offended. Of course, if the offender does not know the rules of the game, he may not know that he has violated them - but then a double shot is a good thing, because it increases the probability that a TD will soon come to the table and teach the offending side the UI rules, so they never again will be in that situation. >Allowing the double-shot will greatly favor the >lawyers, because they _know_ how to look for penalties, while less >experienced players do not. If a lawyer uses UI to reach a contract, = very >often his opponents won't know it, and so he will receive no penalty. = But >he will make sure to be on the lookout for any infraction by the >opponents, no matter how slight, since he will now be able to use it as >justification for a wild gamble. We will not have eliminated any=20 >difficult committee decisions, we will simply have re-directed them.=20 We will eliminate all those difficult decisions where a committee needs to determine whether bad play was an normal error, an "egregious error", or a double shot. Of course, you're right that when there has actually been an attempted double shot, the risk of the case reaching a committee is greater than it would be without the double shot. However, as I've said elsewhere, I'm sure that the number of attempted double shot will be so small that it does not matter at all (because double shots by nature has only a small chance of success and are really expensive when it turns out that the offender had no LA). > Consider the following [the example may not be the best--I made it >up on the spot--but consider the principle]: > East opens 1 diamond. I am South, with a balanced 15 count. I >know that E-W are playing Precision, and that in my area a Precision 1D >opening must be alerted. I know there has been a failure to alert. If >the double-shot is allowed, why shouldn't I bid, say, 3 no-trump? [If = you >like, assume my partner dealt and passed before East's bid.] If the bid >makes, it is very likely to be an excellent score. If it fails, I can = now >claim _damage_ from the failure to alert, since had 1D been alerted I >almost certainly wouldn't have ended in 3 NT going down! The lack of alert has not inhibited you from bidding in exactly the same way you would with an alert. You knew what 1D meant. You are not damaged. No adjustment for either side. We are only discussing a change of the adjustments for the non-offenders. Relevant examples must have the property that with today's interpretation we would have adjusted for the OS, but possibly not for the NOS. Nobody would adjust for the OS here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 01:18:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:18:20 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12339 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:18:12 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA00621 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:20:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02930; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:20:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:20:27 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807291520.LAA02930@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > If the UI had really been generated by a question > asked solely to generate UI, then it would (unfortunately) still > be legal (but I would then try to avoid playing against that > player in the future). Or -- as long as we are talking about possible rules changes -- we could change L16 so that a correct and proper answer to an opponent's question does not impose the usual, stringent UI restrictions. This has precedent in the 1975 Laws, so it isn't completely ridiculous to consider (but probably is impractical before 2007). Anyway, this is a separate debate from consequent/subsequent. Now back to our regularly scheduled controversy... :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 01:37:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:37:14 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12407 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:37:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA01455 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02959; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:39:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:39:23 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807291539.LAA02959@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CNTC Quarterfinal Appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Kent > I received the following email from my regular partner (Doug Heron). I will > also be posting it to rgb. Thanks. It's good to have the official information. > DIRECTOR'S RULING: Table result stands This TD ruling seems very hard to understand. I also don't understand this bit of the writeup: > While it is true that the hesitation suggests that bidding on over 5C will > be more successful than passing, the fact that N-S might have a > slam and cannnot get too high means that bidding on is not suggested by the > hesitation, but rather by the cards held. Are they saying that pass of 5C is not a LA or that the hesitation does not suggest 5D over pass? The clauses in the committee's sentence seem to contradict each other. I am NOT criticizing the ruling (which seems correct to me or if anything possibly too generous to the OS because of the strict North American definition of LA), but I'd like to understand just what the writeup is saying here. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 02:26:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 02:26:05 +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 CAA12658 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 02:25:57 +1000 Received: from [130.15.248.138] (toll1-slip138.tele.QueensU.CA [130.15.248.138]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA23988 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:28:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199807291539.LAA02959@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:31:39 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: CNTC Quarterfinal Appeal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes (in part): >I also don't understand this bit of the writeup: >> While it is true that the hesitation suggests that bidding on over 5C will >> be more successful than passing, the fact that N-S might have a >> slam and cannnot get too high means that bidding on is not suggested by the >> hesitation, but rather by the cards held. > >Are they saying that pass of 5C is not a LA or that the hesitation does >not suggest 5D over pass? The clauses in the committee's sentence seem >to contradict each other. > >I am NOT criticizing the ruling (which seems correct to me or if >anything possibly too generous to the OS because of the strict North >American definition of LA), but I'd like to understand just what the >writeup is saying here. I agree that this was infelicitously phrased. Speaking personally, my feeling was that passing 5C was not a LA because the AI available to South told him that (i) slam was possible and (ii) it was safe to explore for it. The UI definitely also suggests the 5D bid. A better phrasing would have been something like: "While it is true that the hesitation suggests that bidding on over 5C will be more successful than passing, the fact that N-S might have a slam and cannnot get too high means that bidding on is clearly indicated by the auction and South's hand alone, independently of the hesitation." ___________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca Kingston, Ontario, Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 03:07:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 03:07:38 +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 DAA12809 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 03:07:31 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA27902 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:05:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199807291705.MAA27902@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:05:18 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Now hold it right there, fella! The ACBL is not merely trying to get > rid of the double shot, but is also trying to teach people to play good > bridge at all times as well. > > Or to put it another way, I do not believe that subsequent v > consequent is merely to get rid of the double shot: in fact nor is wild > or gambling, which also caters for inanity. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ I agree completely--and what this means is that we really have _two_ issues here: Do we allow double-shots? What kinds of erros, if any, break the chain of causality regarding damage? Even if we allow the double-shot, as some on this List are proposing, that would not do anything to eliminate the issues surrounding 'errors'. Legalizing the double-shot while retaining current ACBL practice regarding 'subsequent damage' will have very little effect on the game except to occasionally benefit those knowledgeable players who can spot opportunities for a double-shot, who choose to act on those opportunities, and who can convince committees that they are doing that rather than simply playing bad bridge. I have no interest in benefitting those players, and I am surprised that you are, given your usual positions on protecting weaker players. OTOH, eliminating the notion that errors break the causal chain [or greatly limiting its application] will generally benefit weaker players, since they are more likely to make errors in the face of an infraction [since they are more likely to make errors anyway]. I am not sure that eliminating this notion is a good idea, but it is clearly a _different_ question from the former. Now perhaps those of you who are calling for legalized d-s's are also calling for an end to the entire consequent-subsequent doctrine. This will certainly save committee time [or at least make the decisions easier--the number of cases may actually _increase_], at the cost of making all infractions much more costly. I don't favor that change--but I think we must be clear what changes we're discussing. The current system encourages you to try to reduce the damage from an opponent's infraction. You must continue to bid and play as best you can given the situation. I like this, because it means many infractions lead to no damage. Eliminating _both_ aspects of the current system will encourage you to _magnify_ damage from an opponent's infraction. Take a double-shot, and if it works you win, and if it doesn't work you get an adjustment based on the assumption that you would have bid and played flawlessly [though perhaps not brilliantly] had the infraction not occurred. Yours, Grant Sterling PS: Although I said above that I like the current system, that does not mean that I agree with current practice, especially in the ACBL, of requiring a _high_ level of play in order to be allowed redress. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 03:12:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 03:12:43 +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 DAA12832 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 03:12:37 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:14:42 +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 SAA28385 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:10:05 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: CNTC Quarterfinal Appeal In-Reply-To: <199807291539.LAA02959@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:07:57 +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 Steve Willner wrote: > I also don't understand this bit of the writeup: > > While it is true that the hesitation suggests that bidding on over 5C will > > be more successful than passing, the fact that N-S might have a > > slam and cannnot get too high means that bidding on is not suggested by the > > hesitation, but rather by the cards held. > > Are they saying that pass of 5C is not a LA or that the hesitation does > not suggest 5D over pass? The clauses in the committee's sentence seem > to contradict each other. I assume it's just a rather clumsy way of saying "we think the cards held suggest (strongly enough) bidding on, and so we don't think passing is a LA". ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 03:38:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 03:38:11 +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 DAA12982 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 03:38:04 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA00964 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:35:53 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199807291735.MAA00964@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:35:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >But UI, > >mis-explanation, etc. situations are very different--very often, one side > >doesn't even have the faintest idea that anything has gone wrong. > > If a UI infraction is so blatant that even the opponents can see > that there is an infraction (and that is of course a necessary > condition for a double shot to be relevant), then the OS should > also be able to know that it has offended. This isn't the picture that I get from the people that I talk to--but as always I may be talking to an unusual sample of players. My experience is that there are a large number of players who rarely notice a possible infraction. They don't notice hesitations unless they become _very_ long, and even if they notice them they rarely see their importance. They don't notice missed alerts, and rarely see the significance of mistaken explanations. OTOH, there is a small but vocal class of players who are constantly on the lookout for such infractions. > Of course, if the offender does not know the rules of the game, > he may not know that he has violated them - but then a double > shot is a good thing, because it increases the probability that a > TD will soon come to the table and teach the offending side the > UI rules, so they never again will be in that situation. It would be a happy world indeed if one TD call could teach players the UI rules so well that they would never again be in such a situation. In _that_ world, I would favor allowing the double-shot. :) > >justification for a wild gamble. We will not have eliminated any > >difficult committee decisions, we will simply have re-directed them. > > We will eliminate all those difficult decisions where a committee > needs to determine whether bad play was an normal error, an > "egregious error", or a double shot. No, we won't. We will only elminate committee decisions that turn on whether a bad play was a double-shot. The error question will still remain, and so we will have to determine whether the action was a deliberate d-s or an error. In return, we will have extra cases that previously wouldn't have resulted in damage but now have resulted in d-s induced damage. > Of course, you're right that when there has actually been an > attempted double shot, the risk of the case reaching a committee > is greater than it would be without the double shot. However, as > I've said elsewhere, I'm sure that the number of attempted double > shot will be so small that it does not matter at all (because > double shots by nature has only a small chance of success and are > really expensive when it turns out that the offender had no LA). Then why bother to legalize them? If there will only be a handful of such actions, all or almost all of which will go to committee, what good will it do to allow them? > > Consider the following [the example may not be the best--I made it > >up on the spot--but consider the principle]: > > East opens 1 diamond. I am South, with a balanced 15 count. I > >know that E-W are playing Precision, and that in my area a Precision 1D > >opening must be alerted. I know there has been a failure to alert. If > >the double-shot is allowed, why shouldn't I bid, say, 3 no-trump? [If you > >like, assume my partner dealt and passed before East's bid.] If the bid > >makes, it is very likely to be an excellent score. If it fails, I can now > >claim _damage_ from the failure to alert, since had 1D been alerted I > >almost certainly wouldn't have ended in 3 NT going down! > > The lack of alert has not inhibited you from bidding in exactly > the same way you would with an alert. You knew what 1D meant. > You are not damaged. No adjustment for either side. Why not? The whole principle of the d-s is that as soon as my opponent commits an infraction, I may engage in idiotic behavior knowing that I cannot lose as a result. Indeed, virtually all d-s's will be made when the player does not yet know whether he has been damaged or not. So why should you demand that I bid on normally in the face of a failure to alert but not demand that I continue to bid normally in the face of a bid based on UI? You say that I _knew_ that there had been a failure to alert, so I was not damaged. But d-s's can only be made under circumstances when I _know_ that the opponents have made an error. In any event, as I said, the example is irrelevant. The point is that allowing d-s's puts players in a position where there is no reason to continue to play normally in hopes that there will be no damage. On the contrary, they should always d-s in hopes of either getting an impossibly good score or else provoking damage that will then be remitted. > We are only discussing a change of the adjustments for the > non-offenders. Relevant examples must have the property that > with today's interpretation we would have adjusted for the OS, > but possibly not for the NOS. I disagree. Relevant cases are all those where under current rules one cannot attempt a d-s, but under the new rules they can. > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . Yours, Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 04:38:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:38:10 +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 EAA13208 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:38:03 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h13.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id WAA20624; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:40:07 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35C00736.745A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 22:40:07 -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: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> <35cd3392.12242854@post1.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) So - we continue. Thanks for your comments, Jesper. By the way - there were a lot of arguments on our discussion. Only some of them were considered in your last post - may I understand that you agreed with others?:) As before - Jesper's quotes are written in inverted commas. > "Do you also believe that the revoke penalty - which usually > gives the NOS an undeserved good score - is bad for bridge?" > > The Law about revoke is quite fair and not too simple. NOS may > not reach double shot in using that Law. - I wrote more about that Law - but never mind:) - "Why is it fair to get a top for free because an opponent revokes, but unfair to have a chance of getting a top by a double shot when an opponent violates L16A? It is a basic principle of bridge - as long as there are no irregularities - that when one side gets a really bad score, then the other side gets a corresponding really good score, even if they've done nothing in particular to deserve it. Since we accept that, we obviously also accept that when one side deserves a really bad score, then there is nothing unfair in the other side's getting a really good score, even if they've also played badly. IMO, this principle could quite naturally be extended to the case where one side (but not both) has committed an irregularity: when one side has deserved a really bad score (either by playing badly or by committing an irregularity that leads to an adjusted score), then there is nothing unfair in the other side's getting a really good score, even if they've also played badly - as long they have not also committed an irregularity." - snip - It's a pity but last Jesper's conclusion seriously collides so with the Laws as with the Legend. Really, after infraction there are penalty - for revoke, for insufficient bid, etc. Some of them prescribes concreete penalty, another - gives NOS options. But after option is chosen - nobody can restore situation before choice was made. One text-book example: the Declarer had right to demand or to forbid lead in some suit. He chose to demand the lead - but the Defender was void in the suit. Due that information his partner was able to make the contract down. And there is no redress in such case, no returning to the start position with adjusting - because the Laws (and fairness - as it is understood by common sense) forbid double shot. Why don't you see that when you try to allow double shot in UI-case - you try to change the Laws at all. Because next logical step will be: if double shot is allowed in UI-cases, why it is not allowed in other cases... Otherwise there will be two conflicting logics in the Laws: in one cases double shot will be allowed, in others - not allowed. That's why I wrote about fairness, sportish integrity etc. There is snipped discussion about my example where we did not reach agreement. As the example had only demostrating aim - I think that too deep discussion about it may only draw away our attention from the main theme: double shot:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 04:58:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:58:05 +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 EAA13265 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:57:59 +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 PAA07212 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03209; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:00:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:00:15 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807291900.PAA03209@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grant C. Sterling" > Even if we allow the double-shot, as some on this List are > proposing, that would not do anything to eliminate the issues surrounding > 'errors'. One of us has misunderstood what is being proposed. I understood that the proponents wish to abolish (or at least greatly restrict) application of the consequent/subsequent distinction. While this will have the effect of legalizing most double-shots, that is not the aim of the proposal. The aim is to avoid judging whether an error is or is not serious enough to deny redress to the NOS. Only a small number of correspondents seem to believe the double-shot is a good thing, but a much larger number are prepared to legalize it in order to avoid the "egregious error" morass. Jesper stated the relevant conditions: > We are only discussing a change of the adjustments for the > non-offenders. Relevant examples must have the property that > with today's interpretation we would have adjusted for the OS, > but possibly not for the NOS. In other words, we will in effect consider _all_ (or nearly all) damage consequent, not merely subsequent. Ton's proposal would consider all damage consequent as long as play is "normal," but not if play is "irrational." That surely would simplify the issues surrounding errors. The debate is whether this simplification is enough to justify the perceived negative consequences. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 04:58:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:58:44 +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 EAA13280 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:58:38 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from aamta.compuserve.net (nthnsaaf.ibmnotes.compuserve.com [149.174.177.81]) by sxhab.compuserve.net (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA25448.; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by aamta.compuserve.net(Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) id 85256650.0067B55A ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:52:46 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ACIN@CSERVE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:33:00 +0200 Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:24 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > "Do you also believe that the revoke penalty - which usually gives > the NOS an undeserved good score - is bad for bridge?" > > The Law about revoke is quite fair and not too simple. NOS may > not reach double shot in using that Law. Why is it fair to get a top for free because an opponent revokes, but unfair to have a chance of getting a top by a double shot when an opponent violates L16A? << The free top after a revoke is NOT fair - it is the result of an otherwise unsolvable problem. You are forced to make a general rule for revokes, otherwise these problems wouldn't be manageable. But that can NOT be a reason for unfairness in an other field of the law. >>It is a basic principle of bridge - as long as there are no irregularities - that when one side gets a really bad score, then the other side gets a corresponding really good score, even if they've done nothing in particular to deserve it.<< And what about split-scores? Just my 2c worth, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 07:38:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:38:17 +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 HAA13759 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:38:08 +1000 Received: from ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk (ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.38]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA11119 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:38:46 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:38:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c8957e.4149156@post1.dknet.dk> References: <199807291900.PAA03209@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199807291900.PAA03209@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:00:15 -0400, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >One of us has misunderstood what is being proposed. > >I understood that the proponents wish to abolish (or at least greatly >restrict) application of the consequent/subsequent distinction. While >this will have the effect of legalizing most double-shots, that is not >the aim of the proposal. The aim is to avoid judging whether an error >is or is not serious enough to deny redress to the NOS. Exactly. >Only a small number of correspondents seem to believe the double-shot >is a good thing, but a much larger number are prepared to legalize it >in order to avoid the "egregious error" morass. Yes. >Jesper stated the relevant conditions: >> We are only discussing a change of the adjustments for the >> non-offenders. Relevant examples must have the property that >> with today's interpretation we would have adjusted for the OS, >> but possibly not for the NOS. > >In other words, we will in effect consider _all_ (or nearly all) damage >consequent, not merely subsequent. Ton's proposal would consider all >damage consequent as long as play is "normal," but not if play is >"irrational." That surely would simplify the issues surrounding >errors. The debate is whether this simplification is enough to justify >the perceived negative consequences. Steve seems to have understood my point of view perfectly. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 07:52:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:08 +1000 Received: from fep3.post.tele.dk (fep3.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13788 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:02 +1000 Received: from ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.38]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980729213637.MXKB3808.fep1@ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:36:37 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:36:16 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c49447.3838880@post1.dknet.dk> References: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> <35cd3392.12242854@post1.dknet.dk> <35C00736.745A@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <35C00736.745A@elnet.msk.ru> 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, 29 Jul 1998 22:40:07 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > Thanks for your comments, Jesper. By the way - there were a lot of >arguments on our discussion. Only some of them were considered in your >last post - may I understand that you agreed with others?:) No, I'm afraid not. When I do not answer a point it means that I do not believe answering that point would help our discussion very much. There are many people commenting what I write in this discussion, and I simply do not have the time to answer all points everybody makes. >"Why is it fair to get a top for free because an opponent revokes, > but unfair to have a chance of getting a top by a double shot > when an opponent violates L16A? > It is a basic principle of bridge - as long as there are no > irregularities - that when one side gets a really bad score, then > the other side gets a corresponding really good score, even if > they've done nothing in particular to deserve it. > Since we accept that, we obviously also accept that when one side > deserves a really bad score, then there is nothing unfair in the > other side's getting a really good score, even if they've also > played badly. > IMO, this principle could quite naturally be extended to the case > where one side (but not both) has committed an irregularity: when > one side has deserved a really bad score (either by playing badly > or by committing an irregularity that leads to an adjusted > score), then there is nothing unfair in the other side's getting > a really good score, even if they've also played badly - as long > they have not also committed an irregularity." > - snip -=20 >=20 > It's a pity but last Jesper's conclusion seriously collides so with the >Laws as with the Legend. Really, after infraction there are penalty - >for revoke, for insufficient bid, etc. Some of them prescribes concreete >penalty, another - gives NOS options. But after option is chosen - >nobody can restore situation before choice was made. One text-book >example: > the Declarer had right to demand or to forbid lead in some suit. He >chose to demand the lead - but the Defender was void in the suit. Due >that information his partner was able to make the contract down. And >there is no redress in such case, no returning to the start position >with adjusting - because the Laws (and fairness - as it is understood by >common sense) forbid double shot.=20 This is not what I call a double shot. Note that in all these examples of fixed penalties (lead penalties, penalty cards, trick transfers; etc.) the NOS always gets the same score as the OS: if the OS gets -400, the NOS get 400. What I'm objecting to is _only_ rulings where we consider the NOS's infraction bad enough for an adjusted score, but do not give the OS the corresponding score. > Why don't you see that when you try to allow double shot in UI-case - >you try to change the Laws at all. Because next logical step will be: if >double shot is allowed in UI-cases, why it is not allowed in other >cases... Otherwise there will be two conflicting logics in the Laws: in >one cases double shot will be allowed, in others - not allowed. > That's why I wrote about fairness, sportish integrity etc. A double shot is gambling on a later adjustment at a time where the TD has not yet ruled on the matter. This can occur only in the score adjustment cases (UI, MI, and such situations). When a ruling has been given (e.g., a lead penalty), the laws are clear (and generally reasonable), and there can never be a double shot. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 07:52:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:12 +1000 Received: from fep3.post.tele.dk (fep3.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13793 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:06 +1000 Received: from ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.38]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980729213756.JPVB23996.fep4@ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:37:56 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:37:01 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c5948c.3907358@post1.dknet.dk> References: <199807291705.MAA27902@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199807291705.MAA27902@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:05:18 -0500 (CDT), "Grant C. Sterling" wrote: > I agree completely--and what this means is that we really have >_two_ issues here: > Do we allow double-shots? > What kinds of erros, if any, break the chain of causality >regarding damage? > > Even if we allow the double-shot, as some on this List are >proposing, that would not do anything to eliminate the issues = surrounding >'errors'. You've completely misunderstood what I propose. As I've said before, I really don't care about the double shot itself. I want to get rid of the "subsequent damage" concept, which is quite unreasonable to players who make errors. As the simplest way of getting rid of these judgements of players' errors, I propose that we do not distinguish between consequent damage and subsequent damage. The double shot is one type of subsequent damage, and it would naturally become legal too - unless it is explicitly forbidden (which would not really worry me much, though I would find it illogical). >I am not sure that eliminating this notion is a good idea, but >it is clearly a _different_ question from the former. Now perhaps those >of you who are calling for legalized d-s's are also calling for an end = to >the entire consequent-subsequent doctrine.=20 That is exactly what we are calling for, with the double shot as a very small part of it - theoretically interesting, but almost quite irrelevant in practice because true double shots almost never happen. > The current system encourages you to try to reduce the damage from >an opponent's infraction. You must continue to bid and play as best you >can given the situation. I like this, because it means many infractions >lead to no damage. Eliminating _both_ aspects of the current system = will >encourage you to _magnify_ damage from an opponent's infraction. Take a >double-shot, and if it works you win, and if it doesn't work you get an >adjustment based on the assumption that you would have bid and played >flawlessly [though perhaps not brilliantly] had the infraction not >occurred. Yes - consider it a gift from the offending opponents, similar to the gift you get when they bid a horrible contract. >PS: Although I said above that I like the current system, that does not >mean that I agree with current practice, especially in the ACBL, of >requiring a _high_ level of play in order to be allowed redress. =20 I'm glad to hear that - current practice, especially in the ACBL, is an important part of what makes me believe that we need clearer and simpler rules about this. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 07:52:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:18 +1000 Received: from fep3.post.tele.dk (fep3.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13799 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:10 +1000 Received: from ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.38]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980729213836.JPVM23996.fep4@ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:38:36 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:37:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c79549.4096210@post1.dknet.dk> References: <199807291735.MAA00964@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199807291735.MAA00964@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:35:53 -0500 (CDT), "Grant C. Sterling" wrote: Jesper: >> Of course, if the offender does not know the rules of the game, >> he may not know that he has violated them - but then a double >> shot is a good thing, because it increases the probability that a >> TD will soon come to the table and teach the offending side the >> UI rules, so they never again will be in that situation. Grant: > It would be a happy world indeed if one TD call could teach >players the UI rules so well that they would never again be in such a >situation. In _that_ world, I would favor allowing the double-shot. :) Well, so I overstated the advantage slightly :-). But one TD call will certainly be a better educational effort than no TD call. >> We will eliminate all those difficult decisions where a committee >> needs to determine whether bad play was an normal error, an >> "egregious error", or a double shot. > > No, we won't. This is based on your misunderstanding of what I propose, as I've said in another message. > Then why bother to legalize them? If there will only be a handful >of such actions, all or almost all of which will go to committee, what >good will it do to allow them? It is a natural part of eliminating the whole subsequent/consequent/egregious muddle, and that is the primary (almost only, in fact) reason that I want it legalized. >> We are only discussing a change of the adjustments for the >> non-offenders. Relevant examples must have the property that >> with today's interpretation we would have adjusted for the OS, >> but possibly not for the NOS. > > I disagree. Relevant cases are all those where under current >rules one cannot attempt a d-s, but under the new rules they can. =20 Not in relation to what the discussion has been about until now: I am proposing a change so that _when, by the current rules_, we adjust for the OS, we also adjust for the NOS, regardless of whether the NOS has committed any egregious errors (including double shots). I.e., treat all damage as consequent. Nothing more than that. (There still has to _be_ damage, for instance.) This also happens to be the way I read the current laws, by the way, though it is not the way the current laws are practised. The concept of a "double shot" as I use the term refers to the NOS's wild gambling following an action by the OS that the NOS judges will result in a score adjustment if the gamble fails. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 07:52:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:22 +1000 Received: from fep3.post.tele.dk (fep3.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13805 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:52:14 +1000 Received: from ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.38]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980729213837.MXMO3808.fep1@ip38.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:38:37 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:38:16 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c69507.4030415@post1.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: >Why is it fair to get a top for free because an opponent revokes, >but unfair to have a chance of getting a top by a double shot >when an opponent violates L16A? On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:33:00 +0200, christian.farwig@ac.com wrote: >The free top after a revoke is NOT fair - it is the result of an = otherwise >unsolvable problem. You are forced to make a general rule for revokes, >otherwise these problems wouldn't be manageable. Exactly! What I'm saying is that the current practice for score adjustments for non-offenders is not manageable (or fair) either, so we need a simpler rule (or at least some clear rule) for that too. The enormously different ways of administering the current practice regarding "egregious errors" around the world indicates clearly to me that we need clear simple laws. >But that can NOT be a reason for unfairness in an other field of the = law. Jesper: >>>It is a basic principle of bridge - as long as there are no >irregularities - that when one side gets a really bad score, then >the other side gets a corresponding really good score, even if >they've done nothing in particular to deserve it.<< Christian: >And what about split-scores? I would actually find it natural and logical and not unfair to change L12C2 so that the NOS always gets the score corresponding to the OS's score - in accordance with the principle above. However, it is my impression that L12C2 split adjustments are not a problem in practice - non-offenders do not really feel cheated over a split score, so I do not find any change here important. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 08:31:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:31:30 +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 IAA13923 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:31:24 +1000 Received: from modem65.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.65] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z1emi-0001UV-00; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:33:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:26:44 +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 When our kith are disposed, as we find, To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, There is much to be said for just staying in bed, Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. ---------- > > A player deals into five packets, then picks up the fifth packet and > > deals that out into the other four. Is it legal? > > > > Law 6B: > The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, into four > hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in > one of the four pockets of the board. The recommended procedure is > that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise. > +++ I see that Ton approached the same thought as I from the other side. I argued that we should set up a law 6 that the Director could operate flexibly, drawing the line where he thought fit. We should reduce, I argued, the scope for finicky players to run after the Director with pestilential complaints about the way others are dealing and things like that...... Well, you see what I mean....... ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 08:42:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:42:13 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13948 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:42:07 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA12947 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03426; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:44:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:44:23 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807292244.SAA03426@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > I would actually find it natural and logical and not unfair to > change L12C2 so that the NOS always gets the score corresponding > to the OS's score - in accordance with the principle above. > > However, it is my impression that L12C2 split adjustments are not > a problem in practice - non-offenders do not really feel cheated > over a split score, so I do not find any change here important. The usual reason for split scores has nothing to do with consequent/ subsequent/double shot, etc. Sometimes there is an irregularity and damage, and you cannot tell for sure what the result would have been without the irregularity -- there are lots of possible results. It seems fair to give the OS one of the worst scores possible while giving the NOS only a pretty good score. At least I have never heard a strong objection to this practice. Under the ACBL rules, the OS get a score based on a 1 in 6 chance, and the NOS get a score based on a 1 in 3 chance (assuming anybody could estimate those probabilities). They won't be different terribly often, and I agree with Jesper that it wouldn't do violence to the game to make them the same (say 1 in 4 or even 1 in 6). This would give the NOS an "undeserved" good result after an infraction, but that's hardly different from an "undeserved" good result after an opponent's blunder. Still, I confess a preference for the current version of L12C2, and personally I'd even go the other way and put "likely" at 1 in 2 rather than the ACBL's 1 in 3. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 09:37:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:37:10 +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 JAA14113 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:37:03 +1000 Received: from modem111.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.239] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z1foJ-0005fk-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:39:08 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Richard Lighton" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:37:57 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan When our kith are disposed, as we find, To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, There is much to be said for just staying in bed, Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. ---------- > From: Richard Lighton > > > Grattan or Ton or others who were involved, was the intent of the > change to allow non-cyclic dealing but prevent adjacent cards falling > in the same hand, or was it merely an acknowledgment that players did > things differently? Personally, I prefered the old law 6B but I can't > say I've ever formally objected over anything but dealing two (or more) > at a time after a token shuffle. > ++++ We had Edgar trying to satisfy people like Ton and myself who did not want a law so strictly expressed that players could spend hours arguing with the TDs and each other about the dealing idiosyncrasies of other players. He came up with something that seemed sufficiently loose to allow Directors room to decide how far players could go before they intervened.and I do not want to start tying the necks of any sacks around the subject. [What I believe is that the 'one card at time' bit in Law 6 should be seen to deter dealing two consecutive cards into the same hand; which is just as though you had dealt the two together, not singly. But I would say it really is not one to go to the barricades for unless the method is (in the opinion of the Director) obviously and extensively defeating the underlying purpose of shuffling and dealing.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 09:50:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:50:17 +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 JAA14160 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:50:11 +1000 Received: from client26d7.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.215] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z1g12-0001dJ-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:52:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re:my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:46:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdbc14$3485e580$d71a93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have read the various opinions with regard to "double shot". In some instances we can imagine only a TD or a BL would appreciate that an infraction has occurred. However in most instances the TD should have been called. (after a hesitation for example) to agree the possible infraction of a bid which takes advantage of any UI which may be available. I would be mindfull of Law72(4) and think that the "double shot" is entirely legal. Whilst the "odds of reward" are better than even money, there is a risk to what may be egregious error, and I think this is appropriate in the context of the Laws under which we play the game. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 8:29 PM Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 10:02:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:02:15 +1000 Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14221 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:02:09 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.134] by tantalum with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0z1gBr-0004zz-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:03:27 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bdbb4d$9fbecf00$862f63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:04:28 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan > >When our kith are disposed, as we find, >To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, >There is much to be said for just staying in bed, >Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. > I used to deal clockwise by fours, But now they've amended the Laws, I deal sixes and sevens And twos and elevens, And if you don't like it - up yours! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 10:20:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:20:37 +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 KAA14262 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:20:31 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z1gUQ-0002m1-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:22:39 +0000 Message-ID: <+UmO5BIVu7v1Ewj2@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:17:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: David Stevenson at the YC MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The double shot Well I survived the TD training panel, and I survived the game I was only called once to the Stevenson table (an MI ruling) and nobody appealed so I got away with it :) For the record he won (69+%) and so I had the happy experience of giving him his prize money. What I didn't say was he was going to stay with me too, so its now 130 am and he won't go to bed for an hour, nor will I. He's been eyeing my whisky collection mournfully and being very brave about it. :) Now for the triple shot. We're going to play the ACBL game down at the YC at midday tomorrow, and then he'll be back on his PC in Liverpool midnight Thursday. No doubt we'll have stories about the ACBL game (the TD is *clueless* !) Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ Puppies! |+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. V_ |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) \____/~~ |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ -\ /\ /\ |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 18:13:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:13:11 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA15159 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:13:02 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h20.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id MAA27533; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:14:43 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35C0C614.4B5E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:14:29 -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: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <01bdbc14$3485e580$d71a93c3@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Anne Jones wrote: > I would be mindfull of Law72(4) and think that the "double shot" is > entirely legal. Whilst the "odds of reward" are better than even money, > there is a risk to what may be egregious error, and I think this is > appropriate in> the context of the Laws under which we play the game. > Anne Sorry, Anne - but L72A(4) said about OS's rights to chose the most advatageous option. And - no words about redress if this OS's choise provides lost (not win). There is no double-shot's basement neither in this Law, not in the Laws as whole. Double-shot logics is absolute new for the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 20:29:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:29:36 +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 UAA15395 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:29:29 +1000 Received: from client2624.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.36] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z1pzb-0000Tz-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:31:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:24:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdbc6d$6dec45e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, I see this, but it does indicate that it is acceptable to "play the advantage". The concept that if the action subsequent to an infraction proves to be disadvantageous, this is a position that the NO should never have been in, and the situation should now return to the original infraction for remedy under the Law. If the action of the NO subsequent to the infraction was advantageous, then if there is no-damage, no redress will be claimed. Of course the action of the original offence may have been sufficient to attract a PP but this will not affect the result on the board. Anne -----Original Message----- From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru To: Anne Jones Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:15 AM Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC >Hi all:) > >Anne Jones wrote: >> I would be mindfull of Law72(4) and think that the "double shot" is >> entirely legal. Whilst the "odds of reward" are better than even money, >> there is a risk to what may be egregious error, and I think this is >> appropriate in> the context of the Laws under which we play the game. >> Anne > >Sorry, Anne - but L72A(4) said about OS's rights to chose the most >advatageous option. And - no words about redress if this OS's choise >provides lost (not win). There is no double-shot's basement neither in >this Law, not in the Laws as whole. Double-shot logics is absolute new >for the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. > >Vitold > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 20:42:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:42:25 +1000 Received: from icarus.dur.ac.uk (icarus.dur.ac.uk [129.234.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA15418 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:42:19 +1000 Received: from mercury (mercury.dur.ac.uk [129.234.4.40]) by icarus.dur.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA23219 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:44:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from vega by mercury id ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:44:22 +0100 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:44:21 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: robin.michaels@vega.dur.ac.uk cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI, infractions and double-shots. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The previous discussion in a different thread about double-shots and UI type auctions, fails to notice a, to my mind, important issue. Namely: Dealing with your UI situation so as to minimise damage to your side is _part_ of playing good bridge. [An interesting side question is whether it is AI that you have hesitated, thus giving UI to partner, and potentially restricting his choice of actions] For example, where you have realised that you have already thought sufficiently long about a bid to give your partner UI, it is advisable to make an action which minimises the chance of partner being in a position where he is obliged to make a 'bad' decision due to the UI. Often this will involve making a 'bad' bid, since passing may be likely to guarantee a bad score. A side affect of this ploy is to make it harder for oppo to make double shots, for there is the risk that the UI was not used, and hence a bad double-shot results is not adjusted away. To explain, as a corollary to the above, it seems fair to me that the NOS should be able to use skill to try and maximise their results in the presence of UI and the knowledge of the laws regarding adjustments. If oppo have a hesitation auction to slam, and you decide to make a 'double-shot' style speculative sacrifice, there is a risk involved- oppo may have been careful to not let the UI affect their auction. In that case any bad result you obtain will be kept, since there was no damage. Thus there is _bridge_skill_ in deciding how to use situations where oppo have UI. To my mind this manipulation of UI situations by both NOS and OS is _part_of_bridge_. It is certainly no less part of the laws than the laws about having 52 cards and 4 suits. As such, it is surely a legitimate (although little discussed) part of bridge skill to handle them. If oppo have given each other UI, it is certainly legitimate to use this to bid to put them in an awkawrd position, where they are forced to make a bad decision. (This reminds me of a story I was told of once, allegedly in a womans international match of some sort (dealer NV, oppo V) 4C! - {lot of questions of the: What is this ? Is it forcing ? Are you sure it is forcing ? etc - it was SA Texas, xfer to H, forcing} - P - P(!!) - P(borderline, but obligatory given the UI) Result: 8 off, -400 or so, for a good score (4S was cold, I think) Is there anything wrong with the actions of the psychic passer, who knew that the UI at the table would make a good score likely ? I don't think so. Indeed a smart player in 2nd seat, looking at a good hand, and knowing that her pard would at best have a borderling balance, should surely anticipate this possibility, and either avoid the UI, or take some positive action) In the light of these observations, there is already an inherent risk in attempting a double-shot - namely, that it might not be an situation where any damage has occured, and thus no adjustment would be forthcoming. Why should this skill component of bridge be eliminated ? Maybe we should have some magazine articles about taking best advantage of infractions ? Perhaps we could devise hands where there is UI element in the auction, and the defence can assume some particular lie of the cards, since on other lies there is damage by the UI in the bidding and an adjustment will be made, so efforts should be made to counter those where UI was not used- those in which oppo have behaved correctly- surely this is the right attitude to this aspect of the game; to embrace it, rather than despise it. Sorry about the length of this, rather rambling posting, but I think it is an interesting point to examine, and wanted to be sure I conveyed the idea. cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 21:24:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 21:24:57 +1000 Received: from icarus.dur.ac.uk (icarus.dur.ac.uk [129.234.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA15594 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 21:24:51 +1000 Received: from mercury (mercury.dur.ac.uk [129.234.4.40]) by icarus.dur.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA26159 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:26:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from vega by mercury id ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:26:58 +0100 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:26:57 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Michaels To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI & doubleshots Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The previous discussion in a different thread about double-shots and UI type auctions, fails to notice a, to my mind, important issue. Namely: Dealing with your UI situation so as to minimise damage to your side is _part_ of playing good bridge. [An interesting side question is whether it is AI that you have hesitated, thus giving UI to partner, and potentially restricting his choice of actions] For example, where you have realised that you have already thought sufficiently long about a bid to give your partner UI, it is advisable to make an action which minimises the chance of partner being in a position where he is obliged to make a 'bad' decision due to the UI. Often this will involve making a 'bad' bid, since passing may be likely to guarantee a bad score. A side affect of this ploy is to make it harder for oppo to make double shots, for there is the risk that the UI was not used, and hence a bad double-shot results is not adjusted away. To explain, as a corollary to the above, it seems fair to me that the NOS should be able to use skill to try and maximise their results in the presence of UI and the knowledge of the laws regarding adjustments. If oppo have a hesitation auction to slam, and you decide to make a 'double-shot' style speculative sacrifice, there is a risk involved- oppo may have been careful to not let the UI affect their auction. In that case any bad result you obtain will be kept, since there was no damage. Thus there is _bridge_skill_ in deciding how to use situations where oppo have UI. To my mind this manipulation of UI situations by both NOS and OS is _part_of_bridge_. It is certainly no less part of the laws than the laws about having 52 cards and 4 suits. As such, it is surely a legitimate (although little discussed) part of bridge skill to handle them. If oppo have given each other UI, it is certainly legitimate to use this to bid to put them in an awkawrd position, where they are forced to make a bad decision. (This reminds me of a story I was told of once, allegedly in a womans international match of some sort (dealer NV, oppo V) 4C! - {lot of questions of the: What is this ? Is it forcing ? Are you sure it is forcing ? etc - it was SA Texas, xfer to H, forcing} - P - P(!!) - P(borderline, but obligatory given the UI) Result: 8 off, -400 or so, for a good score (4S was cold, I think) Is there anything wrong with the actions of the psychic passer, who knew that the UI at the table would make a good score likely ? I don't think so. Indeed a smart player in 2nd seat, looking at a good hand, and knowing that her pard would at best have a borderling balance, should surely anticipate this possibility, and either avoid the UI, or take some positive action) In the light of these observations, there is already an inherent risk in attempting a double-shot - namely, that it might not be an situation where any damage has occured, and thus no adjustment would be forthcoming. Why should this skill component of bridge be eliminated ? Maybe we should have some magazine articles about taking best advantage of infractions ? Perhaps we could devise hands where there is UI element in the auction, and the defence can assume some particular lie of the cards, since on other lies there is damage by the UI in the bidding and an adjustment will be made, so efforts should be made to counter those where UI was not used- those in which oppo have behaved correctly- surely this is the right attitude to this aspect of the game; to embrace it, rather than despise it. Sorry about the length of this, rather rambling posting, but I think it is an interesting point to examine, and wanted to be sure I conveyed the idea. cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 21:53:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 21:53:32 +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 VAA15705 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 21:53:24 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h20.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id PAA16541; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:55:05 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35C0F9CB.BF3@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:55:07 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> <35cd3392.12242854@post1.dknet.dk> <35C00736.745A@elnet.msk.ru> <35c49447.3838880@post1.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) We reached in our discussion a point where arguments became to repeate. One of reason - we do not hear each other: happens:) Let me allow to make the shortest list of disagrement for clearing positions. As usual - Jesper's quotes are written in inverted commas.And I'll start from several small remarks. "This is not what I call a double shot." Sorry - but usually if anybody uses expression in meaning, differ from common treating, it's usefull to determine it in advance. But as it follows from another your posts - your meaning is rather same as common:) "What I'm objecting to is _only_ rulings where we consider the NOS's infraction bad enough for an adjusted score, but do not give the OS the corresponding score." One more sorry as it collides with your position in other posts. There was wrote that your main position is to make no differences between consequetn and subsequent damage. If it's true - I uderstand the position. But it is something differ from what you wrote above... I'd like as more clear and understandable the wording about consequent/subsequent damage. So - you suggest to treat both these damages in the same manner. It is the only disagrement between us - as I follow to Kaplan's doctrine in this matter. You are right when you wrote that: just now not in every UI-case player had understood that he would have struggle for double-shot. But if one makes double-shot legal then TD - while ruling after being called to table - will be obliged to explain to NOS his rights for double-shot. And then everything that was described by Grant S. Sterling will happens. Double-shot will become as often as possible:) And double-shot logics corresponds with another level (calibre) of fairness... I do not say - with better one or with worse. Another. Well - despite of opinion that double-shot logics conflicts with current (and all previous) Laws - the Body may change the Laws. I try to warn against it because it will become another game, not bridge. Really - there might be numerical corrections and improvments to the Laws. And while these corrections do not change tha basic principles - they may be done. Double-shot logics is absolute new for the game of bridge. I remind you that long ago there was another attempt to change some basic principle - the scoring. Yeah - for improving the game, on behalf of the players, etc. And almost immediate it generated new game (not new kind of bridge) - rex-bridge. That days the Lord and the Body saved bridge... Though the rex-bridge was interesting no less than the bridge... Will bridge destroyed now?:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 30 22:08:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:08:21 +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 WAA15798 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:08:15 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z1rXI-0007KU-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:10:21 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:58:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Lead penalties Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:58:12 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: > In article , David > Martin > writes > >DWS wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > >> If I withdraw a natural D bid and a double, can declarer ban a D > >> lead > >> and a S lead? > >> > >> ######## No. He can insist on the lead of a D *or* ban the lead of > >> any *one* suit, ie. he can ban a D lead or a S lead but not both. > >> ########## > > L26A Call related to Specific Suit > L26A1 Suit specified > L26A2 Suit not specified > L26B Other withdrawn calls > > simple case: > > S W N E > 1S 1D* 2S P both asterisked calls > P 2H* P are replaced with pass > > After I withdraw 1D, Law 26A2 is applied and declarer has the right > to > preclude or insist on a Diamond lead > > After I withdraw 2H, Law 26A2 is applied and declarer has the right > to > preclude or insist on a Heart Lead. > > It cannot be right that the second infraction cancels the first > infraction, or that the first infraction gives me a free shot with the > second. So I can be banned from leading a Diamond and simultaneously > be > banned from leading a Heart (at my first turn to lead) ... and > presumably if I cannot comply then I can lead anything > > We have achieved this by applying L26A2 twice, once for each > infraction > > Now try > > 1S 1D/1H 2S P Pass replaces 1H replaces 1D > P P > > Same scenario. I get nailed for the 1D call and I get nailed for the > 1H > call. Same argument > > Now try > > 1S 1D/X 2S P Pass replaces double replaces 1D > P P the double is the "other w/drawn > call" > > I get nailed by L26A2 for the first effort and I get nailed by L26B > (rather than 26A2) for the second. (Otherwise my double is a free > shot) > > So ban the D by 26A2 and ban the S by 26B > > Now try > > 2S 1D/1N/X P P 3 withdrawn calls followed by a pass > > 26B says: "For other withdrawn calls .. prohibit .. any one suit. > It does not say "For each other withdrawn call ... > Nor does it say "For any other withdrawn call ... > nor does it say "For any other withdrawn calls ... NB the plural > Given that the law carefully does say "any one suit" one feels obliged > to take the following view. > > Only one L26B penalty can apply (but as many L26A2 penalties as one > likes) > > ######### It is interesting that the Summer Panel course has come up > with different conclusions from the Christmas one. The idea of being > able to simultaneously apply more than one lead penalty is interesting > and one to which I am not averse. However, I cannot agree with your > final conclusion, namely, "Only one L26B penalty can apply (but as > many L26A2 penalties as one likes)". The first sentence of Law 26 > indicates that the whole law applies *in its entirety to each > withdrawn call*. Thus, if you accept that more than one lead penalty > can be simultaneously applied, then I cannot see why you should not > forbid the lead of two different suits for two different infractions > covered by two different instances of Law 26B. Or, to put it another > way, "For other withdrawn calls" does not IMO refer to multiple > withdrawn calls but simply to other types of calls that do not meet > the criteria of Law 26A and the use of the plural "callS" rather than > "call" simply reflects the fact that this clause covers many different > types of calls, eg. conventional passes and suit bids that do not > specify suits, doubles, redoubles, natural NT bids, etc. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 00:51:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:51:41 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18740 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:51:33 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA26466 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03777; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:53:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:53:52 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807301453.KAA03777@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: David Stevenson at the YC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > No doubt we'll have stories about the ACBL game > (the TD is *clueless* !) I take it there's a special TD for the ACBL game? Is that because all the regular TD's are overqualified for the job? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 03:06:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:06:44 +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 DAA19256 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:06:38 +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 NAA27967 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:08:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807301708.NAA00878@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following incident was reported in yesterday's NABC bulletin : #Active Ethics in Practice #Penny and Bob Augustine of Toronto ON reported the following example of #ethical play by an opponent, Jeffrey Gargrave of Las Vegas NV. #While declaring a contract of 4S in yesterday's open pairs, Gargrave #realized that a comment that he had overheard earlier in the session #pertained to the deal he was currently playing. He summoned the #director, who instructed him to continue play. #Gargrave made five, but indicated that the unauthorized information he #possessed had allowed him to make an overtrick, and that the opponents, #the Augustines, were probably entitled to some redress. The tournament #director awarded the Augustines an average plus. #We were very proud of him for being so honest," said Penny. This is good behaviour by Gargrave; however, the ruling doesn't seem to be allowed. If Law 16B applies, both sides should get average-plus, not merely the defenders. I can't find any justification under the Laws for assigning any score other than A+/A+, or +650/-650 (if the information is inconsequential). I could see a TD/AC trying to restore equity and awarding +620/-620, if the comment were something like, "You can make five if you drop the stiff king." (This might be necessary for equity if +620 was already better than A+.) But I can't even find a justification for this under Law 12C3, which is not used in the ACBL. That law allows the AC to adjust an assigned adjusted score to achieve equity, but not an artificial adjusted score. What rulings are allowed in this case, given the facts? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 03:58:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:58:44 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19349 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:58:36 +1000 Received: from ip249.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.249]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980730180139.KUCC23996.fep4@ip249.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:01:39 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:00:43 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35ccb460.6601913@post12.tele.dk> References: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> <35cd3392.12242854@post1.dknet.dk> <35C00736.745A@elnet.msk.ru> <35c49447.3838880@post1.dknet.dk> <35C0F9CB.BF3@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <35C0F9CB.BF3@elnet.msk.ru> 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, 30 Jul 1998 15:55:07 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >"What I'm objecting to is _only_ rulings where we consider the > NOS's infraction bad enough for an adjusted score, but do not > give the OS the corresponding score." > One more sorry as it collides with your position in other posts. There >was wrote that your main position is to make no differences between >consequetn and subsequent damage. If it's true - I uderstand the >position. But it is something differ from what you wrote above...=20 The distinction between subsequent and consequent damage is used to determine whether to adjust for the NOS when we have already decided to adjust for the OS. We adjust for the OS when there is _any_ kind of damage. This is my impression of the bridge meaning of the words "subsequent" and "consequent" as used by Kaplan and now by all of us. > So - you suggest to treat both these damages in the same manner. It is >the only disagrement between us - as I follow to Kaplan's doctrine in >this matter. You are right when you wrote that: just now not in every >UI-case player had understood that he would have struggle for >double-shot. But if one makes double-shot legal then TD - while ruling >after being called to table - will be obliged to explain to NOS his >rights for double-shot.=20 If he is called during play, for instance after a hesitation, he will have to explain that _if_ it later turns out that there was an irregularity and _if_ that irregularity has damaged the NOS, then he will adjust the score. How the NOS's wants to play afterwards is their own problem. If players do not know what a double shot is, then they should not be tempted to use it without full understanding. If the double shot is made legal, it will be dangerous to use it: most often it will make no difference, but sometimes it will turn out that there was no irregularity (and no adjustment) and then it is expensive. Only very rarely will it succeed and give a really good score. Let me repeat: double shots are not interesting in practice. They almost never occur, and they almost never will occur even if made legal. I want to get rid of the distinction between subsequent and consequent damage; the effect of allowing double shots is a not very interesting minor side effect that seems natural when if we remove that distinction. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 03:58:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:58:52 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19356 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:58:46 +1000 Received: from ip249.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.249]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980730180150.KUCK23996.fep4@ip249.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:01:50 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:00:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c8a4c1.2602672@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bdbc14$3485e580$d71a93c3@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bdbc14$3485e580$d71a93c3@vnmvhhid> 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, 31 Jul 1998 00:46:00 +0100, "Anne Jones" wrote: >I would be mindfull of Law72(4) and think that the "double shot" is >entirely legal. I have resisted the temptation to use L72A4 as an argument for the double shot, because the double shot is not an option given by the law - it is just taking a chance in the way you play bridge. Of course the double shot is "legal" in the sense that you are allowed to bid whatever you like - but the current interpretation is that if you choose certain bids, then you lose your right to redress for certain types of irregularity committed previously by your opponents. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 03:59:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:59:04 +1000 Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19374 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:58:57 +1000 Received: from ip249.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.249]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980730180200.KUCP23996.fep4@ip249.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:02:00 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:01:04 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d0b4ac.6677281@post12.tele.dk> References: <3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT/11C7B2C72300*@MHS> In-Reply-To: <3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT/11C7B2C72300*@MHS> 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 Since there have been some misunderstandings about what this discussion is all about, I'd like to summarize my idea of what it is all about. This is a discussion of whether it would be a good idea to change the current practice and/or the laws concerning the situation where the NOS has been damaged because of a UI/MI-type of infraction. In these situations we adjust for the OS. There is no suggestion of any change at all to the practice and rules for adjusting for the OS. In most, but not all, of these situations we also adjust for the NOS. This discussion is (only) concerned with the choice of adjusting or not adjusting for the NOS in such situations. Kaplan distinguished between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, where "subsequent damage" is considered the NOS's own problem, created because they have committed some "egregious error" after the irregularity. Kaplan's interpretation was that by committing such an error, the NOS loses the right to an adjusted score which they would otherwise have. (I've never myself read what Kaplan wrote; if this is wrong, I'd appreciate corrections from somebody who has.) (Some of us, but far from all, believe that not adjusting for the NOS is against the letter of the law. However, this discussion is about what we'd _like_ to be legal, so let's drop that for a while.) This had led to varying practices: - In the ACBL, fairly ordinary bad bridge errors are considered "egregious errors" and cause the NOS's damage to be considered subsequent, so the NOS lose its adjustment. - In at least some parts of Europe, only actions that could be described as "wild and gambling" cause the NOS's damage to be considered subsequent, so the NOS lose its adjustment. I think most us agree that it is not satisfactory to have so differing practices and to not have them firmly based on law. One way to get rid of the differing practices might be to removing the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, and always adjust for the NOS when we adjust for the OS. This would have the natural side effect of making the "double shot" possible (I and others have used the term "make it legal", and I will continue to do so, but that is not strictly a good term). A "double shot", at least as I use the word in this discussion, is a gambling action by the NOS following what the NOS believes to probably be an irregularity by their opponents. The NOS counts on getting either a good result on the rare occasion when the shot is right, or a normal result from an adjustment when the shot fails. Sometimes, of course, the shot will fail and they will get no adjustment because, for instance, it turned out that their opponent actually had no logical alternative. The following is a summary of what I personally would like to see changed and why. In priority order, I would like to see the following changes: (1) Clear rules about the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, written into the laws as soon as possible, to get rid of the very differing practices. (2) Clear rules that go far in the direction of protecting the NOS. I.e., not the ACBL practice, but a practice of adjusting for the NOS at least as often as we do in Europe. (3) Clear rules that remove the need to distinguish between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, but possibly with a rule that specifically forbids double shots - i.e., the NOS loses its adjustment only if the TD judges that the NOS had attempted a deliberate double shot. (4) Clear rules that completely remove the need to distinguish between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, including adjusting even after double shots. I have not considered situations where both sides have committed irregularities at all; in those situations I don't really care whether anybody gets redress. I have the impression that almost everybody agrees with (1), and that many agree with (2). If we could just get as far as (2), I'd consider it an enormous improvement. There have been ideas for solutions of type (2): - Use the "normal"/"irrational" play distinction already defined in relation to claims. I think it was Ton who suggested this, but I'm not sure. IMO it is a good idea if we're not going to (3). It is probably not very different from the current European style. - Try to calculate the "subsequent part" and the "consequent part" of the damage, and adjust only for the latter. On the occasions when the calculation is easy, this is a good solution; on other occasions, I do not think it is a good solution. - In the very first message of this thread, Ton had a suggestion whose details I never understood - something with 20% and 80%. I'd still appreciate it if Ton or someone who understood it would post an example. (3) would IMO be fine and fair. The only problem is that TDs still have to judge whether an action by the NOS is a double shot or just bad bridge. (4) is my preferred solution. I'm beginning to believe that it has one major drawback, however: it is incredibly difficult to convince people that it is not unfair! --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 04:35:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 04:35:09 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19511 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 04:35:03 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA01694 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04019; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:37:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:37:24 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807301837.OAA04019@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > (3) Clear rules that remove the need to distinguish between > "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, but possibly with a rule > that specifically forbids double shots - i.e., the NOS loses its > adjustment only if the TD judges that the NOS had attempted a > deliberate double shot. Please, please, let us not adopt any rules that require "mind reading." I'm sure good TD's will get it right more often than not, but even so, why create a rule like this when there are sensible alternatives. I would advocate any of Jesper's alternatives ahead of this one. To the extent possible, let's base score adjustment rulings on facts and not on motivations. > - Try to calculate the "subsequent part" and the "consequent > part" of the damage, and adjust only for the latter. On the > occasions when the calculation is easy, this is a good solution; > on other occasions, I do not think it is a good solution. I think the calculation will be no harder in principle than any other L12C2 adjustment, once there is a clear recipe for how to do it. The only problem is that there are several possible recipes, and somebody (LC or SO) will have to choose one and explain it. Once a recipe is specified, though, it's just a matter of deciding on likely/at all probable/best/worst results and plugging into a formula. To be fair to Jesper, you have to go through the L12C2 exercise more than once, so there is a bit more work involved than usual, and this might be a small factor in choosing which solution one prefers. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 05:03:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 05:03:55 +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 FAA19589 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 05:03:49 +1000 Received: from modem58.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.58] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z1y1U-0002Fm-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:05:57 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dealing Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:02:36 +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 When our kith are disposed, as we find, To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, There is much to be said for just staying in bed, Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. ---------- > From: David Burn > > >Grattan > > > >When our kith are disposed, as we find, > >To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, > >There is much to be said for just staying in bed, > >Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. > > DB:- > I used to deal clockwise by fours, > But now they've amended the Laws, > I deal sixes and sevens > And twos and elevens, > And if you don't like it - up yours! > ~~ Oh, my dear David Burn You are causing me turn An improbable indigo blue: Joyous Stream of Delight You appear in my sight The true model of Fair, through and through, You are just not the bhoy Such abuse to employ As canonical Law would eschew - For 'tis monkeys are prone To rebel on their own - Not the bear, nor the fox, nor the gnu - So please act not the Nerd Whose false mock you make heard In this anthropological zoo. ~~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 05:25:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 05:25:33 +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 FAA19677 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 05:25:23 +1000 Received: from modem106.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.106] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z1yMM-0002XX-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:27:31 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:15:03 +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 When our kith are disposed, as we find, To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, There is much to be said for just staying in bed, Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. ---------- > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? > Date: 30 July 1998 18:08 > > > The following incident was reported in yesterday's NABC bulletin > : > > #Active Ethics in Practice > > #Penny and Bob Augustine of Toronto ON reported the following example of > #ethical play by an opponent, Jeffrey Gargrave of Las Vegas NV. > > #While declaring a contract of 4S in yesterday's open pairs, Gargrave > #realized that a comment that he had overheard earlier in the session > #pertained to the deal he was currently playing. He summoned the > #director, who instructed him to continue play. > What rulings are allowed in this case, given the facts? ++ If the information could interfere with normal play (in the Director's opinion) the one thing he is not empowered to do under Law 16B is to let the highly commendable Mr. Gargrave continue to play the hand. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 06:12:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 06:12:30 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19821 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 06:12:24 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA08802 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:13:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.48) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008754; Thu Jul 30 15:13:32 1998 Received: by har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDBBD4.4ED9CF40@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:08:36 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDBBD4.4ED9CF40@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridgelaws Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:06:56 -0400 Encoding: 90 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Grant C. Sterling[SMTP:cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu] (SNIP) ... eliminating the notion that errors break the causal chain [or greatly limiting its application] will generally benefit weaker players, since they are more likely to make errors in the face of an infraction [since they are more likely to make errors anyway]. I am not sure that eliminating this notion is a good idea, but it is clearly a _different_ question from the former. Now perhaps those of you who are calling for legalized d-s's are also calling for an end to the entire consequent-subsequent doctrine. This will certainly save committee time [or at least make the decisions easier--the number of cases may actually _increase_], at the cost of making all infractions much more costly. I don't favor that change--but I think we must be clear what changes we're discussing. (craig) Perhaps I was unclear in my earlier post. While I do not favour total elimination of the consequent/subsequent distinction, I have suggested (as have others) that "normal" play be the requisite standard to allow any infraction related damage to be automatically regarded as consequent, and therefore subject to redress. (Normal being defined as play including the careless or inferior but not the irrational...a well documented and clearly defined delineation already accepted in almost all jurisdictions.) In other words, I have to "play bridge" to gain adjustment if I am injured by the infraction...but I do not have to play "GOOD" bridge. That this may give disproportionate benefit to the weaker players least able to protect themselves against the depredations or machinations of their opponents troubles me not in the least. It has the commendable side benefit of getting TD's and AC's out of the business of determining what is "good bridge" in a significant number of cases. But even more important it should be easier to apply in an even-handed manner that can be understood and accepted by both sides, thus helping to eliminate ill will and foster greater enjoyment of the game by all. (GRANT)---------- The current system encourages you to try to reduce the damage from an opponent's infraction. You must continue to bid and play as best you can given the situation. I like this, because it means many infractions lead to no damage. (craig) Why should the system oblige you to try to pull your opponents chestnuts out of the fire? In every other aspect of the game we (correctly) try to profit as much as possible from opponents errors of commission (bad bids and plays, revokes etc) and omission (failure to preempt or sacrifice or execute a squeeze or endplay). Why should we make any effort whatsoever to help them recover from an infraction of the law? (Grant) Eliminating _both_ aspects of the current system will encourage you to _magnify_ damage from an opponent's infraction. Take a double-shot, and if it works you win, and if it doesn't work you get an adjustment based on the assumption that you would have bid and played flawlessly [though perhaps not brilliantly] had the infraction not occurred. (Craig) I have no problem with that. The opponent opened the door for your improved result by an error just as real as a revoke or a misplay. It would be an unsportsmanlike failure to compete not to seek to take whatever legitimate profit you can from this. This need not extend to irrational actions although I am not terribly disturbed by opening even that possibility as the risk of there being no infraction should deter much of the wild gambling. Yours, Grant Sterling PS: Although I said above that I like the current system, that does not mean that I agree with current practice, especially in the ACBL, of requiring a _high_ level of play in order to be allowed redress. (Craig) As I certainly do not. If we do nothing more we should so construct the rules to prevent this carte blanche for the expert who plays against a lesser player. It is bad for bridge and it is also bad for table count and ACBL revenues, and is out of step with zonal policy to make the game more friendly to the developing player. When the expert breaks the rules, he can and should be punished for doing so, and not let off the hook. Anything else will be perceived very negatively by the vast majority of dues-paying and card-fee paying players. Don't lynch the better player for heavens sake...but don't give him a free pass because he can BL his way out of things better. Simpler rules give the lesser player a better chance of avoiding punishable error himself also. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 07:13:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:13:08 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA20012 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:13:03 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA17976; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:14:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-16.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.48) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017888; Thu Jul 30 16:14:16 1998 Received: by har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDBBDC.E65D10E0@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:10:06 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDBBDC.E65D10E0@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" , "'Grattan'" Subject: RE: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:08:23 -0400 Encoding: 63 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is apparently not well understood by some ACBL directors. In the mid-80s playing an open pairs at the Pittsburgh Labor Day Regional (Dist 5) I overheard a loud discussion behind me concerning the middle of the three boards we were about to play to the effect of "You jackass, all you have to do is hook the king of hearts and the slam sails home...and besides if it hadn't been on side you still had good possibilities." Being an ethical near novice, I called the director and asked to speak to him away from the table. I was told to play the board when it came up AND that I was free to use what I had heard at my own risk! I bid the slam, hooked the heart king, and brought home an 11 1/2 on a 12 top. I always felt that wasn't quite right, but also felt I had played fair by calling the director and doing what he told me to do. Not to have bid it would have enraged my partner who felt I should have just kept my mouth shut and taken whatever advantage I could. I complied with 16B...but it looks as though there was director's error. Do the rest of you concur? Craig ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 3:15 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Grattan When our kith are disposed, as we find, To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, There is much to be said for just staying in bed, Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. ---------- > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? > Date: 30 July 1998 18:08 > > > The following incident was reported in yesterday's NABC bulletin > : > > #Active Ethics in Practice > > #Penny and Bob Augustine of Toronto ON reported the following example of > #ethical play by an opponent, Jeffrey Gargrave of Las Vegas NV. > > #While declaring a contract of 4S in yesterday's open pairs, Gargrave > #realized that a comment that he had overheard earlier in the session > #pertained to the deal he was currently playing. He summoned the > #director, who instructed him to continue play. > What rulings are allowed in this case, given the facts? ++ If the information could interfere with normal play (in the Director's opinion) the one thing he is not empowered to do under Law 16B is to let the highly commendable Mr. Gargrave continue to play the hand. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 07:45:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:45:35 +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 HAA20146 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:45:29 +1000 Received: from ip203.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk (ip203.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.203]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA22670 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:47:29 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:47:29 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c0e4aa.677384@post12.tele.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, 30 Jul 1998 20:15:03 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++ If the information could interfere with normal play (in >the Director's opinion) the one thing he is not empowered to do >under Law 16B is to let the highly commendable Mr. Gargrave >continue to play the hand. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ This is indeed what L16B says. The problem is that in many L16B cases, play can actually continue uninterrupted, but the TD has no way of knowing that beforehand. Almost any UI "could" interfere with normal play. So let me admit that I usually ignore the "forthwith" in L16B3. If the board is not obviously unplayable (e.g., if a small card has been seen by another player), I usually tell the players to play on, and instruct the player with UI to (a) ignore the UI and (b) call me if any situation occurs in which he is unsure of what action he would have taken without the UI. If he then calls me because the UI has become a problem, I award an ArtASS. This works fine in practice - the board can usually be played without problems, the players are pleased that they get to play the board, and I've never experienced a situation in which the player with UI seemed to untruthfully claim to have (or not to have) a problem choosing his action. The only thing that worries is the "forthwith" - ignoring it works so nicely in practice. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 07:46:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:46:48 +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 HAA20165 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:46:41 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29094; 30 Jul 98 14:48 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:08:23 PDT." <01BDBBDC.E65D10E0@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:48:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9807301448.aa29094@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > This is apparently not well understood by some ACBL directors. In the > mid-80s playing an open pairs at the Pittsburgh Labor Day Regional (Dist 5) > I overheard a loud discussion behind me concerning the middle of the three > boards we were about to play to the effect of "You jackass, all you have to > do is hook the king of hearts and the slam sails home...and besides if it > hadn't been on side you still had good possibilities." Being an ethical > near novice, I called the director and asked to speak to him away from the > table. I was told to play the board when it came up AND that I was free to > use what I had heard at my own risk! I bid the slam, hooked the heart king, > and brought home an 11 1/2 on a 12 top. I always felt that wasn't quite > right, but also felt I had played fair by calling the director and doing > what he told me to do. Not to have bid it would have enraged my partner who > felt I should have just kept my mouth shut and taken whatever advantage I > could. I complied with 16B...but it looks as though there was director's > error. Do the rest of you concur? I would have done what you did, but then told the opponents about it so that they could appeal if they desired. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 07:58:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:58:03 +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 HAA20219 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:57:57 +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 SAA05306 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:00:05 -0400 (EDT) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? From: David Grabiner Date: 30 Jul 1998 18:00:02 -0400 Message-ID: Lines: 59 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An ACBL committee appears to have created a new, wrong interpretation of the likely/probable rule. In this case, they determined that a bid was a logical alternative which would be chosen more than 1/6 but less than 1/3 of the offender's peers, and therefore adjusted the score only for the offenders. They quoted Law 12C2 correctly, but the ruling only makes sense if the hesitation, rather than the bid after the hesitation, was the infraction. The full case is on the text version of the Web page. ; I am including only the relevant sections. Appeals Case 2, from Wednesday's bulletin in Chicago: [East had only three spades, and West was 4-3-3-3] WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - Pass 1H 2D Dbl Pass 2S (1) Pass 4H All Pass (1) break in tempo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee determined there had been a break in tempo. The Committee questioned West and found out that there was no unusual meaning for the negative double. West did not assert that he intended to give his partner a choice of contracts. The Committee believed that there were three possible bids by West: 3D, 4H, and 4S. The Committee believed that most players would bid 3D or 4H, but that 4S was a logical alternative. The Committee agreed that the out-of- tempo 2S bid suggested that East had only three spades and that 4H was a logical alternative that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's break in tempo (Law73F1). The Committee decided to award an adjusted score (Law12C2). For E/W, the offenders, the Committee decided that the most unfavorable result that was at all probable was 4S down one because there was a one in six chance that players in West's peer group would choose to play in the 4-4 spade fit rather than the 5-3 heart fit. For N/S, the non-offenders, the Committee decided that the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred was 4H made four because there was not a one in three chance that West's peer group would choose to play 4S for the exact reasons stated by West. For N/S, the contract was changed to 4H made four, minus 620. For E/W the contract was changed to 4S down one, minus 100. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 08:04:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:04:19 +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 IAA20242 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:04:14 +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 SAA05419 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807302206.SAA08191@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01BDBBDC.E65D10E0@har-pa1-16.ix.NETCOM.com> (message from Craig Senior on Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:08:23 -0400) Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior writes: > This is apparently not well understood by some ACBL directors. In the > mid-80s playing an open pairs at the Pittsburgh Labor Day Regional (Dist 5) > I overheard a loud discussion behind me concerning the middle of the three > boards we were about to play to the effect of "You jackass, all you have to > do is hook the king of hearts and the slam sails home...and besides if it > hadn't been on side you still had good possibilities." Being an ethical > near novice, I called the director and asked to speak to him away from the > table. I was told to play the board when it came up AND that I was free to > use what I had heard at my own risk! I have had this happen to me several times, and it's always been ruled correctly. At the Springfield, MA regional, I heard the comment, "3NT isn't any better; everyone is 4-4-4-1" as I sat down at a new table, and called the director. He told everyone that there was a problem, and that he would let us bid the hand to see whether the information was important. As soon as the opponents reached 3NT, the director ruled average-plus for both sides rather than letting me defend double-dummy. I have also had this handled well at clubs, usually being told to play normally and call the director back if there is any problem. It also happened twice in the Open BAM Teams in San Francisco; since the boards in a BAM are played simultaneously at both tables, there is no problem using substitute boards, and there was even a set ready for this occurrence. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 09:40:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:19 +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 JAA20530 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:11 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z22Kv-00057o-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:42:19 +0000 Message-ID: <7YcjBRAAVOw1Ewqw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:27:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <199807291735.MAA00964@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: >Jesper [probably] wrote: > No, we won't. We will only elminate committee decisions that turn >on whether a bad play was a double-shot. The error question will still >remain, and so we will have to determine whether the action was a >deliberate d-s or an error. What for? There is no suggestion from me [and i think Jesper agrees] of not giving redress for the NOs in either case. So why one earth do we decide which sort of case it is? Just adjust! > In return, we will have extra cases that >previously wouldn't have resulted in damage but now have resulted in d-s >induced damage. >> Of course, you're right that when there has actually been an >> attempted double shot, the risk of the case reaching a committee >> is greater than it would be without the double shot. However, as >> I've said elsewhere, I'm sure that the number of attempted double >> shot will be so small that it does not matter at all (because >> double shots by nature has only a small chance of success and are >> really expensive when it turns out that the offender had no LA). > Then why bother to legalize them? If there will only be a handful >of such actions, all or almost all of which will go to committee, what >good will it do to allow them? This is only part of it: it is the general gross unfairness of penalising players for their opponents' infractions that I dislike. -- 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 Jul 31 09:40:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:16 +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 JAA20519 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:07 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z22Kq-00057j-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:42:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:07:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? In-Reply-To: <199807301708.NAA00878@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >The following incident was reported in yesterday's NABC bulletin >: > >#Active Ethics in Practice > >#Penny and Bob Augustine of Toronto ON reported the following example of >#ethical play by an opponent, Jeffrey Gargrave of Las Vegas NV. > >#While declaring a contract of 4S in yesterday's open pairs, Gargrave >#realized that a comment that he had overheard earlier in the session >#pertained to the deal he was currently playing. He summoned the >#director, who instructed him to continue play. > >#Gargrave made five, but indicated that the unauthorized information he >#possessed had allowed him to make an overtrick, and that the opponents, >#the Augustines, were probably entitled to some redress. The tournament >#director awarded the Augustines an average plus. > >#We were very proud of him for being so honest," said Penny. > >This is good behaviour by Gargrave; however, the ruling doesn't seem to >be allowed. If Law 16B applies, both sides should get average-plus, not >merely the defenders. I can't find any justification under the Laws for >assigning any score other than A+/A+, or +650/-650 (if the information is >inconsequential). This one is easy. he goes to the table, ***and reads L16B from the Law book***. Then he stops play and awards A+/A+ as required by that Law. It reminds me of another celebrated ACBL case which I was told about in confidence where all the TD had to do was open his Law book at L16B. -- 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 Jul 31 09:40:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:16 +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 JAA20520 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:07 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z22Kq-00057m-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:42:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:20:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <199807291705.MAA27902@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > Even if we allow the double-shot, as some on this List are >proposing, that would not do anything to eliminate the issues surrounding >'errors'. Legalizing the double-shot while retaining current ACBL >practice regarding 'subsequent damage' will have very little effect on the >game except to occasionally benefit those knowledgeable players who can >spot opportunities for a double-shot, who choose to act on those >opportunities, and who can convince committees that they are doing that >rather than simply playing bad bridge. I have no interest in benefitting >those players, and I am surprised that you are, given your usual positions on >protecting weaker players. OTOH, eliminating the notion that errors break >the causal chain [or greatly limiting its application] will generally >benefit weaker players, since they are more likely to make errors in the >face of an infraction [since they are more likely to make errors >anyway]. I am not sure that eliminating this notion is a good idea, but >it is clearly a _different_ question from the former. Now perhaps those >of you who are calling for legalized d-s's are also calling for an end to >the entire consequent-subsequent doctrine. This will certainly save >committee time [or at least make the decisions easier--the number of cases >may actually _increase_], at the cost of making all infractions much more >costly. I don't favor that change--but I think we must be clear what >changes we're discussing. It had not occurred to me that anyone would legalise the double shot while retaining the quaint notion of NOs suffering from their opponent's infractions. I believe we should penalise players for infractions by giving their opponents the benefit. I would adjust for both sides equally. I would get rid of any notion of consequent and subsequent. I believe the current system to be grossly unfair. > The current system encourages you to try to reduce the damage from >an opponent's infraction. You must continue to bid and play as best you >can given the situation. I like this, because it means many infractions >lead to no damage. Eliminating _both_ aspects of the current system will >encourage you to _magnify_ damage from an opponent's infraction. Take a >double-shot, and if it works you win, and if it doesn't work you get an >adjustment based on the assumption that you would have bid and played >flawlessly [though perhaps not brilliantly] had the infraction not >occurred. Exactly - and I approve of this. Why molly-coddle players who have committed an infraction? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 09:40:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:18 +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 JAA20518 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:40:07 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z22Kq-00057l-00; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:42:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:11:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <35ccb460.6601913@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Let me repeat: double shots are not interesting in practice. >They almost never occur, and they almost never will occur even if >made legal. I have always had my doubts about people who foretell the future: they are so often wrong. If made legal, and players are told that, are you sure they will almost never occur? I have my doubts - after all, it is fun trying things! -- 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 Jul 31 10:32:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:32:56 +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 KAA20699 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:32:50 +1000 Received: from client25d8.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.216] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z239u-0002X9-00; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 01:34:59 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 01:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdbc1a$d75e6060$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 This is a situation I found myself in, in 1996 when playing in the EBU Summer Meeting at Brighton. I heard conversation that a slam was making on a particular board. I called the TD when the board arrived at my table and was told to play the board. I played the board and when it came to decision time I decided that I had a logical alternative to 4NT, and that was to pass. I couldn't make my mind up what I would have done without the UI so thought I was doing the ethical thing when I passed and gave my opps a good board. I accepted my bad board, the stick I got from partner for being too clever, and the several bad boards which followed. I did not appeal. What would have been the point, the AC would not adjust the bad boards which followed. NO Jesper you may not get many telling you that they have a problem, but that is not the answer. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 11:29 PM Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:15:03 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++ If the information could interfere with normal play (in >the Director's opinion) the one thing he is not empowered to do >under Law 16B is to let the highly commendable Mr. Gargrave >continue to play the hand. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ This is indeed what L16B says. The problem is that in many L16B cases, play can actually continue uninterrupted, but the TD has no way of knowing that beforehand. Almost any UI "could" interfere with normal play. So let me admit that I usually ignore the "forthwith" in L16B3. If the board is not obviously unplayable (e.g., if a small card has been seen by another player), I usually tell the players to play on, and instruct the player with UI to (a) ignore the UI and (b) call me if any situation occurs in which he is unsure of what action he would have taken without the UI. If he then calls me because the UI has become a problem, I award an ArtASS. This works fine in practice - the board can usually be played without problems, the players are pleased that they get to play the board, and I've never experienced a situation in which the player with UI seemed to untruthfully claim to have (or not to have) a problem choosing his action. The only thing that worries is the "forthwith" - ignoring it works so nicely in practice. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 10:38:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:38:45 +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 KAA20718 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:38:39 +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 TAA20225 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 19:40:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0RJ5L02J Thu, 30 Jul 98 19:35:53 Message-ID: <9807301935.0RJ5L02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98 19:35:53 Subject: Active ethics, yes, but t To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How odd. My experience in the ACBL has been that when I bring it to the attention to the director that I have 'gotten' information about a hand in some similar fashion, the director asssigns me an AVE -. As this has happened perhaps a dozen times, it is totally inconsistent with your experience. Roger Craig Senior wrote: > > This is apparently not well understood by some ACBL directors. In the > mid-80s playing an open pairs at the Pittsburgh Labor Day Regional (Dist 5) > I overheard a loud discussion behind me concerning the middle of the three > boards we were about to play to the effect of "You jackass, all you have to > do is hook the king of hearts and the slam sails home...and besides if it > hadn't been on side you still had good possibilities." Being an ethical > near novice, I called the director and asked to speak to him away from the > table. I was told to play the board when it came up AND that I was free to > use what I had heard at my own risk! I bid the slam, hooked the heart king, > and brought home an 11 1/2 on a 12 top. I always felt that wasn't quite > right, but also felt I had played fair by calling the director and doing > what he told me to do. Not to have bid it would have enraged my partner who > felt I should have just kept my mouth shut and taken whatever advantage I > could. I complied with 16B...but it looks as though there was director's > error. Do the rest of you concur? > > Craig R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 16:33:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA21220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:33:07 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA21215 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:33:00 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h20.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id KAA19813; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:35:04 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35C2004A.11FB@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:35:06 -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: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT/11C7B2C72300*@MHS> <35d0b4ac.6677281@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jesper is right, that it is high time to summarize the very theme of the discussion. It seems that logical arguments are over - last posts prove it (including David's - DWS - posts that also underlined rather emotional position of the author than gave new arguments). Most of us reached the point where remained only argument-credo:"I beleive (feel) that it is fair (unfair)". That's why the discussion is rather over - unless anybody will starts with new thoughts. Thanks, Jesper, for constructing quite logical scale of disagreement: my personal position is between 2 and 3 in this scale - and is in accordance with Kaplan's doctrine. And I agree with Grant that the Laws already determines "normal play" that should be used while consider UI-cases. Thank you also for useful and interesting discussion:) Best wishes Vitold P.S. Some remarks, rather not connected with the discussion. Jesper wrote: > This had led to varying practices: > - In the ACBL, fairly ordinary bad bridge errors are considered > "egregious errors" and cause the NOS's damage to be considered > subsequent, so the NOS lose its adjustment. > - In at least some parts of Europe, only actions that could be > described as "wild and gambling" cause the NOS's damage to be > considered subsequent, so the NOS lose its adjustment. And now I have questions: - there are other differences in treating the Laws (and even in the very important Law - revoke's question) between ACBL and Europe - do we really think that differences in treating UI-cases are more important than in revoke's problem? - historically continental organizations had autonomous power; do we really want to fully unify bridge life? - do we really think that Europian line in treating the Laws is best one? Or it is a kind of Europian shauvinism?:) - why do we attack ACBL so often in out List? Or it is a kind of our Europian arrogance?:)) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 18:07:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:07:05 +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 SAA21350 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:06:57 +1000 Received: from modem24.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.24] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z2AFL-0000c0-00; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:09:04 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:00:52 +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 When our kith are disposed, as we find, To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, There is much to be said for just staying in bed, Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: 30 July 1998 19:01 Since there have been some misunderstandings about what this discussion is all about, I'd like to summarize my idea of what it is all about. This is a discussion of whether it would be a good idea to change the current practice and/or the laws concerning the situation where the NOS has been damaged because of a UI/MI-type of infraction. In these situations we adjust for the OS. There is no suggestion of any change at all to the practice and rules for adjusting for the OS. In most, but not all, of these situations we also adjust for the NOS. This discussion is (only) concerned with the choice of adjusting or not adjusting for the NOS in such situations. Kaplan distinguished between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, where "subsequent damage" is considered the NOS's own problem, created because they have committed some "egregious error" after the irregularity. Kaplan's interpretation was that by committing such an error, the NOS loses the right to an adjusted score which they would otherwise have. +++ Or that part of the damage suffered attributable to the self-inflicted error. And he was not opposed in Committee when he said this was not merely his opinion but the meaning of the law. ++ (I've never myself read what Kaplan wrote; if this is wrong, I'd appreciate corrections from somebody who has.) (Some of us, but far from all, believe that not adjusting for the NOS is against the letter of the law. However, this discussion is about what we'd _like_ to be legal, so let's drop that for a while.) ++ [ I agree unhelpful to discuss; we are now in the business more of agreeing what is to be the case after Lille. ] ++ This had led to varying practices: - In the ACBL, fairly ordinary bad bridge errors are considered "egregious errors" and cause the NOS's damage to be considered subsequent, so the NOS lose its adjustment. - In at least some parts of Europe, only actions that could be described as "wild and gambling" cause the NOS's damage to be considered subsequent, so the NOS lose its adjustment. ++ The irony is that "wild and gambling"(actually 'wild or gambling') is the phrase that *Kaplan* originated. He supplied it as the criterion by which to judge what was 'egregious'. There just seems to be a different measure of what fits this description on opposite sides of the Atlantic. If we all pay lip service to the same principle we can still fall out of step through assessing values differently. ++ I think most us agree that it is not satisfactory to have so differing practices and to not have them firmly based on law. ++ Kaplan and the Committee under his leadership considered this was what the law said. The argument was that the law called for the damage to have been the consequence of the infraction. Until now, therefore, this position has been firmly based since the Committee held it to be so. Kaplan and his committee said that if there was any argument about the meaning of a law then the intention of the Committee prevailed. [Actually I think this last has got to be right.] ++ ~~ Grattan ~~ P.S. Exploring with Ton I doubt whether our understandings of this law are as far apart as it has seemed; there is maybe a language problem - use of a phrase. ( ---------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 18:15:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:15:14 +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 SAA21380 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:15:05 +1000 Received: from modem24.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.24] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z2ANB-0000nc-00; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:17:10 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:16:56 +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 When our kith are disposed, as we find, To speak truths neither helpful nor kind, There is much to be said for just staying in bed, Biding mute, hard of hearing and blind. ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: 30 July 1998 22:47 On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:15:03 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++ If the information could interfere with normal play (in >the Director's opinion) the one thing he is not empowered to do >under Law 16B is to let the highly commendable Mr. Gargrave >continue to play the hand. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ This is indeed what L16B says. The problem is that in many L16B cases, play can actually continue uninterrupted, but the TD has no way of knowing that beforehand. Almost any UI "could" interfere with normal play. So let me admit that I usually ignore the "forthwith" in L16B3. If the board is not obviously unplayable (e.g., if a small card has been seen by another player), I usually tell the players to play on, and instruct the player with UI to (a) ignore the UI and (b) call me if any situation occurs in which he is unsure of what action he would have taken without the UI. If he then calls me because the UI has become a problem, I award an ArtASS. +++ Jesper's Law. Not as intended and in my opinion injudicious since the player, by telling you his problem is likely to be inferring that he thinks it could affect the hand. I would have thought there would frequently be occasion to let his partner play out the hand. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 19:12:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:12:26 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA21577 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:12:19 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z2BGb-0006gg-00; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:22:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: >> >>The following incident was reported in yesterday's NABC bulletin >>: >> >>#Active Ethics in Practice >> >>#Penny and Bob Augustine of Toronto ON reported the following example of >>#ethical play by an opponent, Jeffrey Gargrave of Las Vegas NV. >> >>#While declaring a contract of 4S in yesterday's open pairs, Gargrave >>#realized that a comment that he had overheard earlier in the session >>#pertained to the deal he was currently playing. He summoned the >>#director, who instructed him to continue play. >> >>#Gargrave made five, but indicated that the unauthorized information he >>#possessed had allowed him to make an overtrick, and that the opponents, >>#the Augustines, were probably entitled to some redress. The tournament >>#director awarded the Augustines an average plus. >> >>#We were very proud of him for being so honest," said Penny. >> >>This is good behaviour by Gargrave; however, the ruling doesn't seem to >>be allowed. If Law 16B applies, both sides should get average-plus, not >>merely the defenders. I can't find any justification under the Laws for >>assigning any score other than A+/A+, or +650/-650 (if the information is >>inconsequential). > > This one is easy. he goes to the table, ***and reads L16B from the >Law book***. > > Then he stops play and awards A+/A+ as required by that Law. As others have pointed out, as a practical matter a TD might let the hand run a bit to see whether the information is inconsequential: but it is still a matter for the Law book, and either the TD decides the information is inconsequential, and lets the result stand, or he awards an ArtAS. -- 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 Jul 31 20:25:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:25:56 +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 UAA21705 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:25:47 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-233.uunet.be [194.7.13.233]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA03024 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:27:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35C19689.D02B3AAD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:03:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3339071122071998/A38211/EXPERT/11C7B2C72300*@MHS> <35d0b4ac.6677281@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > (4) is my preferred solution. I'm beginning to believe that it > has one major drawback, however: it is incredibly difficult to > convince people that it is not unfair! There is one good argument for it : if a player could be so certain that his opponents were acting in an ethical fashion, he would never attept a double shot. It is only because some opponents do not behave in an ethical fashion, that the double shot exists at all ! So people who complain of opponent's double shot should look at their own actions first ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 22:30:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 22:30:10 +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 WAA22002 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 22:30:04 +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 IAA24512 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980731083133.006c2f48@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:31:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:38 PM 7/28/98 -0700, vitold wrote: > "UI irregularities are not, and should not be, a part of normal > bridge. They are, and should be, so rare that we can afford to > give the NOS a score that is certain to be good enough to be fair > to them, even if we thereby sometimes give them more than they > deserve." > > Yes - but only if NOS did not try to made double-shot. And it were > TD and AC that should make decision. ... > "Do you also believe that the revoke penalty - which usually gives > the NOS an undeserved good score - is bad for bridge?" > > The Law about revoke is quite fair and not too simple. NOS may > not reach double shot in using that Law. But nevertheless - if I dare > to have an opinion - similar Law for rubber bridge is simpler and > more fair:)) Might be - because it is in more tight connection with > tradition (Legend, common sense)? I declare 6S, which I estimate half the field will reach. I have a safety play available which will score 12 tricks, for an estimated 9/12 matchpoints. I also have a finesse for an overtrick (for a 12), but will go down (for a 0) if I try it and it loses. I will take the safety play. But early on, an opponent revokes. Now if they win any more tricks, one will be transferred to my side. The risky finesse is now riskless: 13 tricks for 12 matchpoints if it wins, 12 tricks (after the penalty) for 9 if it loses. Now, of course, I will take the finesse. How is this any less a double shot than anything that might occur after a possible UI or MI infraction? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 31 23:10:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:10:43 +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 XAA22098 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:10:36 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA25326 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:19:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980731091207.006c5e98@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:12:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <199807291735.MAA00964@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 7/29/98 -0500, Grant wrote: >No, we won't. We will only elminate committee decisions that turn >on whether a bad play was a double-shot. The error question will still >remain, and so we will have to determine whether the action was a >deliberate d-s or an error. In return, we will have extra cases that >previously wouldn't have resulted in damage but now have resulted in d-s >induced damage. We seem to have lost the original issue somewhere. The real question isn't double shots at all. The real question is whether NOs should be denied adjustments for damage which is "merely subsequent to, but not consequent on, an opponent's infraction" (what we've been calling the "Kaplan doctrine"). Neg: "We do not think that the NOs' otherwise available legal right to redress should be compromised by a so-called 'egregious error', because we do not believe that the quality of a player's bridge, whether his bridge error was bad enough for a TD or AC to call 'egregious', should affect his right to redress." Aff: "But if you make that the law, and stick to the principle that the laws shouldn't require TDs/ACs to make judgments about players' motivations for their actions, you will allow players to take free double shots, which we don't want." Neg: "Why not?" Nobody has suggested (and nobody, I would bet, ever will) that the NOs should be denied redress for an "egregious" error *unless* it was a deliberate double shot! Being anti-Kaplan-doctrine does not necessary mean being in favor of double shots. The negative-side debaters are clearly divided into two camps, the "why-not-ers", and those who don't like double shots but think that they don't, by themselves, justify the Kaplan doctrine; their position is that if you don't want double shots, ban double shots: (a) judging motivation is no harder, and probably easier, than judging "sufficiently bad bridge for a player of the NO's level of ability", and (b) there's no justification for a rule that harms 10 innocent (there's still no law against bad bridge) players for every double-shot artist to whom it delivers justice. 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 Jul 31 23:24:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:24:32 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22216 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:24:26 +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 JAA25681 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980731092556.00692b7c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:25:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <199807291705.MAA27902@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 7/29/98 -0500, Grant wrote: > The current system encourages you to try to reduce the damage from >an opponent's infraction. You must continue to bid and play as best you >can given the situation. I like this, because it means many infractions >lead to no damage. Eliminating _both_ aspects of the current system will >encourage you to _magnify_ damage from an opponent's infraction. Take a >double-shot, and if it works you win, and if it doesn't work you get an >adjustment based on the assumption that you would have bid and played >flawlessly [though perhaps not brilliantly] had the infraction not >occurred. Can we put this particular canard to rest at long last? Eliminating the Kaplan doctrine does *NOT* mean that "you get an adjustment based on the assumption that you would have bid and played flawlessly". It means that you get an adjustment based on the assumption that you would have bid and played as closely to how you actually bid and played as would have been possible had your opponents not committed the infraction. In the classic example, if the opponents bid to slam by using UI, and you blow a trick, you don't get the trick back, you get the score for having blown that trick against the game the opponents would have been in had they not committed the infraction. The point is *not* that after an opponent's infraction an error can't hurt you; the point is that an error can't hurt you any more than it would have otherwise because somebody decides that it was "egregious". 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