From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 03:12:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:12:04 +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 DAA25363 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:58 +1000 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.55]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980731171501.QFH28751.fep4@ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:15:01 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:14:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35cbf9e0.3116250@isa.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 30 Jul 1998 18:00:02 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: >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. Since the NOS has made no "egregious error" by any definition here, they must receive an adjustment if there is damage. If they do not receive an adjustment, then the committee must believe that they are not damaged; if that is the case they should not have adjusted for the OS either. In other words, if you obtain a result that is no worse than "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred", then you are not damaged and the result should stand for both sides. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 03:11:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:28 +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 DAA25335 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:19 +1000 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.55]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980731171422.QEX28751.fep4@ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:14:22 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:13:27 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c3effb.583799@isa.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, 30 Jul 1998 22:11:05 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >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. I hope that all BLMLers realize that when I state what the future will be like, it does not mean that I know for certain :-) > 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! Yes, you're probably right that there will be some "trying for fun" occasions in certain types of clubs (the one I play in, for one). But it would really surprise me if it would not be an extremely rare event in tournaments where players take their score really seriously. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 03:11:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:36 +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 DAA25342 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:30 +1000 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.55]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980731171434.QEZ28751.fep4@ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:14:34 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:13:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c6f50e.1882476@isa.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:00:52 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >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.] ++ It may be formally right, but of course national authorities can do what they like in practice as long as their decisions cannot be appealed to the WBFLC (and this does _not_ mean that I'm suggesting that they should be appealable!). Whether it is formally right is interesting. In other parts of life, we take great care to separate law-making bodies from law-interpreting bodies. This separation seems to me to be a good thing - it means that the law-makers will actually have to formally decide to change the laws if they want to change anything significantly, and it thus reduces the risk of undocumented and hasty changes in the rules. On the other hand, an expressed opinion from WBFLC should of course have a considerable influence on the thinking of law-interpreters everywhere. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 03:11:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:54 +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 DAA25356 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:48 +1000 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.55]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980731171452.QFE28751.fep4@ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:14:52 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:13:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35caf7cf.2587260@isa.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 Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:16:56 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >+++ Jesper's Law. Not as intended and in my opinion=20 >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 ~ +++ I only let play continue in this way if the alternative is an immediate ArtAS. One particular L16B situation I've ruled (too!) many times is the one where all four players have seen a card that was left face up in the board by the previous player. I see no way to determine whether for instance the H8 makes the board unplayable other than to try to play the board, carefully instructing the players not to continue when they have a problem with the UI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 03:11:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:45 +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 DAA25349 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:11:39 +1000 Received: from ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.55]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980731171443.QFC28751.fep4@ip55.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:14:43 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:13:48 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c9f695.2273509@isa.dknet.dk> References: <01bdbc1a$d75e6060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01bdbc1a$d75e6060$LocalHost@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 01:33:30 +0100, "Anne Jones" wrote: >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. [snip] > NO Jesper you may not get many telling you that they have a problem, >but that is not the answer. If I had ruled, I hope I would have made it very clear that when and if you came to a "decision time" like the one you describe, you should not worry about "the ethical thing", but instead call me again. I'd then give 60/60. UI of the L16B type should never result in considerations of logical alternatives, but only in considerations of whether the hand can be played without influence from the UI - and your hand clearly could not. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 03:50:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:50:34 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25458 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 03:50:25 +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 NAA26905 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807311752.NAA27003@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9807301935.0RJ5L02@bbs.hal-pc.org> (r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org) Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but t Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick writes (replying to Craig Senior): > 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. Average-minus? That ruling should be appealed to the Chief Director, as it violates the definition of average-minus unless you were directly at fault (looking at the wrong hand, watching an unfinished table too closely, turning over the wrong scoreslip). You are in no way at fault if the discussion at the next table is loud enough to be overheard, or if the post-mortem continues after you sit down at the table. Awarding average-minus is penalizing you for being actively ethical. -- 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 Aug 1 05:27:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:27:35 +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 FAA25862 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:27:28 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11758 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:25:17 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199807311925.OAA11758@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:25:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I expect this to be my final comment on the matter.... > 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. Good idea--and an excellent summary. [considerable material below has been snipped for brevity] > 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. I don't think we can limit it to that, since there will be situations that previously would not have resulted in any damage at all but now will result in damage--see below. > - 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). OTOH, others on this List have argued that allowing the double-shot is a _good_ thing, and not merely a 'side effect'. > 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. Odd ideas and practices seem to spring up regularly in the ACBL, and I don't think we need to re-write the laws every time to eradicate them. In fact [Marvin French, et al, will surely agree here], there's no guarantee that just because we make something illegal that that guarantees the ACBL won't do it. But, FWIW, I can hardly take a stand against clarity in rule-making, and I don't like current ACBL practice. I completely agree that we shouldn't refuse redress to people who make ordinary bridge mistakes. > (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. I agree here, too--if we're going to make rules, these are the ones to make. > (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. I wouldn't mind this. > (4) Clear rules that completely remove the need to distinguish > between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage, including adjusting > even after double shots. I don't like this. > (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. In many of the cases people worry about, this won't matter, since many [most, I think] of the allegedly egregious errors the ACBL has discovered were clearly _mistakes_, and not d-s's. > (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! That sounds like a drawback to me. :) > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . Obviously my earlier comments were not clear, since many have misunderstood them. 1) I was attempting to show that there was a distinction between those who were arguing for eliminating the distinction between normal and egregious errors and those were were arguing for allowing d-s's on the ground of analogies to other sports, etc. Jesper has made that clear--we _can_ eliminate the ACBL-problem without going so far as to legalize d-s's, _if_ we want to. {I do, in fact, want to.} 2) When opponents commit a _mistake_ against me which constitutes an infraction, I prefer _not_ to attempt to exploit it so as to create damage where none previously existed. This is a personal preference of mine--I see recourse to adjusted scores as _redress for damage_ rather than as an opportunity for profit. In the case of revokes and bids-out-of-turn, where the infraction is obvious to all parties and the penalty clearly mandated by law, I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of those mistakes--but in other cases I think the issue is quite different. Consider the following case {no-one has liked my examples so far, so apologies in advance for this one, which is based on actual events}: Playing two LOLs, we had the following auction [none vul]: P P P 1H P 2H P(*) P X(*) P 3C P *=hesitations P ? There was no question in my mind that doubler had the logical alternative of passing--she was a twice-passed hand, facing a partner who couldn't open third-seat, and she was a LOL. ['Pass' is always a LA for LOLs in this situation.] I had a normal 7 point hand, slightly offensive but nothing special, and I was playing with a partner who bids as if a single raise is a slam-invite [so his pass shows a real minimum opener]. I know there's little chance of game, and little chance of a real penalty against 3C--and it _might_ make. So I bid 3H. They passed that out, and sure enough 3H made exactly 3. I am sure the opponents did not realize they had done anything wrong, and a lecture on UI rules wouldn't have made them understand it. I am sure doubler wasn't consciously aware of the hesitation, and didn't really base her action upon it. There was no damage, and we went to the next hand. But if d-s's are legal, then 3H was the worst bid I could make. I know that the TD or AC will roll the contract back to 2H if I call them on it, so if 3H actually makes then so will 2H. My correct bid must be either X or 4H! If either bid scores more than 3H, I have a very good score. If it doesn't work, then I get +140* anyway. Of course, the odds are very good that X or 4H _won't_ make, and so I will have to call for redress. The LOLs will think I have accused them of cheating, and we will have an adjusted score. [In the ACBL, I will have the bonus of knowing that instead of an average +140* I may even get an artifical A+ result.] {*--at the time, of course, I don't yet know that this is the exact score.} Yes, I know that UI adjustments don't actually imply an accusation of cheating. Yes, I know that having scores fixed by TDs or Acs is a part of the game. Yes, I know that the opponents have violated the law [without realizing it], and so in some sense they 'deserve' punishment. But this isn't the way I want bridge to be played. And I don't want the rules written and interpreted so that I am _encouraged_ to play it this way. If I can _prevent_ damage from UI/MI, I will always strive to do so. Legalizing d-s's means that the best scores will go to those who do _not_ try to prevent damage. Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 05:42:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:42:34 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25910 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:42:28 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA06464 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980731154401.006c4b94@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:44:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <199807311925.OAA11758@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 PM 7/31/98 -0500, Grant wrote: >> 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. > > I don't think we can limit it to that, since there will be >situations that previously would not have resulted in any damage at all >but now will result in damage Why should eliminating any rules or interpretations based on the distinction between damage which is consequent on an infraction and damage which is merely subsequent to an infraction but not consequent on it (which is Jesper's position) have any effect whatsoever on situations in which there is no damage at all? 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 Aug 1 05:49:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:49:48 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25926 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:49:42 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA06608 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980731155115.006c4b94@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:51:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Double shots and the Kaplan doctrine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since we seem to be getting in our "last words" on this topic, here are mine, in three sentences: (1) If we want to have rules that penalize deliberate double shots, we will have to require our adjudicators to make determinations as to whether particular actions are or are not deliberate double shots. (2) If we want to have rules that penalize egregious bridge errors, we will have to require our adjudicators to make determinations as to whether particular actions are or are not egregious bridge errors. (3) There is no justification whatsoever for the argument that because we want to have rules that penalize deliberate double shots, we must require our adjudicators to make determinations as to whether particular actions are or are not egregious bridge errors. 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 Aug 1 05:59:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:59:15 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA25966 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:59:07 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z2LMO-0004nL-00; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:01:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:40:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >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. I don't think so. I think you will find that the Committee's decision was accurate in Law, involving an interpretation of the Law as handed down by the ACBL. I am dubious about the ACBL's interpretation, which I believe to be flawed, and based on a lack of understanding of the purpose and desired effect of L12C2. To summarise the hand [deleted] West had UI available from his partner. He chose a bid of 4H, and the UI suggested *not* choosing 4S. Assume for the sake of argument that 4S leads to -100: 3D and 4H both lead to +620. Suppose we polled some players on their choice of action: it is believed that 20% would bid 4S, 40% 4H, and 40% 3D. Now, under ACBL interpretations, the player has made an illegal call of 4H, since 4S *is* an LA. Thus the opponents may have been damaged [L16A2] and L12C2 comes into play. LAW 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 2. Assigned Score 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. For the OS we want to find "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable": according to the ACBL "at all probable" is one found by one in six players, ie > 17.66%. The three actions given are all greater than this percentage, so the AC picks the one that is "most unfavourable", and gives the OS -100. For the NOs we want to find "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred": according to the ACBL "likely" is one found by one in three players, ie > 33.32%. Only two of the three actions given are greater than this percentage, namely 3D and 4H, so the AC picks the one that is "most favourable", and gives the OS -620 since that is where both actions lead. >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. The AC has followed ACBL interpretations accurately and carefully. The problem is with the ACBL interpretation, and not with the AC. This has nothing to do with the definition of an LA: it is the definition of "likely" that causes the trouble. How do we solve it in England/Wales? Easy: an LA is an action found by 30% of ... A "likely" action is one that you would expect 30% of ... In other words, we equate the two and never get this problem. In fact there are some far-reaching implications of all this. If we consider the simple LA case, with its 30% in England/Wales, and 25% in much of the RoW apart from NAmerica, there is something basically wrong with using percentages: they only properly work in two option cases! If someone has UI, and only two actions are being considered, allowing him to take the suggested action if it is an 80% action but not if it is a 70 % action seems fair, because there is an LA in the latter case. But what happens if he takes a 60% action, and there are eight possible alternatives, and none of them are more than 5% actions? Commonsense says that his action is evident, and should be permitted. I advise TDs to consider that percentages are only a guide to the basic two option position, and should be treated with commonsense otherwise. I believe that top TDs will do this, not disallowing a 60% action in such a case. The ACBL has simplified life for its TDs by a much stronger definition of LA with no percentage included, which probably has the effect of making an LA any 4% action. When in doubt, it's an LA. Fair or not, it's simpler! *But* they have come up with this flawed definition of "likely". I think that their one in three has some validity in the two option case. It is still too high: one in four seems right to me. But it is an unusable and flawed definition when there are more options. Suppose that in the case we looked at there were five possibilities, and each was a 20% action: then there were *no* likely outcomes according to the ACBL! The point is that the more outcomes being considered, the lower the percentage needed to be considered "likely". In fact, I have been given this type of possibility as a justification for ruling a board as A+/A- under L12C2: it was argued that it was legal because there were no likely possibilities. In my view, the following definitions would be sensible and satisfactory: If there are two alternatives that anyone would consider, a logical alternative outside NAmerica is one that might be found by one in four people. If there are two alternatives that anyone would consider, a likely action anywhere is one that might be found by one in four people. If there are two alternatives that anyone would consider, an action that is at all possible anywhere is one that might be found by one in eight people. If there are more than two alternatives that anyone might consider, then the most common is a logical alternative, a likely action, and one that is at all possible. Other alternatives should be compared with the most common. We could come up with a formula: perhaps if we divide the likelihood of the action by the likelihood of the most common action then it is a logical alternative or a likely action if it is better than one in three, and one that is at all possible if it is better than one in seven. Really, this last is not an approach we want. Better is probably an understanding of the approach. Percentages are not helpful. If an action is not too unlikely compared with the most likely then it is a European LA, and it is likely: if it is not totally outlandish compared with the most likely then it is possible. It is not sensible to have a method where a person chooses a call suggested by the UI over an LA, but the "obvious" adjustment is not allowed because of the interpretation of the word "likely". To keep rulings sensible and credible we must find a different approach. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 07:10:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 07:10:41 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA26155 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 07:10:34 +1000 Received: from 130.179.26.122 (net02.maths.umanitoba.ca [130.179.26.122]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21857 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:12:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <35C233A2.672C@ccm.umanitoba.ca> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:14:10 -0500 From: Barry Wolk Organization: University of Manitoba X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: David Stevenson at the YC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst said: > 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 and Steve Willner then said: > 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? Hey, the "ACBL game" is easy - just remind your players to say "Pass" instead of "No bid" :-) And the question "Having no spades, partner?" just became legal. That is probably the most significant difference in the Laws, at least from the players' viewpoint. However, there are other differences, aside from those in the Laws. Are you actually using ACBL regulations about allowed conventions, presumably the GCC? And are you also using ACBL alert regulations, with announcements, delayed alerts, etc? I assume you are, because otherwise I don't see any point to your playing the ACBL game. Well, at least the players will be just as clueless here as the TD. There are obviously many differences in the two areas of convention restrictions and alert regulations. It would be interesting to hear what other differences are considered to be significant, both by the players and by the TD. -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 08:00:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:00:21 +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 IAA26259 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:00:15 +1000 Received: from ip223.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.223]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980731220319.ZCZ28751.fep4@ip223.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:03:19 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 00:02:22 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d23e8e.4211265@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980731154401.006c4b94@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980731154401.006c4b94@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, 31 Jul 1998 15:44:01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:25 PM 7/31/98 -0500, Grant wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> I don't think we can limit it to that, since there will be >>situations that previously would not have resulted in any damage at all >>but now will result in damage > >Why should eliminating any rules or interpretations based on the >distinction between damage which is consequent on an infraction and = damage >which is merely subsequent to an infraction but not consequent on it = (which >is Jesper's position) have any effect whatsoever on situations in which >there is no damage at all? I'm afraid Grant has a point (and a very good example) here. This is actually a situation where the need to adjust (for both sides) arises from a subsequent action that would not have been taken at all if the double shot were illegal. _If_ the NOS bids 4H, there is damage under any rules - but they will only do so if the double shot is legal. If the double shot is legal, there are situations where a double shot (4H in the example) will be attempted as an alternative to an action (3H) that often turns out to avoid the damage. The double shot will then require an adjusted score, which the 3H call would not. In other words, a situation where the NOS would not be damaged at all if they had bid differently ("normally") following the irregularity. In a serious competition or in a club where players want to know/learn the rules of the game, this is an advantage: it will cause a TD to come to the table and explain UI rules more often - and when the players have learned those rules, we can hope that the number of infractions and TD calls will become smaller. On the other hand, if the OS is a pair of LOLs playing in a club with the attitude that LOLs should not be subjected to a TD call when their infraction did no damage, then the LOLs will be subjected to adjusted scores more often if their opponents go for double shots like the one in Grant's example. In practice I think the opponents in such a club would tend to not try a double shot in such situations against such opponents - just like many players do not psyche against LOLs. This is of course is not a perfect solution, since it means that the NOS will play (slightly) less good bridge for the purpose of avoiding an adjusted score for a LOL. I think that the courtesy of letting LOLs get away with irregularities without the indignity of a TD call is more naturally provided by the opponents than by the laws. I'm still in favour of allowing the double shot. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 08:00:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:00:31 +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 IAA26266 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:00:25 +1000 Received: from ip223.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.223]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980731220329.ZDD28751.fep4@ip223.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:03:29 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 00:02:32 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d13bfe.3554431@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 Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:40:22 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Now, under ACBL interpretations, the player has made an illegal call >of 4H, since 4S *is* an LA. Thus the opponents may have been damaged >[L16A2] and L12C2 comes into play. If this is the ACBL interpretation, then it seems to be quite wrong. In my law book L12C2 does not come into play just because an opponent "may have" been damaged, but only when "an infraction has resulted in damage" (L16A2). It is not enough that there was an infraction - there also needs to be damage. An interpretation that considers players damaged even though they have already achieved "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" is IMO not illegal, but seems absurd. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 08:03:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:03:50 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA26289 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:03:44 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n33.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.51]) by proxyb1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA11284 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980731180353.00834b50@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:03:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: David Stevenson at the YC In-Reply-To: <35C233A2.672C@ccm.umanitoba.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:14 PM 7/31/98 -0500, Barry Wolk wrote: >Are you actually using ACBL regulations about allowed conventions, >presumably the GCC? ACBL clubs may allow (or prohibit) just about whatever convention they choose. There is no reason the allowable conventions would have to change from the regular (non-ACBL) game. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 08:59:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:59:25 +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 IAA26386 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 08:59:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z2OAt-0002X2-00; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:29:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <35c6f50e.1882476@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On the other hand, an expressed opinion from WBFLC should of >course have a considerable influence on the thinking of >law-interpreters everywhere. No doubt it should. But the danger is that people will confuse an expressed opinion of the WBFLC and an expressed opinion of one of their members. I am still mindful of a couple of readers to this list who told us that in future they would go against the dictates of the EBU because of what Grattan had said. Grattan himself was quick to point out that that was not his intention in posting, and the official line for interpreting Laws is still via Zones, NBOs etc. Another problems has been seen recently: Ton and Grattan have posted conflicting opinions. While I am very pleased to see their postings here this is not the official channel to provide interpretations. After Lille we may expect the WBFLC to make certain promulgations: those will be official. I am also a little wary of "Edgar said ...". Life must move on, and all that that means is that it was the opinion at that time of the most important person in law-making then - and then only if it has been reported correctly. In one of the matters that has been discussed here, I had one view, fairly middle of the road, and Grattan expressed another view, somewhat extreme: he said that this is what Edgar had said. In discussions with Chip Martel via email, he told me that the ACBL ruled another way again, nearly opposite to Grattan's view, and, so Chip told me, did so because that is what Edgar had said! Some people on this list seem to be wanting Ton or Grattan to give an opinion, so that they can suspend thought, and take that as an absolute without discussion. Of course you do what you like, but I feel that this loses a lot of the value of this list. We have talked our way through some difficult problems, and I do not think some of them were soluble by any single person, no matter how experienced or distinguished. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Aug 1 09:08:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:08:07 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA26420 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:08:01 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA01975 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04927; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:10:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:10:25 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199807312310.TAA04927@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > 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 How far should the TD let the hand run? Last time this happened to me, I had seen a scoreslip that implied we could make 6NT. As it happened, I had a balanced hand exactly in the middle of our notrump range, and partner took control of the auction so I had no options whatever. (Well, except to ignore our agreements, if you consider that an option.) But the TD had no way to know this would happen, and in fact neither did I until auction was over. We switched seats (with the TD's permission) so partner could play the contract, but I don't believe the play was significant. So did the TD get this one wrong? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 1 09:26:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:26:31 +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 JAA26447 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:26:25 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z2ObC-0003U6-00; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:28:34 +0000 Message-ID: <2rwM7HAfIlw1Ew5T@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:24:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? 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: >> >>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. > > I don't think so. I think you will find that the Committee's decision >was accurate in Law, involving an interpretation of the Law as handed [s] Err - ahh! Whenever I write the word possible I mean probable. Sorry! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Aug 1 10:14:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:14:47 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA26580 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 10:14:39 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z2PLr-0006uB-00; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:16:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 01:15:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: David Stevenson at the YC In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980731180353.00834b50@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19980731180353.00834b50@maine.rr.com>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 04:14 PM 7/31/98 -0500, Barry Wolk wrote: > >>Are you actually using ACBL regulations about allowed conventions, >>presumably the GCC? > >ACBL clubs may allow (or prohibit) just about whatever convention they >choose. There is no reason the allowable conventions would have to change >from the regular (non-ACBL) game. > >Tim > It is an ACBL sanctioned game, not played in by the YC members, with an ACBL bidding chart on the wall. (It's for the American ex-pats and their friends) and is an afternoon, mostly ladies, game. To explain, 4 different clubs meet on the YC premises, the YC meets Monday through Friday, evenings only. As for the Director, he is the same who, last week, was called by me in the following situation: Dummy Me I played from dummy to the A and returned one J9xx Axxx towards the J. RHO played the K before her partner had played, so her partner then played small on my left (from original Qxx). In a sense she was right because her partner is quite capable of going in with the Q :) The ruling: Play on and I'll adjust the score :) After the play: Checked the traveller, discovered what the infraction had cost me and awarded me a balancing number of match points, leaving the OS score untouched. I was amused rather than annoyed. I'd expect even a club Director to get that one right. Finally, despite my defence we managed to get DWS 0.49 black points (his first) so now he can talk with knowledge about the ACBL game :)))) -- 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 Aug 1 17:21:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:21:20 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA27354 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:21:13 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-179.uunet.be [194.7.14.179]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA20453 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:23:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35C1CC59.BB3C431E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:53:29 +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: <3.0.1.32.19980731083133.006c2f48@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > 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? > Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side on this one, but the example is flawed. In your example, the ruling has already been given. The play is a consequence of that. In the double-shot examples, a ruling is "expected". Now a non-normal bridge play follows. Only then is the ruling actively asked for. The rulings are also different : in the revoke rule, there is a penalty, regardless of damage. In MI or UI cases, there is only redress for damage. According to some, only for damage caused by the infraction. So this case is completely different from the double shot. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 2 01:41:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:41:32 +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 BAA00731 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:41:23 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h42.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id TAA16478; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 19:43:25 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35C3D24C.2B7C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 19:43:24 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "G. R. Bower" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) G. R. Bower wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > - why do we attack ACBL so often in out List? Or it is a kind of our > > Europian arrogance?:)) > > > > It's not just European arrogance.. those of us who play and direct under > ACBL rules, and who have to deal with them on a regular basis, attack them > at least as often as the Europeans do. > > The easy answer, I think, is that ACBL tends to always choose complicated > answers to easy problems. > > Gordon Bower OK - it seems to me that we (Europians) rather should critisize our (Europians) matters. And leave to Americans critisizing ACBL. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 2 10:05:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 10:05:24 +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 KAA01791 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 10:05:18 +1000 Received: from ip116.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.116]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980802000824.CAVU28751.fep4@ip116.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 02:08:24 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 02:07:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35ccad29.2280128@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980731083133.006c2f48@pop.cais.com> <35C1CC59.BB3C431E@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <35C1CC59.BB3C431E@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:53:29 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >The rulings are also different : in the revoke rule, there is a penalty, >regardless of damage. Yes, if the revoke is established. If not, there is a penalty card which may allow you to take a finesse that would have risked the contract if there were no penalty card. This is a lot like a double shot - you take what would normally be a wild gamble for an overtrick, but because of the irregularity you know that it cannot fail. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 2 14:56:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:56:18 +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 OAA02180 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:56:13 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA04326; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 21:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808020457.VAA04326@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 21:55:40 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > 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? > "Reasonably well" is not the criterion. They must only play reasonably (considering their level of ability), the way I see it, which is not the same as "reasonably well." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 2 18:00:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:00:00 +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 RAA02416 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 17:59:52 +1000 Received: from modem52.taz.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.180] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z2t5e-00049N-00; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 09:02:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:59:46 +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 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 Stevenson > Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" > Another problems has been seen recently: Ton and Grattan have posted > conflicting opinions. While I am very pleased to see their postings > here this is not the official channel to provide interpretations. After > Lille we may expect the WBFLC to make certain promulgations: those will > be official. +++ Even from the inside, David, I am not able to anticipate what we may expect the WBFLC to do. As for the 'conflicting opinions' let us be clear as to the exact problem: in Philadelphia 1996 the drafting committee settled wording for 72B1 in my presence which read "....afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the non-offending side was damaged by the irregularity" Later that year in Rhodes we changed it to read "....afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." Ton and I came away with different impressions as to what the effect of this change would be. Our difficulty is that because he has left us we do not have an 'Edgar says' on it and there is evidence that it is being applied variously in different parts of the world. I think you may rely that we will all arrive at the same destination in due course but in the meantime it is evident this is one law the meaning of which is not so assured as Ton and I have believed. Let me add that some subscribers to BLML have put opinions in my mouth that are not mine and that I regard as exaggerated. The Director is told to look at advantage gained by the OS; I have not been aware of any intention that score adjustment should then be occasioned except by gain in the score of the OS consequent upon the infraction as the laws provide elsewhere. I have not suggested that adjustment only of the score for one side is not a possible ruling but I have pointed out that, in my understanding of the laws we set up, Law72B1 is not applicable in the celebrated slam with a lead out of turn from dummy because when the next player follows that lead is established (Law 53A1) as "a correct lead" and what follows from it is a legitimate result (but Law 11C may still be applied). Ton, it seems, believes our change in the wording of 72B1 would over-ride 53A1 in such a case.+++ > > I am also a little wary of "Edgar said ...". Life must move on, and > all that that means is that it was the opinion at that time of the most > important person in law-making then - and then only if it has been > reported correctly. +++ When I quote Edgar I am concerned only with what he said (or wrote) in the WBFLC or in the course of its business. Those statements are part of the decision making process of the Committee and unless amended by the Committee represent its view of what is correct. No doubt the current Committee will want to revisit some of the questions. I have sixteen subject items for Lille together with an appendix of miscellanea for a later date if at all. +++ > > Some people on this list seem to be wanting Ton or Grattan to give an > opinion, so that they can suspend thought, and take that as an absolute > without discussion. Of course you do what you like, but I feel that > this loses a lot of the value of this list. We have talked our way > through some difficult problems, and I do not think some of them were > soluble by any single person, no matter how experienced or > distinguished. > +++ It depends whether we are giving an opinion or information. It is rather important to recognise that the task set the WBFLC is to devise and interpret the laws of duplicate bridge. Mostly the intention of the law is established by what went on in committee and can be cited as information. BLML discusses but does not determine the meaning of the laws; indeed some of the ideas noted on BLML would cause consternation in the WBFLC if anyone took them seriously. What BLML has done is to highlight what we already knew - that practices differ widely around the world - and we are led to consider ways of harmonising as many such practices as we can. BLML is then valuable, as Ton has indicated, in providing a panorama of opinions for the Committee to consider. The first objective of WBFLC is to seek uniformity of intention, but then more difficult is to find mutual judgemental standards (which is where the 'egregious'/'wild or gambling' problem comes apart). Some would say it is appropriate for these standards to vary accordingly as the bridge culture varies from region to region; in Europe we have wide variations as between some adjacent countries for example. +++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 2 20:37:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:37:18 +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 UAA02574 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:37:09 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z2vXr-0000LC-00; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 10:39:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 11:38:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >What >BLML has done is to highlight what we already knew - that practices >differ widely around the world - and we are led to consider ways of >harmonising as many such practices as we can. There is a presumption in this that harmonisation is good. Others have presumed it, but nobody has really justified it. Bridge is run by "rules" which are the Laws and their interpretations and local Regulations. harmonisation would get everyone to agree on everything. It is usually accepted that trying to harmonise regulations would not be a good idea at our development of the game. I have some doubts at attempting to harmonise regulations. >Some would say it is appropriate >for these standards to vary accordingly as the bridge culture varies >from region to region; in Europe we have wide variations as between >some adjacent countries for example. Exactly. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 2 20:58:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:58:57 +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 UAA02682 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:58:50 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA25470 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 07:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 07:01:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <35ccad29.2280128@post12.tele.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:53:29 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >The rulings are also different : in the revoke rule, there is a penalty, > >regardless of damage. > > Yes, if the revoke is established. If not, there is a penalty > card which may allow you to take a finesse that would have risked > the contract if there were no penalty card. > > This is a lot like a double shot - you take what would normally > be a wild gamble for an overtrick, but because of the > irregularity you know that it cannot fail. The difference between this revoke example and the UI double shot is that in the case of the revoke a ruling has already been given, the offence has been established and play continues. In most "UI" cases the director has said "Call me back if there is a problem," and a ruling will be given later. In this sense it is like the "advantage rule" in various sports. My view is that having an "advantage rule" in bridge is not a good thing, but others obviously differ. -- 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 Sun Aug 2 23:24:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:24:42 +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 XAA02951 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:24:34 +1000 Received: from client097c.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.9.124] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z2y9s-0001Y5-00; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:26:45 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Fw: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:30:13 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdbe19$adca0640$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 Grattan Endicott To: Craig Senior ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1998 14:29 Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? > >Grattan EndicottWhen 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. > > >Subject: RE: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? > >Craig Senior > >>This is apparently not well understood by some ACBL directors. > >Grattan: >{[It is not an especial prerogative of ACBL Directors - in their >defence let me say I have met some very good ones, and >Schoder the American WBF CTD is outstanding. It is probably >more to do with communication down the line (and the lines >of communication are very short by comparison, say, in >England). >If you think about it, the Laws are set up to avoid just the trap >that we are talking about; they provide ways for the Director >to walk round potential trouble and, if he can, get an almost >genuine result. It is pretty disastrous directing to risk getting >as far as a result which is tainted and as soon as the Director >learns that the player has Law 16B type information enough >to worry him, as a matter of common sense as well as the >intention of the Law he should be moving to take that player >away from any possibility he will contaminate the result. He >should NOT let things drift until he finds the players have a >result on the board which they cannot use, to somebody's >disappointment.]} > >Grattan said previously: >>++ 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 Sun Aug 2 23:27:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:27:44 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02986 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:27:38 +1000 Received: from client102c.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.10.44] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z2yCq-0002CK-00; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:29:49 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Fw: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:33:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdbe1a$1b9022e0$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 Grattan Endicott To: Craig Senior ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 02 August 1998 14:32 Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? > >Grattan EndicottWhen 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. > > >Subject: RE: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? > >Craig Senior > >>This is apparently not well understood by some ACBL directors. > >Grattan: >{[It is not an especial prerogative of ACBL Directors - in their >defence let me say I have met some very good ones, and >Schoder the American WBF CTD is outstanding. It is probably >more to do with communication down the line (and the lines >of communication are very short by comparison, say, in >England). >If you think about it, the Laws are set up to avoid just the trap >that we are talking about; they provide ways for the Director >to walk round potential trouble and, if he can, get an almost >genuine result. It is pretty disastrous directing to risk getting >as far as a result which is tainted and as soon as the Director >learns that the player has Law 16B type information enough >to worry him, as a matter of common sense as well as the >intention of the Law he should be moving to take that player >away from any possibility he will contaminate the result. He >should NOT let things drift until he finds the players have a >result on the board which they cannot use, to somebody's >disappointment.]} > >Grattan said previously: >>++ 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 Mon Aug 3 12:32:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:32:47 +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 MAA06675 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:32:36 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z3ASU-0005gF-00; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 02:34:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 01:03:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Richard Lighton writes >The difference between this revoke example and the UI double shot >is that in the case of the revoke a ruling has already been given, >the offence has been established and play continues. In most "UI" >cases the director has said "Call me back if there is a problem," >and a ruling will be given later. In this sense it is like the >"advantage rule" in various sports. My view is that having an >"advantage rule" in bridge is not a good thing, but others obviously >differ. > Labeo: Is it really like an advantage rule? In other sports is the offence not already decided and in bridge are we not still waiting to find out if there is an offence to penalise? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 3 17:03:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA07949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:03:13 +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 RAA07944 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:03:06 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA24833; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 00:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808030704.AAA24833@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 00:02:36 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: (snip) > In one of the matters that has been discussed here, > I had one view, fairly middle of the road, and Grattan expressed another > view, somewhat extreme: he said that this is what Edgar had said. In > discussions with Chip Martel via email, he told me that the ACBL ruled > another way again, nearly opposite to Grattan's view, and, so Chip told > me, did so because that is what Edgar had said! Rich Colker too says that EK supported Grattan's view, despite EK's several written opinions to the contrary. The latter are documentary proof of what his belief was, while Grattan, Chip, and Rich have only hearsay to report. I wonder if they are remembering that EK said PPs could be used vs an OS when neither subsequent nor consequent damage occurred. That would not contradict his published opinion that an OS can be penalized while the NOS keeps a bad result coming from some "far out" (his words, I believe) action. For instance, a slam is bid through illegal use of UI, but the slam is defeated. No adjustment, but a PP might be in order. > Some people on this list seem to be wanting Ton or Grattan to give an > opinion, so that they can suspend thought, and take that as an absolute > without discussion. Of course you do what you like, but I feel that > this loses a lot of the value of this list. We have talked our way > through some difficult problems, and I do not think some of them were > soluble by any single person, no matter how experienced or > distinguished. > Of course, but when Ton's arguments are so well-reasoned and convincing compared to other views expressed, then it is non-acceptance that indicates a suspension of thought. The fact that he is Chairman of the Laws Commission of the World Bridge Federation does not make his opinions absolute, but does give them additional weight. As Grattan has written on BLML, when people cannot agree on the intent of some ambiguity in the Laws, then the particpants in the adoption of the pertinent language should be consulted. Evidently Ton is one such person, and I think his views on this matter should be accepted as authoritative. I feel the same way about L20F, in regard to which Grattan's opinion that one can ask for an explanation of the auction but not for an explanation of a particular bid should be accepted as the authoritative interpretation. He participated in the adoption of L20F's language as a member of the Drafting Committee for the 1997 Laws, and his statements as to its intent should settle any perceived ambiguity. Maybe BLML should have a voting procedure to come up with a majority opinion after a matter has been discussed back and forth ad nauseum, after which we accept the outcome of the vote and get on with other matters. Then we could say, "Well, BLML's official opinion is..." Such majority opinions might be helpful to the lawmakers on their next go-round. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 3 17:48:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA08007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:48:40 +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 RAA08002 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:48:30 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA29583 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 00:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808030750.AAA29583@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 00:49:53 -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 David Grabiner wrote: > > 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. I don't understand all this, as the ruling seems to apply to the 4H bid, not to the hesitation. > > 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. > That seems reasonable to me. Absent the hesitation, 4S would surely be bid by at least 1/6 of pairs faced with this decision. The heart suit might provide valuable diamond/club discards in a 4S contract. > 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. That does not seem reasonable, since 4S is probably the right bid. I don't think the AC should have agreed with West's arguments on this point. The two hands were S-A762 H-A95 D-A76 C-987 and S-K95 H-K10632 D-82 C-AKQ. Give East a hand such as S-K952 H-KQ1063 D-8 C-AK10, and there are probably 11 tricks in a heart contract, 10 if spades are 4-1, and probably 12 tricks in a spade contract, 11 if spades are 4-1. Trump suits divided 4-4 have always been considered generally superior to 5-3 fits, and it's surprising that an AC including pro Lowell Andrews would support a different opinion. > > 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. > Looks to me like the right adjustment is 4S down one, +100 for N-S and -100 for E-W. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (How about everyone using 70 characters per line? We keep getting ugly line overflow in quoted material.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 3 21:05:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:05:30 +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 VAA08280 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:05:23 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z3ISf-0001hA-00; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:07:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 10:05:09 +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 Labeo wrote: >In message , >Richard Lighton writes >>The difference between this revoke example and the UI double shot >>is that in the case of the revoke a ruling has already been given, >>the offence has been established and play continues. In most "UI" >>cases the director has said "Call me back if there is a problem," >>and a ruling will be given later. In this sense it is like the >>"advantage rule" in various sports. My view is that having an >>"advantage rule" in bridge is not a good thing, but others obviously >>differ. >> >Labeo: Is it really like an advantage rule? In other sports is > the offence not already decided and in bridge are we > not still waiting to find out if there is an offence to > penalise? Certainly not in American Football: the official throws the flag, it is up to the quarterback to decide what the infraction is. Well, Ok, he knows there is an infraction, but not what or against which side. Actually, it is not unheard of for the flag to be thrown in error and there to be no infraction after it is thrown. If the quarterback has thrown an interception based on that flag he may be a bit miffed! The basic point is that sports are very different, and if you compare them the detail differs wildly, but the attempt to gain after a potential or known infraction by the opponents without risk is considered part of many sports. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways 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 Aug 3 23:46:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:46:06 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08720 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:46:00 +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 JAA03368 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 09:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980803094756.006d148c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 09:47:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <35d23e8e.4211265@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980731154401.006c4b94@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980731154401.006c4b94@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 AM 8/1/98 +0200, Jesper wrote: >I'm afraid Grant has a point (and a very good example) here. Grant and I have already corresponded privately on this point. >This is actually a situation where the need to adjust (for both >sides) arises from a subsequent action that would not have been >taken at all if the double shot were illegal. _If_ the NOS bids >4H, there is damage under any rules - but they will only do so if >the double shot is legal. > >If the double shot is legal, there are situations where a double >shot (4H in the example) will be attempted as an alternative to >an action (3H) that often turns out to avoid the damage. The >double shot will then require an adjusted score, which the 3H >call would not. In other words, a situation where the NOS would >not be damaged at all if they had bid differently ("normally") >following the irregularity. Here is what I wrote to Grant about this: >While I'm still undecided as to the principle (whether double shots should >be tolerated or discouraged), I am thoroughly convinced by the practical >argument: We have implicitly accepted the notion that when we talk about a >"double shot" we must mean something like what the UK folks refer to as a >"wild or gambling action", in other words, an action with a relatively >small chance of success. To expect to gain from a double shot, the chance >of not getting the hoped-for adjustment must be even smaller than the >chance that the wild or gambling action will succeed -- and, given that if >the shot doesn't work and is allowed to stand you will lose far more than >you would have by not taking it in the first place, to actually maximize >your expected score it must be far smaller still. The only time a double >shot attempt would look attractive would be if one were willing to go >heavily against the odds for a large gain *despite* reducing overall >expectation. In other words, trying for the double shot would itself be a >"wild or gambling action" -- "shooting" for a top -- under circumstances >that would justify taking the same action in the absense of possible >protection. I went on to reiterate my public position. I haven't yet made up my mind (I have been reading and considering the arguments on both sides) on the question of the "morality" of the double shot, i.e. whether the rules should tolerate or discourage it. But I remain adamant in my belief that if we want rules against it, we must make rules against it, not depend on a side-effect of the Kaplan doctrine, which should be accepted or rejected on its own merits; it can not be justified solely by its efficacy in discouraging double shots. I concluded with: >It's reasonable to legislate that a NO loses his rights if he doesn't >continue to *attempt* to play bridge, but it's unfair to legislate that he >loses his rights if he doesn't succeed. 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 Aug 4 00:25:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 00:25:51 +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 AAA11066 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 00:25:45 +1000 Received: from client0841.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.65] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z3Lac-00030U-00; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:27:55 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:53:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdbee6$23927c00$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 Grattan Endicott >Rich Colker too says that EK supported Grattan's view, despite EK's >several written opinions to the contrary. The latter are documentary >proof of what his belief was, while Grattan, Chip, and Rich have only >hearsay to report. +++ ... and the accumulated papers, minutes and letters from working closely with Edgar in the WBFLC - as his Vice Chairman for much of the time - since 1985. What he said outside could perhaps have sometimes been different from what he said in committee business, but only the latter signifies in considering where the committee has arrived under his tutelage - and what is the springboard from which we are now to make a fresh leap into the unknown. +++ > I wonder if they are remembering that EK said PPs >could be used vs an OS when neither subsequent nor consequent damage >occurred. That would not contradict his published opinion that an OS >can be penalized while the NOS keeps a bad result coming from some >"far out" (his words, I believe) action. +++ I am not aware that either Ton or myself has a problem with this. Edgar's phrase was 'wild or gambling action' and the Committee subscribed to it and promoted the concept. Edgar certainly put the marker down well beyond a mere bad error for which neither he nor I ever argued one might deprive a NOS of adjustment, unless he has made comment in ACBL-land aside from his committee stance. +++ > >For instance, a slam is bid through illegal use of UI, but the slam >is defeated. No adjustment, but a PP might be in order. +++ I concur in the view of the WBF CTD that (and I quote) "providing redress for damage caused by an infraction of the Laws is what a score adjustment is designed to do. A score adjustment is not a penalty though unfortunate wording of some Laws makes them synonymous at times. Redress is not given when the cause of the bad result is stupidity unrelated to the infraction (and usually, but not necessarily, subsequent to it), or other unrelated causes." He goes on to say, and I continue to agree, that "I can give a score adjustment to one (side) and not to the other. I think Edgar meant this to be so, as is supported by his statement that the scores need not balance. Infractions of the Laws, causing damage, are inadvertent by definition and Scope of the Laws intentional infractions are treated with much greater import. Law 72B2 does not specify any sort of adjustment, redress, etc. making it incumbent on the TD to use Law 90 for assigning and determining a PENALTY." \x/ > >Maybe BLML should have a voting procedure to come up with a majority >opinion after a matter has been discussed back and forth ad nauseum, >after which we accept the outcome of the vote and get on with other >matters. Then we could say, "Well, BLML's official opinion is..." >Such majority opinions might be helpful to the lawmakers on their >next go-round. +++ Where a real difficulty of interpretation exists the WBFLC no doubt has a duty to clear it up by handing down a ruling. Long lines of communication can make this slow, unless there is a record to consult. Where Ton and I express opinion rather than give information it is to tide over the waiting period in an attempt to be helpful, or alternatively it may be that the meaning of the law is not at stake but rather the practical consequences of that for the Director in the field. Or again it can be that we are thinking aloud where we would *like* to be altho we are not there yet. +++ ~~ Grattan ~~ p.s. I did not define 'a real difficulty'; perhaps this is the situation when different regional authorities are interpreting the meaning of the law differently, which is to say the principle of the law rather than value measurements attached to the principle. Perhaps. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 4 04:28:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:28:48 +1000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11912; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:28:42 +1000 Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:28:42 +1000 Message-Id: <199808031828.EAA11912@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: majordomo Subject: Majordomo results Reply-To: majordomo Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- >>>> who bridge-laws Members of list 'bridge-laws': markus willner@cfa183.harvard.edu elandau@cais.cais.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk AlLeBendig@aol.com jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV irjohnson@earthlink.net jean-francois.heche@dma.epfl.ch jimlop@baste.magibox.net tradelja@alf.tel.hr dyovich@iinet.net.au ramrod@hal-pc.org feilchen@vms.huji.ac.il rgur@monmouth.com FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM bl@mavridis.tng.oche.de jonbriss@ix.netcom.com mike@mamos.demon.co.uk ac342@freenet.carleton.ca trevor@emtex.com metcalf@cs.bu.edu Martin@dmatters.demon.co.uk solid99@prodigy.com NanWatson@aol.com Dlholz@aol.com twm@cix.compulink.co.uk redouble@lightspeed.net hdavis@erols.com idc@cee.hw.ac.uk adam@visalia.com adam@irvine.com sodonnell@msn.com lighton@styx.ios.com fsb@worldcom.ch rbusch@ozemail.com.au mikopera@worldnet.att.net nwp@math.auc.dk DANJOANM@worldnet.att.net 9405691c@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz david@magi.com mcren@worldnet.att.net bates@isi.com dawsonj@lcbe.edu.on.ca mterry@wf.net bigfoot@mail.idt.net pdh@rivers.dra.hmg.gb tallyn@math.clemson.edu kpoppe@xs4all.nl soundconnex@peg.apc.org dandee4727@aol.com PamMiller7@aol.com gi31451@glo.be burghard@prodigy.com fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu DMFV47B@prodigy.com bley@uni-duesseldorf.de abta@juno.com fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk REW@azure-tech.com Laval_DuBreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ruscourt@iafrica.com ardelm@ozemail.com.au arnon_l@maxnet.co.il paulhar@juno.com evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl laws@rbarden.demon.co.uk Simon.Edler@forestry.tas.gov.au Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr tripack@ihug.co.nz Jan.Boets@village.uunet.be liz.burrows@xtra.co.nz jgivins@worldnet.att.net wirt@okbridge.com TargetV@aol.com martin.kretschmar@uni-tuebingen.de al_hollander@msn.com grahamlucy@clara.net hlortz@halcyon.com Dburn@btinternet.com southpaw@primenet.com nancytdressing@pinehurst.net wolk@ccm.UManitoba.CA RCraigH@aol.com bbo@halcyon.com buzzkribs@AOL.com rlake@monk.aum.edu KRAllison@aol.com lobo@ac.net J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk msd@balt.mindspring.com teichman@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de henk@ripe.net annparker@thebest.net jmr5125@concentric.net stevenat@pobox.com brian_williams@compuserve.com a.witzen@tip.nl grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu stan.harrop@awaiter.com bryancox@clear.net.nz bridge@online.no bucks@voyager.co.nz kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca rts48u@ix.netcom.com GB2@megalog.ru apion@total.net mjk3@maestro.bellcore.com jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com frankpauwels@hotmail.com shezifi@bigfoot.com I.Reissmann@isode.com lueyw@icarus.ihug.co.nz gester@globalnet.co.uk jonesgra@fan.net.au christian.farwig@ac.com slrohan@glasnet.ru emarchen@microinform.ru Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz jwiatrak@mindspring.com john@probst.demon.co.uk strauch@flash.net Jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu kuch@ms.uky.edu np93je@mail.telepac.pt RuefulR@aol.com A.KOOIJMAN@dwk.agro.nl Ken@foxhole.u-net.com gtier@taunet.net.au btier@metz.une.edu.au bills@cshore.com brodsky@cshl.org dbuzzi@icnucevx.cnuce.cnr.it eajewm@globalnet.co.uk levnaor@inter.net.il njb.mail@mci2000.com tjolpe@algonet.se juf@vestnet.dk rand144@pacbell.net henrik.snog@capgemini.dk dhh@internet-zahav.net Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca jvolhejn@fsp.cz rew@ma.ultranet.com blml@dybdal.dk jan_f_romanski@x400.icl.co.uk mamula@oz.net vitold@elnet.msk.ru dhassan@vossnet.co.uk rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk ddobridge@internauts.ca frank.von.der.insel@t-online.de JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net mailman3@ix.netcom.com holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com markl@iclweb.com keith.oddy@clara.net vinayd@hpcl.co.in mlfrench@writeme.com favager@lineone.net jnichols@minfod.com af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de rld@math.ohio-state.edu larry.b@genesis.netgates.co.uk pisarra@MCIONE.com mambuhl@tiac.net rbrooks@wesleyan.edu timg@maine.rr.com bridge@timberlands.demon.co.uk mikedod@gte.net clairele@iag.net biigal@txdirect.net Robin.Michaels@durham.ac.uk Jack.Kryst@mcda.org Hr2burk@aol.com j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl jens.toft@adr.dk hermandw@village.uunet.be jackie.vandemaele@insidecomm.com mike@bolster.u-net.com Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au ASIDDIQUI@xray.indyrad.iupui.edu LINOTRALHAO@mail.telepac.pt bjsims@interlog.com purby@mitra.net.id kidger@which.net Jean-Francois.Chevalier@wanadoo.fr jaycue@mindspring.com blml@alesia.dk amiganet@nsi.es maomas@iver.docline.it karsten.vinther@get2net.dk tsvecfob@iol.ie Corinnek1@aol.com ohmss@videotron.ca mdfarebr@hotmail.com paulrob@colba.net twood@gsi-inc.com robert@kingsbridge.demon.co.uk hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk dlmanning@earthlink.net petern@sercit.fujitsu.com.au MQuinn2818@aol.com tpa@dk.ibm.com yoko@saito.kamakura.kanagawa.jp axeman@freewwweb.com mbs.sekretariatet@greennet.gl lemcq@correo.rcanaria.es caradoc@exdriver.demon.co.uk a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl hrld@ess.ut.ee From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 4 04:41:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:41:03 +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 EAA11961 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:40:56 +1000 Received: from ip202.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.202]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980803184353.ELOA28751.fep4@ip202.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 20:43:53 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 20:42:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c5f88d.440172@post12.tele.dk> References: <199808030704.AAA24833@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199808030704.AAA24833@prefetch-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, 3 Aug 1998 00:02:36 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Maybe BLML should have a voting procedure to come up with a majority >opinion after a matter has been discussed back and forth ad nauseum, >after which we accept the outcome of the vote and get on with other >matters. Then we could say, "Well, BLML's official opinion is..." >Such majority opinions might be helpful to the lawmakers on their >next go-round.=20 I find it quite important that BLML is an unofficial discussion forum. I definitely do not like the idea of an "official BLML opinion". The concept of majority on BLML is uninteresting; what is interesting is who has the best arguments, as individually evaluated by each of us. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 4 04:41:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:41:06 +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 EAA11966 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:41:00 +1000 Received: from ip202.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.202]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980803184403.ELOJ28751.fep4@ip202.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 20:44:03 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 20:43:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35c6f9e9.788784@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bdbee6$23927c00$LocalHost@default> In-Reply-To: <01bdbee6$23927c00$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, 3 Aug 1998 14:53:48 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > Where Ton and I express opinion rather than=20 >give information it is to tide over the waiting period in an attempt=20 >to be helpful, or alternatively it may be that the meaning of the=20 >law is not at stake but rather the practical consequences of that=20 >for the Director in the field. Or again it can be that we are thinking=20 >aloud where we would *like* to be altho we are not there yet. +++ I find yours and Ton's contributions to BLML very valuable. I hope that the two of you will continue to contribute to BLML without undue regard to the risk that some readers may mistake your personal opinion for an official WBFLC opinion. I would like the two of you to continue to give us - Official statements from the WBFLC; - Information about deliberations in the WBFLC. "Edgar said" is ok with me - I believe that it can only help us to know what goes/went on in the WBFLC, and BLML readers should be able to realize that "Edgar said" is not a law; - Your personal opinion/thinking aloud. The fact that you are members of the WBFLC should not mean that you cannot have and express a personal opinion. Of course we need to be able to distinguish between those three, but I think that you are currently expressing which of the three is the case in a quite understandable way. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 4 08:30:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:30:22 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12550 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:30:15 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA19961; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:31:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-09.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.73) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019943; Mon Aug 3 17:31:43 1998 Message-ID: <35C63A6A.54BC@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 15:32:10 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix20.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CNTC Quarterfinal Appeal References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >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 initial report indicated that the AC decision had come under fire from the National Appeals Committee. As National Appeals Chairman, I am unaware of any such discussion. Perhaps individual members of the NAC commented on the decision (I'm not aware of this, either); if so, they were acting as individuals and not as agents of the NAC. I reviewed this case while in Chicago for the NABCs. I did not review it in any official capacity. My conclusion is that the AC followed the proper procedures and rendered a decision within their discretion. My interest in the case thus ended. It's terrible when an AC is called upon to decide an event. In Chicago, the final of the Women's KO Teams had an appeal pending that could potentially swing 18 IMPs; luckily, the team who stood to lose those IMPs won the match by 19 IMPS, rendering the appeal moot. In the Spingold, the Baze team won in the round of four by 1 IMP and lost to Nickell in the final by 1 IMP. Fortunately, no appeals arose from wither of those matches. But an AC will eventually be confronted with a decision similar to the CNTC appeal. All we can ask is that procedures are correctly applied and that the AC makes a decision within its scope of authority. Doug and the others seem to have done this. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 4 08:48:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:48:52 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12593 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:48:45 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA21698; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:49:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-09.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.73) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021678; Mon Aug 3 17:49:19 1998 Message-ID: <35C63E8A.5DC4@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 15:49:46 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix21.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? References: <199807301708.NAA00878@bailey.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 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). > Is this such great behavior? A player gains UI, uses it to his advantage and the opponent's disadvantage, and then (perhaps with pangs of conscience) blows the whistle on himself. Wasn't the player ethically and legally bound to communicate his acquisition/possession of UI as soon as he became aware of it? If he heard a random comment and did not connect it to the hand until the play commenced, shouldn't he have then summoned the TD and disclosed the UI? Why did he continue once he related the information with the hand he was playing? Active Ethics is a laudable concept and we need heroic examples of its practice. I submit that this scenario does not qualify. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 4 09:08:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:08:35 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12638 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:08:29 +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 TAA10740; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808032310.TAA24868@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: jonbriss@ix21.ix.netcom.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <35C63E8A.5DC4@popd.ix.netcom.com> (jonbriss@ix21.ix.netcom.com) Subject: Re: Active ethics, yes, but the correct ruling? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon Brissman writes: > David Grabiner wrote: >> The following incident was reported in yesterday's NABC bulletin >> : >> >> #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. > Is this such great behavior? A player gains UI, uses it to his > advantage and the opponent's disadvantage, and then (perhaps with pangs > of conscience) blows the whistle on himself. Wasn't the player > ethically and legally bound to communicate his acquisition/possession of > UI as soon as he became aware of it? If he heard a random comment and > did not connect it to the hand until the play commenced, shouldn't he > have then summoned the TD and disclosed the UI? That seems to be what he did, given the quoted paragraph. As soon as he realized that the comment may have pertained to the board he was playing, he called the TD. > Why did he continue > once he related the information with the hand he was playing? Because the TD told him to do so; this may have been reasonable if the information could have been inconsequential. (I have had this happen to me several times in similar situations; the information could have mattered, but the bidding on my actual hand was automatic.) >> #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. The director's instructions may have been wrong; he should have said, "Try to play on normally, and call me back after the hand and tell everyone the information. If it looks like the information made a difference, I will adjust the score." If he had said this, there would have been no citation for Gargrave's call-back, as it would have been following the TD's instructions. This seems to me that Gargrave was trying to avoid taking an improper advantage of the TD's ruling; he believed that he should not gain from the UI he received, even though the director had told him to play on normally. > Active Ethics is a laudable concept and we need heroic examples of its > practice. I submit that this scenario does not qualify. The normal Active Ethics cases deal with UI from partner, but the principle here is the same. Gargrave was in position, backed up by an incorrect TD's ruling, to take advantage of the discussion he overheard, and he did his best to avoid doing so. The only additional point I could see is that he might have appealed the ruling, requesting that his own score be reduced to average-plus. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 4 22:13:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:13:44 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA14477 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:13:36 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-156.uunet.be [194.7.14.156]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21434 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:15:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35C6F6BF.43C7BDFA@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 13:55:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: BLML - statistics X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by carbon.uunet.be id OAA21434 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I received the "who" list from octavia, without haveing asked for it. Strange. But I was going to statisticize anyway. Current number of "readers" : 214 By zone and coutry : 154 Zone 1 (Europe) : 74 GB 25 DK 8 DE 7 NL 6 RU 5 IL 4 BE 3 CH ES FR IT PT 2 CZ EE HR IE NO SE 1 Zone 2 (North America) : 55 US 36 CA 18 GL 1 (not a WBF member, but I don't know what to do with them) Zone 3 (South America) : none Zone 4 (SEAsia & Africa) : 2 IN ZA 1 Zone 5 (Central America) : none Zone 6 (Far East) : 2 ID JP 1 Zone 7 (Pacific) : 21 AU 13 NZ 8 com, edu ... : 60 Record posters (9805 - 9807) former pl (1) 289 (1) David Stevenson, including 3 by Quango (2) 136 (17) Marvin L. French (3) 125 (2) Herman De Wael (4) 122 (7) Grattan Endicott (5) 114 (9) Eric Landau (6) 109 (6) John (MadDog) Probst (7) 104 (3) Steve Willner (8) 75 (18) Dany Haimovici (9) 72 (11) David Martin (10) 68 (25) Jesper Dybdal (11) 54 (12) Craig Senior (12) 48 (20) David Grabiner (13) 37 (14) Robin Barker (13) 37 (10) Adam Beneschan (15) 35 (4) Michael S. Dennis (15) 35 (91) Tim Goodwin (17) 29 (60) Jeremy Rickard (18) 28 (8) Anne Jones (18) 28 (34) Grant C. Sterling (20) 27 (13) Jens & Bodil (20) 27 (16) vitold@elnet.msk.ru (22) 25 (5) Labeo=20 (23) 23 (30) Nancy T. Dressing (24) 15 (29) David Burn (24) 15 (37) John S. Nichols (26) 14 (19) Jeff Goldsmith (26) 14 (23) Richard Lighton (28) 13 (22) Hirsch Davis (28) 13 (47) Laurence Kelso1 (30) 12 (28) A.L. Edwards (30) 12 (98) Don Kersey (30) 12 (59) Jay Apfelbaum (30) 12 (38) Richard Willey (34) 11 Robert Nordgren (34) 11 (84) John R. Mayne (34) 11 (51) Jon C. Brissman (37) 10 (74) Michael Fairbrother (37) 10 Christian Chantigny (37) 10 (55) Bill Segraves (37) 10 (81) David Metcalf (37) 10 (62) Linda Weinstein (37) 10 (53) Reg Busch (43) 9 (93) af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (43) 9 (31) E.Angad-Gaur (43) 9 (45) AlLeBendig (43) 9 (35) John A. Kuchenbrod (43) 9 (21) Mark Abraham (43) 9 (42) Jan Kamras (49) 8 (50) G. R. Bower (49) 8 (48) Markus Buchhorn (49) 8 (58) j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl (52) 7 (68) Christian Farwig (52) 7 Robin Michaels (52) 7 (36) Chyah E Burghard (52) 7 (52) R Craig H (52) 7 Chris Pisarra (52) 7 Albert "biigAl" Lochli (52) 7 (57) Eitan Levy (59) 6 (27) Tim West-Meads (59) 6 (24) Henk Uijterwaal (59) 6 (39) Laval Dubreuil (59) 6 (40) r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org (63) 5 Richard Bley (63) 5 (103) Jean-Pierre Rocafort (63) 5 (85) Kooijman (63) 5 (26) KRAllison (63) 5 (78) Simon Edler (63) 5 (79) Wayne Burrows (63) 5 (41) Everett Boyer (70) 4 (63) Michael Amos (70) 4 (64) Anton Witzen (70) 4 (82) Donald Mamula (70) 4 (70) Irwin J. Kostal (70) 4 (46) Julie Atkinson (70) 4 (106) Michael H. Albert (70) 4 (97) Dave Kent (77) 3 Damian Hassan (77) 3 (76) Paul Barden (77) 3 (49) Tony Musgrove (77) 3 (54) B A Small (77) 3 mallory.voelker@rmcnet.fr (77) 3 (15) Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com (83) 2 Ian Reissmann (83) 2 Martin Pool (83) 2 Rui Marques (83) 2 (44) Sergei Litvak (83) 2 (66) Richard or Barbara Odlin (83) 2 Mike Dodson (83) 2 Roger Penny (83) 2 (92) Vytautas Rekus (83) 2 Deirdre Mark (83) 2 (67) Brian Baresch (93) 1 Yvan Calam=E9 (93) 1 (88) Ralf Teichmann (93) 1 (95) Barry Wolk (93) 1 Bob Scruton (93) 1 (89) Ron Johnson (93) 1 Dale Blank (93) 1 Kryst, Jack (93) 1 Jim & Eve Lopushinsky (93) 1 Mary Crenshaw (93) 1 Wirt Gilliam (93) 1 Rusty Court (93) 1 (75) Patrick (93) 1 (94) Alexey V. Gerasimov (93) 1 Richard Colker (93) 1 Martin Hunter (93) 1 Robin Wigdor --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 5 07:02:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 07:02:06 +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 HAA18508 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 07:02:00 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA06766 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808042103.OAA06766@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: BLML - statistics Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:03:02 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Correction about being shocked at only 36 BLML subscribers from the U. S. on Herman's list. I see that there are 60 subscribers with .com, .edu...addresses, which no doubt include many Americans. Still somewhat shocking. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 5 21:54:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 21:54:55 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA20259 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 21:54:48 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-69.uunet.be [194.7.13.69]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA07727 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:56:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35C8262F.C9FC00A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 11:30:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: BLML - statistics X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199808042103.OAA06766@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > Correction about being shocked at only 36 BLML subscribers from the > U. S. on Herman's list. I see that there are 60 subscribers with > .com, .edu...addresses, which no doubt include many Americans. Still > somewhat shocking. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) Indeed Marv, and for those that have already mailed the list, I have checked the time zone. If it is somewhere between -0400 and -0700, I have assumed them to be US. I presume that any Canadian out there would have it known and only Americans think they are alone in the world. If any other Americans wish to be counted as such, but don't dare to come out of the closet yet, they can e-mail me privately and let their identities be known for statistical purposes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 08:18:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:18:45 +1000 Received: from svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net [194.152.64.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA25346 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:18:37 +1000 Received: from modem17.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.145] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z4BvP-0002gh-00; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 23:20:52 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:28:38 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >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. > ++[ The double shot would appear to be the case of an action which in an infraction-free situation would not be a logical alternative action for the player, but which in the aftermath of the infraction the player adopts as a deliberate choice of far out action, gambling that if it does not bring him a good score he will have his score adjusted by the TD so that he gambles an only-can-win bet. However, score adjustment is only available in respect of damage suffered and advantage gained through the irregularity. The argument prevailing until now is that in such a case the damage is not a natural consequence of the irregularity but is engineered by the player's abnormal, gambling action. The law is what it is; the question whether the damage is suffered in consequence of the irregularity, within the terms of the law, is/has been one of bridge judgement. For the moment I do not see how changing the law to give redress for all damage, whether consequent or subsequent, would work in practice. The NOS is to be protected against any bad score once an infraction has occurred, no matter how it has been obtained? Such an arrangement seems to allow, once there has been an infraction, total licence to throw the game out of the window so that the play may as well cease on a board when an infraction is determined, an adjusted score being awarded.~ Grattan ]++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 08:53:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:53:38 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA25434 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:53:32 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14803 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808052255.PAA14803@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:54:48 -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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > I find it quite important that BLML is an unofficial discussion > forum. I definitely do not like the idea of an "official BLML > opinion". > > The concept of majority on BLML is uninteresting; what is > interesting is who has the best arguments, as individually > evaluated by each of us. > I guess I'll have to compile the data myself, as to who is for or against a given proposition. If I see a clear majority for one side or the other, I'll regard that as BLML opinion. Unofficial, of course. I think I'll assign a weight to each opinion offered, as some carry more weight than others. Scale of 1 to 5, perhaps, with a modest 2 for myself. Maybe no one else would find this interesting, but I will. When I first came on BLML, I complained that the lawmakers did not seem to be settling some arguments that should be settled by them. I opined that the Laws Commission should have a spokesperson who could give authoritative views on doubtful points and on ambiguities in the wording of the Laws. David Stevenson upbraided me for this, saying that the suggestion was an insult to BLML, which provides such authoritative views. Well, if BLML can't agree on many issues, I don't see that its various views are a substitute for what I was requesting. Since my original complaint (not because of it, I'm sure), Grattan Endicott and now Ton Kooijman have been very helpful in this regard. They have official positions on the Laws Commission (Chairman, Vice-Chairman), participated in the 1997 update of the Laws, and know the arguments, discussions, etc., that were involved. However, they both are careful to say that their opinions (in general) are merely personal opinions, with no official standing as statements of the WBFLC, with whom they will have discussions far down the road in time, and we'll just have to wait for the answers. That procedure takes too much time. There should be a better way. I would prefer that Ton have the authority to say, "This is my interpretation, which is subject to approval by the WBFLC. Until then, consider it law." That would give me something to wave in the face of TDs and ACs, instead of having to say, "Well, in the opinion of many on BLML, not an official opinion of course,..." As to local interpretations, I think they are unnecessary and confusing. Too many cooks spoil the pot. When there is no difference in the wording of a Law (other than that associated with translation) among the British, European, WBF, ACBL, and other versions of the Laws, then the WBFLC's interpretation should be accepted by all. They all have representatives on the WBFLC, don't they? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 08:54:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:54:05 +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 IAA25450 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:54:00 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA28140 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:56:20 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980806085540.0096e460@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 08:55:42 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: BLML - statistics (sorry, long, and somewhat off-subject) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [majordomo doesn't like that 'subsc**be* word, remember... - call it 'join' :-) -Markus] >From: "Marvin L. French" >Cc: , , >Subject: Re: BLML - statistics (sorry, long, and somewhat off-subject) >Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:03:22 -0700 Herman's data showing only 36 BLML subs*** from the US was shocking to me. At regionals and nationals I have been seeking out TDs who have internet access, telling them about BLML, and giving them instructions on how to subscr***. I have done this very humbly, not in anyway suggesting that they are deficient in knowledge, nothing like that, so as not to threaten their egos. They all seem enthusiastic, thanks for the info, etc., but I don't see that a single one has subsc****! Wait, I think I spotted one. It wouldn't be so bad if ACBL TDs had adequate instruction, which they apparently don't. One TD told me of a training video that was so bad you couldn't watch it for more than a few minutes. There are a number of such videos, and it is required that ACBL TDs view them if they want advancement. I wonder how many do. BLML would constitute the best training a TD could possibly get in the interpretation and application of the Laws, and I believe that all ACBL TDs with internet access should be required to subs**** (and participate). At performance review time, one of the questions should be, "Have you been participating on BLML?" At least participation could constitute one or more of the educational "credits" that are required for advancement. There is an ACBL handbook for club directors, entitled "Duplicate Decisions." It has two parts, Review of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, which gives some good though outdated guidance for applying the Laws, and Guidelines for Club Directors, which contains additional helpful material: How to make good rulings, pertinent ACBL regulations (Alerts, skip bid warnings, conventions), etc., also somewhat dated. For all TDs, there is helpful material included in the ACBLScore software, in the form of "Tech Files" (under "Help"). This material is evidently not sufficient, based on the performance of TDs as documented in the NABC casebooks (and in my personal experience). And what about AC members?. While it is gratifying to see Alan LeBendig and Jon Brissman subs*****, there does not seem to be many other participants in the NABC AC process on the list. I should think that subs***** to BLML would be a prerequisite for serving on ACs at NABCs. No internet access? Too bad, you're ineligible. The current educational process for AC members, as I understand it, is this: ACBL directors nominate people from their districts who are active in AC work. These nominees, or trainees if you wish, monitor NABC AC meetings without participating, until they are deemed to have had sufficient instruction through that means. Then they get to sit on an actual AC, perhaps (I presume) one with five members. Experience gives them more training, and maybe after a while they get to chair an AC, or even rise to a higher status in the AC organization. The official ACBL document regarding ACs is the Handbook for Appeals Committees, available on the ACBL web site. It is mostly concerned with procedures, plus some legalese about evidence that may be considered, burden of proof, types of evidence, and credibility/weight to be given testimony. This is all good, but not detailed enough. There is no law-by-law discussion of how the Laws are to be interpreted and applied. I remember seeing Alan LeBendig lecturing AC members prior to the Reno NABC AC meetings, so that's another training device. In Chicago Alan conducted a more formal seminar on the AC process, using the ACBL Handbook for ACs as a handout. Not the whole handbook, as the Principles of Evidence section was omitted. The seminar therefore addressed only AC organization and procedures. There was in addition a two-page handout on the subject of UI, including a flow-chart for handling UI and a page identifying the sources of UI (hesitations, remarks, etc.). Perhaps there was more, I'm only going by the handouts. The flow chart had one box that I found to be misleading, if not erroneous. Following a box that calls for adjustment per L12C is one with this wording: "Is it possible to ascertain the likely or probable result if the infraction had not occurred?" This is followed by two branches, one for No (award avg+/avg/avg- for pair play) and one for Yes, correctly quoting L12C2 in regard to appropriate score assignments for both the NOS and OS. No mention of the "subsequent-consequent" issue. My suggested wording for the misleading box: "Is it possible to assign scores in accordance with L12C2?" The wording actually used would seem to reinforce the erroneous approach that I have often seen, which is that a TD/AC adjusts a score artificially if they can't determine what probably (or likely) would have happened in the absence of the infraction. Time and again you see the words, "The TD (AC) could not determine what the result would have been without the infraction, so the score was adjusted to avg+/avg-." Of course that is the wrong criterion, not at all what L12C2 says. By the bye, I think ACBL ACs have been getting a bad rap from BLML on this matter of score adjustment. They've been accused of not redressing damage to the NOS when an NO has made some non-"egregious" mistake in the bidding or play. I have been going through all the NABC casebooks issued for the last two years and don't remember any such ruling. Perhaps my memory is faulty (incipient Alzheimer's?). It would be helpful if those making such comments would identify the AC case involved. Perhaps the cases occurred more than two years ago and not recently, as I don't have casebooks prior to the San Francisco 1996 fall NABC. No doubt such abuses occur at lesser tournaments, but that's true for many other abuses that come under the label of poor training rather than poor ACBL practice. If the abuse is old history for NABC ACs, it doesn't deserve being characterized as a current abuse. If it's current, please cite the case(s). For both TDs and ACs, the NABC casebooks provide additional training. Not so much from the TD/AC decisions, but from the comments of the expert panelists and the editor. I believe all NABC AC members and attending TDs get a free copy. The number of AC cases has grown dramatically, so that the St Louis, Misery, casebook, published just in time for the Chicago NABC, comprises 44 cases and 191 pages. A comb binding had to be used instead of the former staple binding. Over half the cases involve tempo and UI, a situation that calls for some sort of remedy in the form of player education and perhaps further regulations (or maybe just enforcement of current ones). Also, screening has not stopped many baseless appeals, which wastes the valuable time of three or five AC members. The $50 deposit requirement has been done away with, so the ACBL simply must do something new to avoid wasting more AC time in the future. One new something has been implemented: a dossier for those who abuse the AC process with frivolous appeals, and penalties for having too many. Jeff Rubens (see next paragraph) suggests that no record of a frivolous appeal should be kept unless (a) the TD warned that the appeal was frivolous and (b) the AC explains in the record why it was categorized as frivolous. He tells me privately that the screener should have no official role in this process, as he/she "has no official standing." I believe that screeners should have official standing, and should have a strong role in the process, as suggested by the word "screener." I am skeptical about TDs' judging the merit of appeals of their own rulings. In the August issue of *The Bridge World* Jeff Rubens has begun a series of editorials on the appeals process. The first of the series seems promising, although I don't know how a non-BLML subs***** could do a great job on this subject. Maybe Jeff's long association with Edgar Kaplan will suffice. He recommends doing away with the $50 deposit, which has occurred. Jeff indirectly praises the casebooks without identifying them as such ("organizations have taken to publicizing the details of appeals committee deliberations"). Maybe he didn't realize the ACBL publishes them (he does now). That's understandable, since they have not been much promoted. He also addresses the problem of questions: If you ask, you are "showing interest in the auction," which has been termed UI in more than one case. If you don't ask, you are told "You could have asked," so no redress for, say, a failure to Alert. The subject will be continued in the next issue. He cites Reno cases 11 and 12 as relating to this subject, which I could not find on the ACBL web site (only 1-10), but which are shown on the web site of Federation Suisse de Bridge (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/renoapp.html), which has cases 1-16. Of course there are many more cases, but we have to wait for the Reno casebook to see them. Don't ask me why. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 09:08:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:08:47 +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 JAA25545 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:08:42 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA29269 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:11:02 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980806091023.0092ab90@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 09:10:24 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: BLML - statistics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:55 4/08/98 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I received the "who" list from octavia, without haveing asked for it. > >Strange. I got one too as bridge-laws owner - no idea what happened. Somebody hacking on our sendmail port trying to tickle majordomo/sendmail perhaps... Anybody else get one ? >Current number of "readers" : 214 [...] >Record posters (9805 - 9807) I find it interesting that just over 50% of the mailing list have contributed at least once to a discussion here - this is higher than I had expected, I thought there was a very high proportion of 'lurkers' on BLML. Good to see ! Of course, over 80% of the articles were contributed by 10% of the readers :-) 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 Thu Aug 6 10:16:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:16:17 +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 KAA25872 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:16:13 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA01052 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:18:33 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980806101200.00973100@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 10:17:54 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: BLML - statistics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >I received the "who" list from octavia, without haveing asked for it. >> > >> >Strange. >> >> I got one too as bridge-laws owner - no idea what happened. Somebody >> hacking on our sendmail port trying to tickle majordomo/sendmail perhaps... >> Anybody else get one ? Looks like everybody got one - thanks for the feedback ! I'll check our logs and see if I can figure out what happened. 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 Thu Aug 6 10:29:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:29:04 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25965 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:28:58 +1000 Received: from default (ptp129.ac.net [205.138.55.38]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA08217 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 20:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808060031.UAA08217@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 20:33:57 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: BLML - statistics In-Reply-To: <35C8262F.C9FC00A@village.uunet.be> References: <199808042103.OAA06766@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >If any other Americans wish to be counted as such, but don't dare to >come out of the closet yet, they can e-mail me privately and let their >identities be known for statistical purposes. > Gee, can you count me 1/2 and 1/2? I have both a Canadian and a U.S. Passport. (Canadian born of American parents) Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 10:34:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:34:29 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA26008 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:34:22 +1000 Received: from default (ptp129.ac.net [205.138.55.38]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA08596 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 1998 20:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808060036.UAA08596@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 20:39:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Who can bring an appeal? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An intersting discussion (I thought) came up at the Chicago Nationals. Exactly who can bring an appeal? (ie. what parties are necessary for an appeal to have standing?) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 11:27:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:27:11 +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 LAA26294 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:27:04 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4Erl-0002Uk-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 01:29:18 +0000 Message-ID: <7JRzV6A9fPy1Ewrk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 01:25:33 +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: > >>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. >> >++[ The double shot would appear to be the case of an action which >in an infraction-free situation would not be a logical alternative action >for the player, but which in the aftermath of the infraction the player >adopts as a deliberate choice of far out action, gambling that if it does >not bring him a good score he will have his score adjusted by the TD >so that he gambles an only-can-win bet. However, score adjustment is >only available in respect of damage suffered and advantage gained >through the irregularity. The argument prevailing until now is that in >such a case the damage is not a natural consequence of the irregularity >but is engineered by the player's abnormal, gambling action. The law is >what it is; the question whether the damage is suffered in consequence >of the irregularity, within the terms of the law, is/has been one of >bridge judgement. > For the moment I do not see how changing the law to give >redress for all damage, whether consequent or subsequent, would work >in practice. The NOS is to be protected against any bad score once >an infraction has occurred, no matter how it has been obtained? Such >an arrangement seems to allow, once there has been an infraction, >total licence to throw the game out of the window so that the play >may as well cease on a board when an infraction is determined, >an adjusted score being awarded.~ Grattan ]++ I have never understood this argument. I don't think this is what would happen. If my RHO passes out of tempo and my LHO doubles, I do not expect to revoke four times, bid out of turn, and bid the nearest grand slam in a vague hope of something happening, which seems to be the basic assumption of the anti-double-shot people. Total licence to throw the game out of the window indeed! Why? I think it is a crazy assumption that people will gamble to the extent assumed. Yes, people will have their little gambles, bidding a poor slam or two, but it is not going to be mayhem. Why should it be? In the oft-quoted American Football example, the quarterback will take some risk with his pass after an infraction, but not to the extent of forgetting what game he is playing, and I see no reason why it should not be the same in bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 16:07:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:07:37 +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 QAA27622 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:07:28 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4JF8-0007Oz-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 06:09:42 +0000 Message-ID: <2vgvoCAo$Ty1EwpO@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 06:32:24 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <7JRzV6A9fPy1Ewrk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <7JRzV6A9fPy1Ewrk@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > I have never understood this argument. I don't think this is what >would happen. If my RHO passes out of tempo and my LHO doubles, I do >not expect to revoke four times, bid out of turn, and bid the nearest >grand slam in a vague hope of something happening, which seems to be the >basic assumption of the anti-double-shot people. Total licence to throw >the game out of the window indeed! Why? I think it is a crazy >assumption that people will gamble to the extent assumed. Yes, people >will have their little gambles, bidding a poor slam or two, but it is >not going to be mayhem. Why should it be? In the oft-quoted American >Football example, the quarterback will take some risk with his pass >after an infraction, but not to the extent of forgetting what game he is >playing, and I see no reason why it should not be the same in bridge. > Labeo: What, nowhere, no-time, no-how, no redress? Not even at the South-West Metropolis Long-beards club? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 16:39:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:39:14 +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 QAA27754 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:39:07 +1000 Received: from modem12.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.12] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z4Jjl-0003gX-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 07:41:22 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 07:27:21 +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 > For the moment I do not see how changing the law to give > >redress for all damage, whether consequent or subsequent, would work > >in practice. The NOS is to be protected against any bad score once > >an infraction has occurred, no matter how it has been obtained? Such > >an arrangement seems to allow, once there has been an infraction, > >total licence to throw the game out of the window so that the play > >may as well cease on a board when an infraction is determined, > >an adjusted score being awarded.~ Grattan ]++ > > I have never understood this argument. I don't think this is what > would happen. If my RHO passes out of tempo and my LHO doubles, I do > not expect to revoke four times, bid out of turn, and bid the nearest > grand slam in a vague hope of something happening, which seems to be the > basic assumption of the anti-double-shot people. Total licence to throw > the game out of the window indeed! Why? I think it is a crazy > assumption that people will gamble to the extent assumed. Yes, people > will have their little gambles, bidding a poor slam or two, but it is > not going to be mayhem. Why should it be? In the oft-quoted American > Football example, the quarterback will take some risk with his pass > after an infraction, but not to the extent of forgetting what game he is > playing, and I see no reason why it should not be the same in bridge. > +++ [My doubt is not to do with frequency of occurrence but what to do about it if it happens; is it something to guard against ?] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 16:39:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:39:16 +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 QAA27755 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:39:08 +1000 Received: from modem12.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.12] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z4Jjn-0003gX-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 07:41:23 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 07:40:36 +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 ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > > > Since my original complaint (not because of it, I'm sure), Grattan > Endicott and now Ton Kooijman have been very helpful in this regard. > They have official positions on the Laws Commission (Chairman, > Vice-Chairman), participated in the 1997 update of the Laws, and know > the arguments, discussions, etc., that were involved. However, they > both are careful to say that their opinions (in general) are merely > personal opinions, with no official standing as statements of the > WBFLC, with whom they will have discussions far down the > road in time, and we'll just have to wait for the answers. > +++ Ton Kooijman, Chairman Ralph Cohen, Vice Chairman Grattan Endicott, Secretary. +++ ++++ Ton and I will be discussing in Lille how to respond more decisively to BLML. The WBFLC can hardly concede decision making to BLML. I have not yet heard if Ralph will be there or precisely which other members of the Committee . ~ Grattan. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 18:18:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA28195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:18:23 +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 SAA28190 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:18:15 +1000 Received: from modem82.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.82] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z4LHc-0002yv-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:20:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Anne Jones" Cc: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:05:11 +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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ---------- > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > > > 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. > ++[ The double shot is legal action by NOs subsequent to opponent's irregularity. Legality of the action is not the issue; the issue is whether the result obtained through it is then still a consequence of the irregularity - and whether it should be deemed so. ~ Grattan ~]++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 19:09:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA28363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:09:54 +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 TAA28358 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:09:48 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4M5V-0007Gp-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:11:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 02:45:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808060036.UAA08596@primus.ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: >An intersting discussion (I thought) came up at the Chicago Nationals. > >Exactly who can bring an appeal? (ie. what parties are necessary for an >appeal to have standing?) > According to L92A a contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. So, the two players at the table may appeal: their Captain may appeal. Alternatively the TD may refer a matter to a Committee under L81C9. So, what was the problem? -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 6 20:02:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:02:07 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA28498 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:02:01 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4Mu6-0005a0-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:04:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:01:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++++ Ton and I will be discussing in Lille how to respond > more decisively to BLML. The WBFLC can hardly > concede decision making to BLML. There is quite a presumption behind this assumption! No convincing [to me] argument has ever been given for this idea that the law-makers should also be the sole law-interpreters. When we discuss a matter here we are trying to interpret a set of Laws which are somewhat ambiguous. If they weren't at all they would not be complex enough - I don't believe anyone has ever produced a complex set of Laws or Regulations that have never required any interpretation nor included any ambiguity. It is quite normal in other walks of like for the law-makers not to do the general work of interpretation. If they feel that an interpretation is not what they intended it is their job to correct this by re-writing the Law, rather than by policing the interpretation of that Law. Compare the work of the House of Commons in the UK. Until recently there has been little contact between the WBFLC and ordinary players and Directors. This is probably because of communications difficulties rather than intentional, and BLML has opened an easy channel of communication between some of BLML and some of WBFLC. I believe it is a valuable channel of communication, but it does include dangers. Not so long ago, you gave an opinion, Grattan. It is an opinion that I think was clearly wrong: it is an opinion that the NAmericans disagree with, quoting Edgar. Now I am happy to argue with you when I believe you are wrong, but the danger is simple: some people on BLML are not. I am worried that 'Grattan says this' will take over as a method of interpretation in some people's minds, even when you are not correct. There are some people on this list who think I manage persuasive arguments, and tend to believe what I write. This, for example, does not have the same dangers: they will only believe what I say because of convincing argument: if it is not convincing then they will not accept it anyway. I am worried about personal beliefs being taken as official WBFLC policy. If you were to post these beliefs of yours under a pseudonym, for example, it might be interesting to see whether people believed you. I think the first decision that the WBFLC should take at Lille is not *how* to promulgate interpretations but whether it is desirable to do so, and please, please, Ton, Grattan, do consider it rather than just assume it is a good thing. There is also the approach that thinks things should be standardised between different geographical areas. Please be very wary of this. Again, my guess it is a gut feeling that standardisation is good rather than a thought-out policy. Just suppose the WBFLC say that in future an LA is .... They are going to change things for a large numbers of players, TDs and ACs whichever way they go. Should they be doing so by an overnight promulgation? I heard an unofficial view that the reason for the word "demonstrably" in the current Laws was that the NAmericans were interpreting the Laws in a way that the WBFLC did not approve of, so they changed the word "reasonably" so as to push the NAmericans in the direction they felt correct. Whether true or not, that is very reasonable, and that is the way that law-makers change things without dislocation. Changing interpretations rather than leaving them to various bodies that enforce the Laws seems dangerous. Adding opinions on interpretations to an international forum, so as to get the matter discussed, is also reasonable, because it is a slow method of change. > I have not yet > heard if Ralph will be there or precisely which other > members of the Committee . ~ Grattan. ++++ Perhaps you could remind us who is on the Committee? -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 00:31:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 00:31:07 +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 AAA02015 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 00:30:59 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h14.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id SAA09382; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:33:10 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35CA5951.4529@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 18:33:05 -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 WBFLC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_10.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_10.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Grattan:) I was not going to continue this discussion but one of Grattan remarks struck me and I felt that I should answer. I'd like to remind that in the matter of the discussion I am on the side of Kaplan's doctrine - but it does not matter in problem that appeared from last Grattan post. Grattan wrote at his last post: ++[ The double shot is legal action by NOs subsequent to opponent's irregularity. Legality of the action is not the issue; the issue is whether the result obtained through it is then still a consequence of the irregularity - and whether it should be deemed so. ~ Grattan ~]++ I am not English speaking person so it might happen that it is me who is the reason of my full misunderstanding this Grattam's quotes... That's why at the beginning I make several quotations from previous posts:: 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 ~] ++++ [ 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. ++ 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.] ++ Grant wrote: " 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?" Jesper wrote: "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." "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." "If the double shot is legal, there are situations where a double shot (4H in the example) will be attempted as an alternative to an action (3H) that often turns out to avoid the damage. The double shot will then require an adjusted score, which the 3H call would not. In other words, a situation where the NOS would not be damaged at all if they had bid differently ("normally") following the irregularity." David (DWS) wrote: " If made legal, and players are told that, are you sure they will almost never occur? " " 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." It seemed to me that every participants were agreed that just that days double-shot was not legal (was not legalized). And that the very discussion is about: should it be legalized or not. And now Grattan wrote that double-shot was legal... And that real problem was the result, reached due that double-shot...Sorry for being slow-witted and nasty but would you be so kind as to answer to three questions: 1. You did notice that your last post rather collided with your previous posts, didn't you? 2. You did notice that during all the discussion there were numerous remarks about legalizing (not legalizing) double-shot, didn't you? 3. You did notice that strictly legal doings provided to legal results only, didn't you? It is mainstream principle of jurisprudence at all (at least - in understanding of common-human-being). And only illegal results may be redressed (corrected, punished etc.) I agree that any bridge action (not only double-shot) is legal if it does not collide with formal bridge demands (such as sufficient bid, bid or play in turn etc.). But it is only part of condition for being legal. I agree that so UI-case as double-shot-case (and lots of ethic irregularities) have their final estimations only after board is over. Because during play (bidding) in progress one may only suspect such doings. But when we used these terms in discussion we (common beings) mean that we already know that final estimation. That's why when one uses term "double-shot" - he means that after the board is over competent body (TD, AC) takes decision that the doing would be double-shot. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 01:45:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 01:45:06 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA02394 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 01:44:54 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA02263; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:46:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-12.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.76) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002252; Thu Aug 6 10:46:26 1998 Received: by har-pa2-12.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC12F.24D98220@har-pa2-12.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:41:26 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC12F.24D98220@har-pa2-12.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridgelaws , "'Grattan'" Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:13:46 -0400 Encoding: 82 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With all due respect, I think you overstate the problem of allowing even the most potentially objectionable double shots. First, even if what you assert becomes true, the double shot would not guarantee a superb result on the board to the NOS. If they take a wild gambling action that fails, they are only guaranteed what would have most likely occured absent the infraction...not a sure top. They also face the risk in many instances of discovering there was no infraction and being allowed to keep the cold bottom their rash action has won for them. When there truly IS an offense, all that the NOS is given is a floor beneath which thier score cannot sink no matter how abysmally they play on. In some cases sharpies will find a way to profit disproportionally from their opponents infractions by taking gambling actions, but that is a matter that can be avoided by the opponents not committing the infraction in the first place. Requiring normal play as the standard to avoid breaking the causal link between infraction and redress may be a compromise we can live with, since the wild gambling double shots would still not permit of adjustment for consequent damage. While I and several others do not object to double shots being legal, many do seem to. What I do find offensive is for a lesser player to lose his rights against a strong offender because he does not play as good bridge as some arbiter thinks he should. Making all damage subsequent given normal bidding and play (i.e. including the careless and inferior but not the irrational) allows us to apply a well understood and widely applied standard to UI situations that would indeed block the more objectionable double shots while leaving room both for differing standards of play and for some gamesmanship considerations comparable to penalty card options. You may take "normal" actions, even if somewhat anti-percentage, in search of an advantage while retaining the floor of protection provided by the opponents infraction. You may not keep this protection if you choose to take wild gambles instead. In other words we would have an international standard not too far from the apparent present standing in practice in much of Europe. We could then proceed to search for some generally acceptable agreement upon such other related troubling issues as what alternatives are logical (ranging from a 30% test to if it hesitates shoot it) and what should be done to deter the deliberate subornation of UI through misuse of the questioning and/or alert processes. We could even end up with the chance to play bridge again rather than effectively go to court almost every round. Craig Senior ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 5:28 PM To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC >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. > ++[ The double shot would appear to be the case of an action which in an infraction-free situation would not be a logical alternative action for the player, but which in the aftermath of the infraction the player adopts as a deliberate choice of far out action, gambling that if it does not bring him a good score he will have his score adjusted by the TD so that he gambles an only-can-win bet. However, score adjustment is only available in respect of damage suffered and advantage gained through the irregularity. The argument prevailing until now is that in such a case the damage is not a natural consequence of the irregularity but is engineered by the player's abnormal, gambling action. The law is what it is; the question whether the damage is suffered in consequence of the irregularity, within the terms of the law, is/has been one of bridge judgement. For the moment I do not see how changing the law to give redress for all damage, whether consequent or subsequent, would work in practice. The NOS is to be protected against any bad score once an infraction has occurred, no matter how it has been obtained? Such an arrangement seems to allow, once there has been an infraction, total licence to throw the game out of the window so that the play may as well cease on a board when an infraction is determined, an adjusted score being awarded.~ Grattan ]++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 04:19:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:19:48 +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 EAA03471 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:19:40 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11020; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808061821.LAA11020@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Re: BlML-statistics (sorry, long and off-subject) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:19:13 -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 Herman's data showing only 36 BLML members from the US was shocking to me. At regionals and nationals I have been seeking out TDs who have internet access, telling them about BLML, and giving them instructions on how to join. I have done this very humbly, not in anyway suggesting that they are deficient in knowledge, nothing like that, so as not to threaten their egos. They all seem enthusiastic, thanks for the info, etc., but I don't see that a single one has joined! Wait, I think I spotted one. (later: more than 36, as many are inlcluded in the 60 under .com, .edu, etc) It wouldn't be so bad if ACBL TDs had adequate instruction, which they apparently don't. One TD told me of a training video that was so bad you couldn't watch it for more than a few minutes. There are a number of such videos, and it is required that ACBL TDs view them if they want advancement. I wonder how many do. BLML would constitute the best training a TD could possibly get in the interpretation and application of the Laws, and I believe that all ACBL TDs with internet access should be required to join (and participate). At performance review time, one of the questions should be, "Have you been participating on BLML?" At least participation could constitute one or more of the educational "credits" that are required for advancement. There is an ACBL handbook for club directors, entitled "Duplicate Decisions." It has two parts, Review of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, which gives some good though outdated guidance for applying the Laws, and Guidelines for Club Directors, which contains additional helpful material: How to make good rulings, pertinent ACBL regulations (Alerts, skip bid warnings, conventions), etc., also somewhat dated. For all TDs, there is helpful material included in the ACBLScore software, in the form of "Tech Files" (under "Help"). This material is evidently not sufficient, based on the performance of many TDs as documented in the NABC casebooks (and in my personal experience). Look at Reno cases 5, 6, and 10, where the TDs adjusted artificially when an assigned score was appropriate. And what about AC members? While it is gratifying to see Alan LeBendig and Jon Brissman on board, there do not seem to be many other participants in the NABC AC process on the BLML list. I should think that joining BLML would be a prerequisite for serving on ACs at NABCs. No internet access? Too bad, you're ineligible. The current educational process for AC members, as I understand it, is this: ACBL directors nominate people from their districts who are active in AC work. These nominees, or trainees if you wish, monitor NABC AC meetings without participating, until they are deemed to have had sufficient instruction through that means. Then they get to sit on an actual AC, probably (I presume) one with five members. Experience gives them more training, and maybe after a while they get to chair an AC, or even rise to a higher status in the AC organization. The official ACBL document regarding ACs is the Handbook for Appeals Committees, available on the ACBL web site. It is mostly concerned AC organization and procedures, plus some legalese about evidence that may be considered, burden of proof, types of evidence, and credibility/weight to be given testimony. This is all good, but not detailed enough. There is no item-by-item discussion of how the Laws and ACBL regulations are to be interpreted and applied. I remember seeing Alan LeBendig lecturing AC members prior to the Reno NABC AC meetings, so that's another training device. In Chicago Alan conducted a (or another) seminar on the AC process, using the ACBL Handbook for ACs as a handout. Not the whole handbook, as the Principles of Evidence section was omitted. The seminar therefore addressed only AC organization and procedures. There was in addition a two-page handout on the subject of UI, including a flow-chart for handling UI and a page identifying the sources of UI (hesitations, remarks, etc.). Perhaps there was more, I'm only going by the handouts. Evidently Colker's Blueprint for Appeals was not used. The flow chart had one box that I found to be misleading, if not erroneous. Following a box that calls for adjustment per L12C is one with this wording: "Is it possible to ascertain the likely or probable result if the infraction had not occurred?" This is followed by two branches, one for No (award avg+/avg/avg- for pair play) and one for Yes, correctly quoting L12C2 in regard to appropriate score assignments for both the NOS and OS. No mention of the "subsequent-consequent" issue, probably outside the scope of the seminar. My suggested wording for the misleading box: "Is it possible to assign scores in accordance with L12C2?" The wording actually used would seem to reinforce the erroneous approach that I have often seen, which is that a TD/AC adjusts a score artificially if they can't determine what probably (or likely) would have happened in the absence of the infraction. Time and again you see the words, "The TD (AC) could not determine what the result would have been without the infraction, so the score was adjusted to avg+/avg-." Of course that is the wrong criterion, not at all what L12C2 says. By the bye, I think ACBL ACs have been getting a bad rap from BLML on this matter of score adjustment. They've been accused of not redressing damage to the NOS when an NO has made some non-egregious mistake in the bidding or play. I have been going through all the NABC casebooks issued for the last two years and don't remember any such ruling. Perhaps my memory is faulty (incipient Alzheimer's?). It would be helpful if those making such comments would identify the AC case involved. Perhaps the cases occurred more than two years ago and not recently, as I don't have casebooks prior to the San Francisco 1996 fall NABC. No doubt such abuses occur at lesser tournaments, but that's true for many other abuses that come under the label of poor training rather than poor ACBL practice. If the abuse is old history for NABC ACs, it doesn't deserve being characterized as a current abuse. If it's current, please cite the case(s). For both TDs and ACs, the NABC casebooks provide additional training. Not so much from the TD/AC decisions, but from the comments of the expert panelists and the editor. I believe all NABC AC members and attending TDs get a free copy. The number of AC cases has grown dramatically, so that the St Louis, Misery, casebook, published just in time for the Chicago NABC, comprises 44 cases and 191 pages. A comb binding had to be used instead of the usual staple binding. Over half the cases involve tempo and UI, a situation that calls for some sort of remedy in the form of player education and perhaps further regulations (or maybe just enforcement of current ones). Also, screening has not stopped many baseless appeals, which wastes the valuable time of three or five AC members. The $50 deposit requirement has been done away with, so the ACBL simply must do something new to avoid wasting more AC time in the future. One new something has been implemented: a dossier for those who abuse the AC process with frivolous appeals, and penalties for having too many. Jeff Rubens (see next paragraph) suggests that no record of a frivolous appeal should be kept unless (a) the TD warned that the appeal was frivolous and (b) the AC explains in the record why it was categorized as frivolous. He tells me privately that the screener should have no official role in this process, as he/she "has no official standing." I believe that screeners should have official standing, and should have a strong role in the process, as suggested by the word "screener." I am skeptical about TDs judging the merit of appeals connected with their own rulings. In the August issue of *The Bridge World* Jeff Rubens has begun a series of editorials on the appeals process. The first of the series seems promising, although I don't know how a non-BLML member could do a great job on this subject. Maybe Jeff's intelligence and long association with Edgar Kaplan will suffice. He recommends doing away with the $50 deposit, which was done in Chicago. Jeff indirectly praises the casebooks without identifying them as such ("organizations have taken to publicizing the details of appeals committee deliberations"). Maybe he didn't realize the ACBL publishes them (he does now). That's understandable, since they have not been much promoted. Too embarassing? He also addresses the problem of questions: If you ask, you may inadvertently create UI. If you don't ask, you are told "You could have asked," so no redress for, say, a failure to Alert. The topic will be continued in the next issue. He cites Reno cases 11 and 12 as relating to this subject. Anyone interested in the Reno cases should definitely not go to the ACBL website's Daily Bulletins, where they are buried and sometimes mucked up, but to the Federaton Suisse de Bridge (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/renoapp.html), which has all 16 cases in a very readable format. There are even more cases that were not published, but we have to wait for the Reno casebook to see them. The ACBL does not (yet) put all cases on the internet, a policy I have been pushing for. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 04:54:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:54:08 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA03703 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:54:02 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14191 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808061855.LAA14191@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:55:22 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: (snip) > If my RHO passes out of tempo and my LHO doubles, I do > not expect to revoke four times, bid out of turn, and bid the nearest > grand slam in a vague hope of something happening, which seems to be the > basic assumption of the anti-double-shot people. Total licence to throw > the game out of the window indeed! Why? I think it is a crazy > assumption that people will gamble to the extent assumed. Yes, people > will have their little gambles, bidding a poor slam or two, but it is > not going to be mayhem. Why should it be? In the oft-quoted American > Football example, the quarterback will take some risk with his pass > after an infraction, but not to the extent of forgetting what game he is > playing, and I see no reason why it should not be the same in bridge. > As it stands now, whether the OS gets a PP (Colker, ACBL) or an assigned score (Ton), the NOs get no adjustment if they shoot themselves in the foot with, say, a completely unwarranted bid or double that doesn't work out. (If it works, fine, no adjustment). Of course nobody will take such gambling actions, because the risk is too great. Current policies work as a deterrent. Without them, double-shot attempts would be risk-free and consequently frequent. Am I misunderstanding? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 05:00:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:00:26 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA03791 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 05:00:20 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14731; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808061902.MAA14731@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:01:41 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > ++++ Ton and I will be discussing in Lille how to respond > more decisively to BLML. The WBFLC can hardly > concede decision making to BLML. I hope I didn't imply that. Any BLML consensus would of course be unofficial, advisory only, and would be appropriate only in the absence of a "decisive" opinion from some LC member authorized to issue it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 08:03:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:03:36 +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 IAA04371 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:03:30 +1000 Received: from ip253.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.253]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980806220641.FCQX2781.fep4@ip253.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 00:06:41 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:05:43 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35cf2663.3982837@post12.tele.dk> References: <199808052255.PAA14803@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199808052255.PAA14803@prefetch-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 Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:54:48 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> I find it quite important that BLML is an unofficial discussion >> forum. I definitely do not like the idea of an "official BLML >> opinion". >>=20 >> The concept of majority on BLML is uninteresting; what is >> interesting is who has the best arguments, as individually >> evaluated by each of us. >> >I guess I'll have to compile the data myself, as to who is for or >against a given proposition. If I see a clear majority for one side >or the other, I'll regard that as BLML opinion. Unofficial, of >course. I think I'll assign a weight to each opinion offered, as some >carry more weight than others. Scale of 1 to 5, perhaps, with a >modest >2 for myself. Maybe no one else would find this interesting, but I >will. This is fine. As you've said, there are weights to assign, and we all have our possibly different weights to assign to each participant, so it is a lot easier to reach a personal conclusion than a global conclusion. >When I first came on BLML, I complained that the lawmakers did not >seem to be settling some arguments that should be settled by them. I >opined that the Laws Commission should have a spokesperson who could >give authoritative views on doubtful points and on ambiguities in the >wording of the Laws. David Stevenson upbraided me for this, saying >that the suggestion was an insult to BLML, which provides such >authoritative views. IMO, BLML does not provide authoritative view. It provides carefully discussed views, often by people whose views have some authority in their country, but there is not generally such a thing as a globally authoritative view. >Well, if BLML can't agree on many issues, I >don't see that its various views are a substitute for what I was >requesting. I fear that what you are requesting does not exist. If, as I suspect, you're specifically interested in "correct" rulings in ACBL, truly authoritative views are (only) the views of your national authority (ACBL). >Since my original complaint (not because of it, I'm sure), Grattan >Endicott and now Ton Kooijman have been very helpful in this regard. >They have official positions on the Laws Commission (Chairman, >Vice-Chairman), participated in the 1997 update of the Laws, and know >the arguments, discussions, etc., that were involved. However, they >both are careful to say that their opinions (in general) are merely >personal opinions, with no official standing as statements of the >WBFLC, with whom they will have discussions far down the >road in time, and we'll just have to wait for the answers. > >That procedure takes too much time. There should be a better way. I >would prefer that Ton have the authority to say, "This is my >interpretation, which is subject to approval by the WBFLC. Until >then, consider it law." That would give me something to wave in >the face of TDs and ACs, instead of having to say, "Well, in the >opinion of many on BLML, not an official opinion of course,..." I agree with David S that the WBFLC is and should be a law-making body, not a law-interpreting body. The laws seem to say fairly clearly that the ultimate law interpretation belongs to the national authority, and there is therefore in general no such thing as a globally correct interpretation of a law that is not completely clear and unambiguous. This is IMO the way it should be. It is also the only practical way, since a law-interpreting body cannot be truly authoritative unless rulings can be appealed to it. Grattan's and Ton's contributions to BLML are extremely valuable for our understanding of how the laws were created, and they therefore help us a lot when we need to choose an interpretation. But Grattan's and Ton's, and for that matter WBFLC's, opinions as to interpretation are only opinions (though of course unusually highly qualified opinions). The laws of bridge, just like any other laws, are complex, and many questions have no single correct answer. In such cases, the authoritative answer is provided by a ruling which sets a precedent. Such rulings can contain a certain amount of local style. This is IMO good. When the WBFLC feels that some particular point needs a global standardisation of interpretation, it can do one of two things: (a) It can write it into the laws. This makes it a global standard. It takes a lot of time, effort, and administration - which can be irritating but also helps to avoid unduly hasty law changes. (b) It can tell the world that there is a certain idea behind a certain existing law, and that WBFLC therefore believes that rulings should be made in a certain way on that subject. This will make law-interpreters everywhere, and particularly national authorities, consider the subject and quite probably, but not necessarily, follow the recommendation from WBFLC. This is also IMO as it should be. >As to local interpretations, I think they are unnecessary and >confusing. Too many cooks spoil the pot. When there >is no difference in the wording of a Law (other than that associated >with translation) among the British, European, WBF, ACBL, and >other versions of the Laws, then the WBFLC's interpretation should >be accepted by all. They all have representatives on the WBFLC,=20 >don't they? Law-makers should not interpret their own laws. If they do, it will never be necessary for them to make the laws clear and understandable, and we risk ending up with laws that cannot be understood unless accompanied by hundreds of pages of WBFLC instructions on how to interpret them. This is an accepted fact in real life, and it should also be so in bridge. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 08:03:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:03:25 +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 IAA04364 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:03:20 +1000 Received: from ip253.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.253]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980806220632.FCQR2781.fep4@ip253.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 00:06:32 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to WBFLC Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 00:05:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35ca1aaf.986668@post12.tele.dk> References: <35CA5951.4529@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <35CA5951.4529@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, 06 Aug 1998 18:33:05 -0700, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >It seemed to me that every participants were agreed that just that days >double-shot was not legal (was not legalized). And that the very = discussion >is about: should it be legalized or not. I'm afraid that many of us (certainly I) have been guilty of sloppy language. As Grattan said, it is certainly legal to bid anything you want to bid, also following an opponents' possible irregularity. It only deserves the name "double shot", however, if you get an adjusted score in the case where it fails. So instead of saying "make the double shot legal" we really ought to have said "give redress even to non-offenders who have tried a double shot - i.e., who have taken wild or gambling action in the expectation that they will get an adjusted score if the gamble fails". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 09:43:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:43:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA04596 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:43:28 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4Zj6-0005mm-00; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:45:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 00:58:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: BLML - statistics In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980806091023.0092ab90@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.32.19980806091023.0092ab90@acsys.anu.edu.au>, Markus Buchhorn writes >Anybody else get one ? > [the mailing list] I did too >I find it interesting that just over 50% of the mailing list have >contributed at least once to a discussion here >Of course, over 80% of the articles were contributed by 10% of the readers :-) which equates to 20% of the contributors (readers being not relevant in this case). the 80-20 Law at work again. -- 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 Aug 7 09:48:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:48:24 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04615 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:48:17 +1000 Received: from default (ptp194.ac.net [205.138.55.103]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA12307 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808062350.TAA12307@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 19:53:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: References: <199808060036.UAA08596@primus.ac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:45 AM 8/6/98 +0100, you wrote: >Linda Weinstein wrote: >>An intersting discussion (I thought) came up at the Chicago Nationals. >> >>Exactly who can bring an appeal? (ie. what parties are necessary for an >>appeal to have standing?) >> > According to L92A a contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review >of any ruling made at his table by the Director. > > So, the two players at the table may appeal: their Captain may appeal. > > > Alternatively the TD may refer a matter to a Committee under L81C9. > > > So, what was the problem? Now that we are tracking "appeals without merit points" we must be careful who they are assigned to. It was interesting to me that many players believe that if they didn't show up for the hearing as appellants that they were not part of the appeal. Those folks just need education. The interesting discussion was when a team game is involved. There were some different points of view. Some believe that an appeal cannot be brought without the captain's concurrance and that the Laws were intended as such and that the grammar in Law 92D was careless. Others believe that in a team game, one of the pairs can bring an appeal whether the captain concurs or not. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 10:39:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:39:43 +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 KAA04734 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:39:36 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4abP-0002LP-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 00:41:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 01:33:50 +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 >---------- >> From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > >> > >> 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. >> >++[ The double shot is legal action by NOs subsequent to >opponent's irregularity. Legality of the action is not the >issue; the issue is whether the result obtained through it >is then still a consequence of the irregularity - and whether >it should be deemed so. ~ Grattan ~]++ So I call the Director when the infraction occurs and tell him "because of this infraction, and directly as a consequence of it I am now going to take a double shot". Please rule when I get a poor result. -- 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 Aug 7 10:41:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:41:04 +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 KAA04750 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:40:58 +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 UAA15430 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id UAA02846; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808070043.UAA02846@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: BLML - statistics Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> >> >>>If any other Americans wish to be counted as such, but don't dare to >>>come out of the closet yet, they can e-mail me privately and let their >>>identities be known for statistical purposes. >>> >> >>Gee, can you count me 1/2 and 1/2? I have both a Canadian and a U.S. >>Passport. (Canadian born of American parents) >> >>Linda >> >I suggest it be based on geography. >What I find interesting is the large number of Canadian >participants on BLML. Canada is 1/10th the size of the USA. >I suspect the number of players is 1/10th the size as well >(anyone know?). According to the stats, there are over >30+ canucks (well, 30+ and a half, with Linda! :-)). >Any ideas why Canadians seem so much more interested in >the Laws than their American cousins? > Tony (aka ac342) > > >--UAA13651.902449758/freenet.carleton.ca-- > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 11:14:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:14:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA04843 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:14:02 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4b8i-0003lL-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 01:16:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:28:15 +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: <199808061855.LAA14191@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: >As it stands now, whether the OS gets a PP (Colker, ACBL) or an >assigned score (Ton), the NOs get no adjustment if they shoot >themselves in the foot with, say, a completely unwarranted bid or >double that doesn't work out. (If it works, fine, no adjustment). Of >course nobody will take such gambling actions, because the risk is >too great. Current policies work as a deterrent. Without them, >double-shot attempts would be risk-free and consequently frequent. > >Am I misunderstanding? Not me. I just don't expect them to be very frequent. -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 12:34:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:34:28 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04989 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:34:21 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4cOR-0001IQ-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 02:36:36 +0000 Message-ID: <34l8vCBCYmy1EwYQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 03:27:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808062350.TAA12307@primus.ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: >At 02:45 AM 8/6/98 +0100, you wrote: >>Linda Weinstein wrote: >>>An intersting discussion (I thought) came up at the Chicago Nationals. >>> >>>Exactly who can bring an appeal? (ie. what parties are necessary for an >>>appeal to have standing?) >>> >> According to L92A a contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review >>of any ruling made at his table by the Director. >> >> So, the two players at the table may appeal: their Captain may appeal. >> >> >> Alternatively the TD may refer a matter to a Committee under L81C9. >> >> >> So, what was the problem? > >Now that we are tracking "appeals without merit points" we must be careful >who they are assigned to. > >It was interesting to me that many players believe that if they didn't show >up for the hearing as appellants that they were not part of the appeal. >Those folks just need education. Certainly! >The interesting discussion was when a team game is involved. There were >some different points of view. > >Some believe that an appeal cannot be brought without the captain's >concurrance and that the Laws were intended as such and that the grammar in >Law 92D was careless. Got it! Yes, I have often heard this view, and ... >Others believe that in a team game, one of the pairs can bring an appeal >whether the captain concurs or not. ... it is not what the Law says. L92D says that an appeal can be heard without the captain's concurrence. -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 13:13:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:13:32 +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 NAA05075 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:13:24 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA07761; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808070315.UAA07761@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:13:45 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > I agree with David S that the WBFLC is and should be a law-making > body, not a law-interpreting body. The laws seem to say fairly > clearly that the ultimate law interpretation belongs to the > national authority, and there is therefore in general no such > thing as a globally correct interpretation of a law that is not > completely clear and unambiguous. It seems to me that it is a very bad policy for national authorities, who didn't even author the Laws, to interpret the same words in a different manner than the WBFLC does. The ACBL can opt out of optional Laws (L12C3), with other "Elections" listed in the back of the ACBL version of the Laws. That's okay. But to have the *same* Law given different interpretations is not appropriate. The two Laws Commissions should reach a consensus as to interpretation of an ambiguity, as there is no justification for this sort of difference. > > This is IMO the way it should be. It is also the only practical > way, since a law-interpreting body cannot be truly authoritative > unless rulings can be appealed to it. > So the WBFLC has no true authority? Maybe it should disband. What good is it? Aren't we appealing rulings indirectly by getting Grattan and Ton to work out authoritative interpretations with the WBFLC? > Grattan's and Ton's contributions to BLML are extremely valuable > for our understanding of how the laws were created, and they > therefore help us a lot when we need to choose an interpretation. > But Grattan's and Ton's, and for that matter WBFLC's, opinions > as to interpretation are only opinions (though of course > unusually highly qualified opinions). > > The laws of bridge, just like any other laws, are complex, and > many questions have no single correct answer. In such cases, the > authoritative answer is provided by a ruling which sets a > precedent. Such rulings can contain a certain amount of local > style. This is IMO good. In the U. S., you would be called a "states-rights" man. However, giving states the right to interpret U. S. law as they see fit has never been seriously considered. There are local rulings, but they cannot conflict with the interpretations of a higher court. The alternative is anarchy, or what actually happened here, civil war. > > When the WBFLC feels that some particular point needs a global > standardisation of interpretation, it can do one of two things: > (a) It can write it into the laws. This makes it a global > standard. It takes a lot of time, effort, and administration - > which can be irritating but also helps to avoid unduly hasty law > changes. Sounds good to me. I thought that was their job. Let them get on with it. > (b) It can tell the world that there is a certain idea behind a > certain existing law, and that WBFLC therefore believes that > rulings should be made in a certain way on that subject. This > will make law-interpreters everywhere, and particularly national > authorities, consider the subject and quite probably, but not > necessarily, follow the recommendation from WBFLC. > > This is also IMO as it should be. And I see no reason for failing to follow the recommendations that come between editions of the Laws, especially since the various national authorities have representation on the WBFLC. > >(snip) > > Law-makers should not interpret their own laws. Who is more qualified to do so? > If they do, it > will never be necessary for them to make the laws clear and > understandable, and we risk ending up with laws that cannot be > understood unless accompanied by hundreds of pages of WBFLC > instructions on how to interpret them. > I would think that requiring them to interpret what they write would give them more, not less, motivation to write better. If they can't write well, throw them out and get another crew. First, let's kill all the lawyers. More seriously, I have maintained for a long time that the lawmakers should hire a bridge-playing professional wordsmith to help them create simple, unambiguous, non-contradictory, complete, etc., laws. It's not that hard, really. I nominate Danny Kleinman. > This is an accepted fact in real life, and it should also be so > in bridge. > Some of us don't accept that. We've all been griping a lot about the Laws, but I have seen very few specific suggestions for rewording the troublesome ones. Has anyone come up with a good definition of "convention," which was the subject of so much debate a while back? If so, I haven't seen it. I think BLML could do a good service for the WBFLC if it could provide suggested revisions for various Laws. However, since this is evidently not a body that can arrive at a consensus on anything, I suppose we all have to submit our personal opinions separately. Then the WBFLC can wade through them all to see if there's any worthy ones. Grattan, Ton, are you ready for this? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 13:33:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:33:25 +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 NAA05117 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:33:19 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-15.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.45]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA10995 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 23:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35CA7712.6B66EBBB@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 23:40:02 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Fifth Friday Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Have you folks visited the web page Herman has created re our Fifth Friday event. Again he has presented a great page and has overseen a great event. We had 149 pairs taking part just for fun! We really would like to have more of you join us. Come on, Dany, talk your group into joining us. You fit right down to the "y". Thanks again to Herman for a job well done! Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 13:37:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:37:34 +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 NAA05140 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:37:27 +1000 Received: from modem102.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.102] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z4dNV-00006q-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:39:42 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:37:22 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" Jesper: When the WBFLC feels that some particular point needs a global standardisation of interpretation, it can do one of two things: (a) It can write it into the laws. This makes it a global standard. It takes a lot of time, effort, and administration - which can be irritating but also helps to avoid unduly hasty law changes. (b) It can tell the world that there is a certain idea behind a certain existing law, and that WBFLC therefore believes that rulings should be made in a certain way on that subject. This will make law-interpreters everywhere, and particularly national authorities, consider the subject and quite probably, but not necessarily, follow the recommendation from WBFLC. Law-makers should not interpret their own laws. ++ [These questions lie outside of the scope of the laws; they are resolved by the statutes, treaties and agreements binding the affiliations of NBOs and ZOs to the promulgating Federation. WBFLC acts as may be required of it by the Executive of the WBF ~~ Grattan] ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 13:37:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:37:35 +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 NAA05141 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:37:28 +1000 Received: from modem102.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.102] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z4dNX-00006q-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:39:44 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: my proposal to WBFLC Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:38:57 +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 In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" Jesper said: I'm afraid that many of us (certainly I) have been guilty of sloppy language. As Grattan said, it is certainly legal to bid anything you want to bid, also following an opponents' possible irregularity. It only deserves the name "double shot", however, if you get an adjusted score in the case where it fails. So instead of saying "make the double shot legal" we really ought to have said "give redress even to non-offenders who have tried a double shot - i.e., who have taken wild or gambling action in the expectation that they will get an adjusted score if the gamble fails". ++++ [ What I do realize is that the concept of the double shot arrived with the milk when I first started to play bridge. In the UK worthy people like Geoffrey Butler and Harold Franklin simply said that if, in a UI situation, I took action that my cards did not justify - relying on score adjustment to save me if it turned out badly - there was no score adjustment to be had on my side of the score sheet. I had dug my own hole in the ground. Later I realised this was not a specific of the Laws, then or now, but a judgement that my choice of action was sufficiently bizarre to be deemed the cause of damage which I would not have suffered if I had done a rational thing. So, of course, I did not ever have to question what was simply given me as part of the game. Now you thrusting young things question the ancient religion and ask me to do my own thinking. Fair enough, but let me say that I have a considerable respect for what the ancients did, both in the UK and elsewhere, and I am wary of revolution for what it might bring with it. I ask myself why did our ancestors take this road and what fears should arise if we think of turning aside from it? I do not share David Stevenson's innocence - life says that if there is something to abuse someone will abuse it, so there has to be a default provision that will enable the cops and the ACs to maintain the social order if we sow this seed and the evil spirits that David says do not exist suddenly spring from the ground. I am against disarmament unless there is to be no battle. ~ Grattan ~]++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 13:43:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:43:47 +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 NAA05170 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:43:42 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA12616; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808070345.UAA12616@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Weinstein" Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:44:59 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: > Some believe that an appeal cannot be brought without the captain's > concurrence and that the Laws were intended as such and that the grammar in > Law 92D was careless. No reason to believe that. The lawmakers were sometimes careless, but this looks like very deliberate language. > Others believe that in a team game, one of the pairs can bring an appeal > whether the captain concurs or not. > And L92D clearly says otherwise. If pairs had a "captain," it would apply to them too. It's a valuable step in the screening process. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 14:14:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 14:14:23 +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 OAA05248 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 14:14:14 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA17635; Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808070415.VAA17635@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:15:05 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: John (MadDog) Probst > So I call the Director when the infraction occurs and tell him "because > of this infraction, and directly as a consequence of it I am now going > to take a double shot". Please rule when I get a poor result. > Most of the time, under current interpretations of the law. You keep a bad result, and double-shot actions as usually defined figure to end up badly. However, there are some subtle double shots that will go undetected, and therefore will gain when unsuccessful. Say you play a five-level contract that you were pushed to by obvious illegal use of UI by the opposition. You see that you could have doubled them for +800. If you play the hand per the odds and make it, no score adjustment for either side. So you play the hand in an inferior (not egregiously inferior!) manner, perhaps getting a top if it works. If it doesn't work, you get the +800, as the opponents can hardly argue that they would not have bid that contract in the absence of the infraction. (But would the TD or AC argue that?) In the same vein, marginally bad bids and doubles can be made without risk. Just be careful. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 17:44:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA05583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 17:44:00 +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 RAA05578 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 17:43:53 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h8.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id LAA27191; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:46:03 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35CB4B68.51BC@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 11:46:00 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to WBFLC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Jesper wrote: >I'm afraid that many of us (certainly I) have been guilty of >sloppy language. >As Grattan said, it is certainly legal to bid anything you want >to bid, also following an opponents' possible irregularity. >It only deserves the name "double shot", however, if you get an >adjusted score in the case where it fails. >So instead of saying "make the double shot legal" we really ought >to have said "give redress even to non-offenders who have tried a >double shot - i.e., who have taken wild or gambling action in the >expectation that they will get an adjusted score if the gamble >fails". It's a pity that the wording was as it was:) Because discussion probably might have another arguments. But its essence would be the same - and our positions are the same:)) Might be - another arguments would have another weight, but nevertheless... Grattan wrote: > ++++ [ What I do realize is that the concept of the double shot > arrived with the milk when I first started to play bridge. In the > UK worthy people like Geoffrey Butler and Harold Franklin > simply said that if, in a UI situation, I took action that my cards > did not justify - relying on score adjustment to save me if it > turned out badly - there was no score adjustment to be had > on my side of the score sheet. I had dug my own hole in the > ground. Later I realised this was not a specific of the Laws, > then or now, but a judgement that my choice of action was > sufficiently bizarre to be deemed the cause of damage which > I would not have suffered if I had done a rational thing. > So, of course, I did not ever have to question what > was simply given me as part of the game. Now you thrusting > young things question the ancient religion and ask me to do > my own thinking. Fair enough, but let me say that I have a > considerable respect for what the ancients did, both in > the UK and elsewhere, and I am wary of revolution for > what it might bring with it. I ask myself why did our > ancestors take this road and what fears should arise if > we think of turning aside from it? I do not share David > Stevenson's innocence - life says that if there is something to > abuse someone will abuse it, so there has to be a default > provision that will enable the cops and the ACs to maintain > the social order if we sow this seed and the evil spirits > that David says do not exist suddenly spring from the > ground. I am against disarmament unless there > is to be no battle. ~ Grattan ~]++++ And these words (although there is no answer to my questions) are quite enough for me: I treat them as kind of credo. And Grattan said that the Legend (the Tradition) is extremally important tor him. My credo is the same: I think that not only the Laws rules the bridge - the Legend also does. When there were great discussion about the essence of Christian credo the Saint Cyril from Lion - I may be mistaken in his name - formulated the shortest in word and the most full in meaning credo: I believe what was believed everywhere, always and by everybody. (Sorry for wording - it is my rather bad translation from Russian). And that credo was quite understandable... That's why I realized that I cannot have serious disagreement with Grattan - it may be in wording only. Or did I misunderstand Grattan's words once more?:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 18:22:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:22:15 +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 SAA05610 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:22:07 +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 0z4hp0-0003Pz-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:24:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:24:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc1dc$cc09c480$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 >>At 02:45 AM 8/6/98 +0100, you wrote: >>>Linda Weinstein wrote: >>Some believe that an appeal cannot be brought without the captain's >>concurrance and that the Laws were intended as such and that the grammar in >>Law 92D was careless. > > Got it! Yes, I have often heard this view, and ... > >>Others believe that in a team game, one of the pairs can bring an appeal >>whether the captain concurs or not. > >... it is not what the Law says. L92D says that an appeal can be heard >without the captain's concurrence. As I understand Law 92A Either a contestant or his Captain may appeal. As I understand Law 92DThe appeal from a contestant in a team should not be heard unless the Captain of that team, if present, agrees. If he is not present it is deemed that he agrees. Thus a contestant may appeal, or his Captain may appeal, but if his Captain makes it known that he does not wish to appeal, then the contestant may not appeal. Anne > >-- >David Stevenson > I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside > England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at > . I shall send my CV on request. > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 18:50:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:50:51 +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 SAA05704 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 18:50:45 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-66.uunet.be [194.7.13.66]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA01811 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:53:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35CA01D2.C09E2988@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 21:19:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > >++++ Ton and I will be discussing in Lille how to respond > > more decisively to BLML. The WBFLC can hardly > > concede decision making to BLML. > > There is quite a presumption behind this assumption! No convincing > [to me] argument has ever been given for this idea that the law-makers > should also be the sole law-interpreters. > > When we discuss a matter here we are trying to interpret a set of Laws > which are somewhat ambiguous. If they weren't at all they would not be > complex enough - I don't believe anyone has ever produced a complex set > of Laws or Regulations that have never required any interpretation nor > included any ambiguity. > > It is quite normal in other walks of like for the law-makers not to do > the general work of interpretation. If they feel that an interpretation > is not what they intended it is their job to correct this by re-writing > the Law, rather than by policing the interpretation of that Law. > Compare the work of the House of Commons in the UK. > I do not agree with David on this one (is that a first ? :-)) The House of Commons, and any parliament, has a host of legal minds behind it in writing the Laws. Besides that, they publish (or at least the Belgian Parliament does) several side papers, which go to show the intent of the Law that is being written. If a judge then decides the Law in it's literal sense is not enough, he can go look into the parliamentary debates to find what was truly meant. Not so for the WBFLC. Without criticizing them, and while acknowledging the amount of work that has gone into drafting the Laws, these people are not able to do as thorough a job. (for one thing, there's far fewer of them). And yet that is what David is alluding to in his reply. So when someone asks "does this sentence mean A or B" and there are arguments for both interpretations, I would certainly like Ton to say "we were intending it to mean B" and stop the discussion. Of course that is only when Ton is certain (and he would not say so otherwise) and perhaps even subject to checking with the WBFLC afterwards. The world of directors cannot be served with a set of (some highly qualified of) their colleagues arguing and letting them in the dark until some future meeting. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 19:35:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 19:35:14 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA05821 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 19:35:07 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-94.uunet.be [194.7.9.94]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA05110 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:37:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35CACABC.C2A9EB1E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 11:37:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fifth Friday X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35CA7712.6B66EBBB@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > Have you folks visited the web page Herman has created re our Fifth > Friday event. shameless plug : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 21:16:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 21:16:43 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA06003 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 21:16:36 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4kXs-0001Iz-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:18:54 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:59:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:59:20 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne wrote: > As I understand Law 92A Either a contestant or his Captain may appeal. > As I understand Law 92DThe appeal from a contestant in a team should > not > be heard unless the Captain of that team, if present, agrees. If he is > not present it is deemed that he agrees. > Thus a contestant may appeal, or his Captain may appeal, but if his > Captain makes it known that he does not wish to appeal, then the > contestant may not appeal. > > ########### I agree with this interpretation of Law 92. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 7 22:22:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:22:22 +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 WAA06224 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:22:16 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4lZN-0005ij-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:24:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:04:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <199808070315.UAA07761@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: >Jesper wrote: >> Law-makers should not interpret their own laws. > >Who is more qualified to do so? So you don't accept the US Supreme Court? You don't think they should do the highest-level interpreting job that they currently do? >> If they do, it >> will never be necessary for them to make the laws clear and >> understandable, and we risk ending up with laws that cannot be >> understood unless accompanied by hundreds of pages of WBFLC >> instructions on how to interpret them. >> >I would think that requiring them to interpret what they write would >give them more, not less, motivation to write better. If they can't >write well, throw them out and get another crew. First, let's kill >all the lawyers. More seriously, I have maintained for a long time >that the lawmakers should hire a bridge-playing professional >wordsmith to help them create simple, unambiguous, non-contradictory, >complete, etc., laws. It's not that hard, really. It is extremely hard, and is impossible without removing the complexity, which leads to other problems. >We've all been griping a lot about the Laws, but I have seen very few >specific suggestions for rewording the troublesome ones. Has anyone >come up with a good definition of "convention," which was the subject >of so much debate a while back? Yes, BLML came up with a consensus one about two years ago. Why did we not trot it out recently when there was a discussion of the meaning of the current definition? Because that was not the question being asked. Furthermore there are lots of suggestions available for improving the Laws. How about removing L25B? Alternatively, how about following the suggestion of [AFAIR] Steve, and splitting it into Delayed Correction and Purposeful Correction. Then you disallow Purposeful Correction completely, and re-write it to consider only cases where a player attempts to correct under L25A but is judged not to have followed the requirements therein. The reason for a lot of items on BLML is to interpret Laws as they are at this moment. Of course there are some changes we would like, but it is not helpful to a discussion on whether something means something else to always interject how one could change it. You want another suggestion that I have made, and do not remember any disagreement at the time? OK, how about this. The definition of Convention in the Laws is for two purposes only: Insufficient bids, and limiting what an SO may regulate. I believe that the definition used is unnecessarily complex for these two Laws. Furthermore, there is no logical reason why they should be the same. So I suggested that instead of a Definition of Convention these two Laws should be re- written so as to include an implicit definition of convention, which would not have to be the same. Now whether that is a good idea or not, it is not one that is helpful to interpreting the current definition of Convention. > If so, I haven't seen it. I think >BLML could do a good service for the WBFLC if it could provide >suggested revisions for various Laws. Which is why we have made several suggestions already, at least one of which was incorporated in the 1993 Laws, and no doubt will make more suggestions in the run-up to 2003. > However, since this is >evidently not a body that can arrive at a consensus on anything, I >suppose we all have to submit our personal opinions separately. We have come to consensus opinions in the past. Why do you say we evidently cannot? Because *some* matters are unresolved? -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 00:02:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:02:46 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06432 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:02:40 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA24537 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:04:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-12.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.76) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024527; Fri Aug 7 09:04:05 1998 Received: by har-pa2-12.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC1EA.13DE84A0@har-pa2-12.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:59:33 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC1EA.13DE84A0@har-pa2-12.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridgelaws Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:29:04 -0400 Encoding: 91 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fixing significant typo...sorry. Craig ---------- From: Craig Senior[SMTP:rts48u@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 11:13 AM To: Bridgelaws; 'Grattan' Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC With all due respect, I think you overstate the problem of allowing even the most potentially objectionable double shots. First, even if what you assert becomes true, the double shot would not guarantee a superb result on the board to the NOS. If they take a wild gambling action that fails, they are only guaranteed what would have most likely occured absent the infraction...not a sure top. They also face the risk in many instances of discovering there was no infraction and being allowed to keep the cold bottom their rash action has won for them. When there truly IS an offense, all that the NOS is given is a floor beneath which thier score cannot sink no matter how abysmally they play on. In some cases sharpies will find a way to profit disproportionally from their opponents infractions by taking gambling actions, but that is a matter that can be avoided by the opponents not committing the infraction in the first place. Requiring normal play as the standard to avoid breaking the causal link between infraction and redress may be a compromise we can live with, since the wild gambling double shots would still not permit of adjustment for SUBsequent damage. While I and several others do not object to double shots being legal, many do seem to. What I do find offensive is for a lesser player to lose his rights against a strong offender because he does not play as good bridge as some arbiter thinks he should. Making all damage CONsequent given normal bidding and play (i.e. including the careless and inferior but not the irrational) allows us to apply a well understood and widely applied standard to UI situations that would indeed block the more objectionable double shots while leaving room both for differing standards of play and for some gamesmanship considerations comparable to penalty card options. You may take "normal" actions, even if somewhat anti-percentage, in search of an advantage while retaining the floor of protection provided by the opponents infraction. You may not keep this protection if you choose to take wild gambles instead. In other words we would have an international standard not too far from the apparent present standing in practice in much of Europe. We could then proceed to search for some generally acceptable agreement upon such other related troubling issues as what alternatives are logical (ranging from a 30% test to if it hesitates shoot it) and what should be done to deter the deliberate subornation of UI through misuse of the questioning and/or alert processes. We could even end up with the chance to play bridge again rather than effectively go to court almost every round. Craig Senior ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 5:28 PM To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC >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. > ++[ The double shot would appear to be the case of an action which in an infraction-free situation would not be a logical alternative action for the player, but which in the aftermath of the infraction the player adopts as a deliberate choice of far out action, gambling that if it does not bring him a good score he will have his score adjusted by the TD so that he gambles an only-can-win bet. However, score adjustment is only available in respect of damage suffered and advantage gained through the irregularity. The argument prevailing until now is that in such a case the damage is not a natural consequence of the irregularity but is engineered by the player's abnormal, gambling action. The law is what it is; the question whether the damage is suffered in consequence of the irregularity, within the terms of the law, is/has been one of bridge judgement. For the moment I do not see how changing the law to give redress for all damage, whether consequent or subsequent, would work in practice. The NOS is to be protected against any bad score once an infraction has occurred, no matter how it has been obtained? Such an arrangement seems to allow, once there has been an infraction, total licence to throw the game out of the window so that the play may as well cease on a board when an infraction is determined, an adjusted score being awarded.~ Grattan ]++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 01:28:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 01:28:44 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f225.hotmail.com [207.82.251.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09031 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 01:28:35 +1000 Received: (qmail 5962 invoked by uid 0); 7 Aug 1998 15:30:18 -0000 Message-ID: <19980807153018.5961.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.217 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Aug 1998 08:30:18 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.217] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 08:30:18 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Martin >Anne wrote: > >> As I understand Law 92A Either a contestant or his Captain may >> appeal. >> As I understand Law 92DThe appeal from a contestant in a team >> should not be heard unless the Captain of that team, if present, >> agrees. If he is not present it is deemed that he agrees. >> Thus a contestant may appeal, or his Captain may appeal, but if his >> Captain makes it known that he does not wish to appeal, then the >> contestant may not appeal. >> > ######## I agree with this interpretation of Law 92. ######### I don't. I initially thought I didn't, then checked the FLB, and had almost convinced myself I was wrong, then finally checked the definitions. Team Two or more pairs playing in different directions at different tables, but for a common score (applicable regulations may permit teams of more than four members). In L4, a team is defined in terms of partnerships, but here it specifically says two or more pairs... So I think I am allowed to interpret 92D as a "computer or"; i.e. if both members of the pair agree, the appeal can go, or, whether they agree or not, if the captain of the team agrees, the appeal can go. I don't care either way - it just seems that that's what the laws say (to me). Michael "Of course, the FLB defines neither pairs nor partnerships, but that's another issue" Farebrother. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 02:04:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 02:04:11 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09304 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 02:04:05 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA01377; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808071605.JAA01377@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:03:53 -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 Anne Jones wrote: > > As I understand Law 92A Either a contestant or his Captain may appeal. L92A is poorly written, as it's intent is clearly shown in L92D. It should read "A contestant or (in the case of a team) its captain may appeal..." Note that "his" is the wrong word in L92A; it should be "its." Why? Because: A *team* is a contestant in a team game, a pair in a pair game, a single player in an individual game (see Definitions in the Laws). For pairs, there must be an agreement (assuming both are present) between the two players to appeal, since pairs don't officially have a captain. With agreement among the members of a team more difficult to achieve, the Laws have wisely provided that the captain makes the decision. That's one reason captains are required. Something more complicated: a majority of the team members, or in case of a tie vote, the captain's decision, or if the captain is not available, etc., etc., would be inappropriate for a number of reasons. > As I understand Law 92D The appeal from a contestant in a team should not > be heard unless the Captain of that team, if present, agrees. If he is > not present it is deemed that he agrees. > Thus a contestant may appeal, or his Captain may appeal, but if his > Captain makes it known that he does not wish to appeal, then the > contestant may not appeal. But these words are not in L92D! L92D plainly says that an individual in an individual game, an agreeing pair in a pair game, or the captain in a team game, may initiate an appeal. The language is quite clear and I don't understand the difficulty. Surely no one can believe that a single team member, in the absence of the captain, could appeal. It might be argued that L92D is poorly worded, and should have an added sentence before the last sentence: In the absence of the captain, all members of a team who are present must concur in appealing. I don't think so, because this leads to complications. Captains are usually team members, for one thing. For another, if only one member is present, then L92D would allow an appeal because absent members are deemed to concur. No, the captain has to do it, as L92D clearly states. If s/he is not present, too bad. Part of his/her job is to be present at such times. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 02:30:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 02:30:07 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09410 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 02:30:01 +1000 Received: from default (ptp74.ac.net [205.138.54.176]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA22122 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 12:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808071632.MAA22122@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 12:35:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:59 AM 8/7/98 +0100, you wrote: >Anne wrote: > > >> As I understand Law 92A Either a contestant or his Captain may appeal. >> As I understand Law 92DThe appeal from a contestant in a team should >> not >> be heard unless the Captain of that team, if present, agrees. If he is >> not present it is deemed that he agrees. >> Thus a contestant may appeal, or his Captain may appeal, but if his >> Captain makes it known that he does not wish to appeal, then the >> contestant may not appeal. >> >> ########### I agree with this interpretation of Law 92. ############ > But Law 92D states: An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of a pair .... OR the captain of a team concurs in appealing. To me, this means you need either: 1. the pair alone 2. the captain alone 3. the pair and the captain It would seem that the captain can bring an appeal without anyone on the team agreeing or a pair on the team can bring the appeal irrelevent of the captains desires. I see nothing in this language that says the captain must agree. Here's what I have been led to believe is what was meant to be in 92D and the sentence structure that was chosen was not best: An appeal shall not be heard unless the following concur in appealing: 1. The individual from an individual game 2. Both members of a pair in a pairs game 3. The team captain in a team game I believe ITT and perhaps WBF conditions of contest do state that there are no appeals unless the team captain concurs. However, we still have our "Appeals without merit points" dilemma Linda PS. We had 21 appeals in Chicago, and I am going to try to get them on the Web about the same time we send them out to our experts, which should be shortly after everyone gets back from France. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 03:20:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:20:49 +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 DAA09616 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:20:41 +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 NAA16546 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09576; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:23:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:23:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808071723.NAA09576@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >Others believe that in a team game, one of the pairs can bring an appeal > >whether the captain concurs or not. > > ... it is not what the Law says. L92D says that an appeal can be heard > without the captain's concurrence. I agree with David's second sentence and not his first one, which seems to contradict the second. Under L92D, as long as the two partners agree, the appeal can be heard even if the captain disagrees. Or the captain can bring the appeal even if both players at the table disagree. Since L92D is written in terms of which appeals are _forbidden_, it seems within the power of the SO to forbid them in additional cases. For example, it seems to me an SO could require that both players _and_ the captain concur in an appeal, even though L92D itself does not require this. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 03:29:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:29:52 +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 DAA09657 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:29:45 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4qMw-00072m-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 17:32:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 14:39:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Which is why we have made several suggestions already, at least one of >which was incorporated in the 1993 Laws, and no doubt will make more >suggestions in the run-up to 2003. Add 5 to make sense of this! -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 07:56:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 07:56:37 +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 HAA10373 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 07:56:30 +1000 Received: from ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.124]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980807215944.GYCO2781.fep4@ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:59:44 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 23:58:45 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35cb77b2.379866@post12.tele.dk> References: <199808070415.VAA17635@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199808070415.VAA17635@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 Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:15:05 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Say you play a five-level >contract that you were pushed to by obvious illegal use of UI by the >opposition. You see that you could have doubled them for +800. If you >play the hand per the odds and make it, no score adjustment for >either side. So you play the hand in an inferior (not egregiously >inferior!) manner, perhaps getting a top if it works. If it doesn't >work, you get the +800, as the opponents can hardly argue that they >would not have bid that contract in the absence of the infraction. No, the opponents can hardly argue that. But _you_ may need to do so if you want an adjustment (to the value of your game) - if they would have bid that contract in the absence of the infraction, then you have not been damaged and do not get an adjustment. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 08:16:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:16:38 +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 IAA10408 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:16:32 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA11125; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808072218.PAA11125@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 15:16:46 -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: > >Jesper wrote: > > >> Law-makers should not interpret their own laws. > > > >Who is more qualified to do so? > > So you don't accept the US Supreme Court? You don't think they should > do the highest-level interpreting job that they currently do? Sure, but we don't have a supreme court for bridge. I'd be the first to support the creation of one, a place to appeal interpretations and get a quick authoritative answer. I don't think BLML has the official standing to act in that capacity. > > >> If they do, it > >> will never be necessary for them to make the laws clear and > >> understandable, and we risk ending up with laws that cannot be > >> understood unless accompanied by hundreds of pages of WBFLC > >> instructions on how to interpret them. > >> > >I would think that requiring them to interpret what they write would > >give them more, not less, motivation to write better. If they can't > >write well, throw them out and get another crew. First, let's kill > >all the lawyers. More seriously, I have maintained for a long time > >that the lawmakers should hire a bridge-playing professional > >wordsmith to help them create simple, unambiguous, non-contradictory, > >complete, etc., laws. It's not that hard, really. > > It is extremely hard, and is impossible without removing the > complexity, which leads to other problems. I am not aware that anyone has tried. The complexity is usually unnecessary, as it is better to keep rules simple. Two tricks for a revoke, period. No problem. Forget the subtleties aimed at achieving an unrealistic level of equity. > > >We've all been griping a lot about the Laws, but I have seen very few > >specific suggestions for rewording the troublesome ones. Has anyone > >come up with a good definition of "convention," which was the subject > >of so much debate a while back? > > Yes, BLML came up with a consensus one about two years ago. Why did > we not trot it out recently when there was a discussion of the meaning > of the current definition? Because that was not the question being > asked. > I remember someone writing that a "consensus" was not achievable at that time. I wasn't on board then, so I don't know. What was it? > Furthermore there are lots of suggestions available for improving the > Laws. How about removing L25B? Alternatively, how about following the > suggestion of [AFAIR] Steve, and splitting it into Delayed Correction > and Purposeful Correction. Then you disallow Purposeful Correction > completely, and re-write it to consider only cases where a player > attempts to correct under L25A but is judged not to have followed the > requirements therein. You didn't answer the question. What was the consensus definition of convention? Here's mine, nice and simple: A bid is not a convention if it says something about the named denomination only, and nothing specific about any other denomination. Void, singleton, strength, whatever, doesn't matter, such a bid should not be controllable. Alertable sometimes, but not controllable. All other bids are conventions. > > The reason for a lot of items on BLML is to interpret Laws as they are > at this moment. Of course there are some changes we would like, but it > is not helpful to a discussion on whether something means something else > to always interject how one could change it. Yeah, just gripe about it and let someone else worry about the wording. > > You want another suggestion that I have made, and do not remember any > disagreement at the time? OK, how about this. The definition of > Convention in the Laws is for two purposes only: Insufficient bids, and > limiting what an SO may regulate. I believe that the definition used is > unnecessarily complex for these two Laws. Furthermore, there is no > logical reason why they should be the same. So I suggested that > instead of a Definition of Convention these two Laws should be re- > written so as to include an implicit definition of convention, which > would not have to be the same. Let's see the result! I thought we were talking about consensus, not merely what you suggest. > (small snip) > ... we have made several suggestions already, at least one of > which was incorporated in the 1993 Laws, and no doubt will make > more suggestions in the run-up to 2003. Who is "we"? Is that an editorial we? I thought the consensus was that BLML does not have consensuses. If so, what is the methodology? Where are they documented? Could I get a copy of current ones? Are there any that you disagree with? > > > However, since this is > >evidently not a body that can arrive at a consensus on anything, I > >suppose we all have to submit our personal opinions separately. > > We have come to consensus opinions in the past. Why do you say we > evidently cannot? Because *some* matters are unresolved? > Because most responses to my idea said that there is no such thing as a BLML consensus. I would be the first (or second, I guess) to push for a system of arriving at BLML consensuses (had to look that one up!). If there is one, let's see it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 08:24:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:24:52 +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 IAA10429 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:24:45 +1000 Received: from modem96.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.224] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z4uyT-0006Ig-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:27:01 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:24:51 +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 In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Steve Willner > > I agree with David's second sentence and not his first one, which seems > to contradict the second. Under L92D, as long as the two partners > agree, the appeal can be heard even if the captain disagrees. Or the > captain can bring the appeal even if both players at the table > disagree. +++[ It seems that in transcribing Law 92D from the 1987 book, and intending no change, the comma has been wiped after 'contest)' and before 'or'. I am convinced that no alteration has been intended in the effect of the Law as it was in the 1975 code:"No appeal shall be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual contest) or, in team events, the captain, concur in appealing," But, yes, the law as it is now set in the 1998 book produces some ambiguity, depending whether in 92D you read 'pair' and 'team' respectively to be the contestants. I have included this in an Addendum to the papers circulated for Lille. ~~ Grattan ~~] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 08:45:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:26 +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 IAA10484 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:19 +1000 Received: from ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.124]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980807224832.GYYY2781.fep4@ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:48:32 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 00:47:34 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d580b9.2690999@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 [I thought I'd posted this one yesterday, but it does not seem so - apologies if anybody gets it twice] On Thu, 6 Aug 1998 07:40:36 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ Ton and I will be discussing in Lille how to respond > more decisively to BLML. The WBFLC can hardly > concede decision making to BLML. I agree with David S that you should not respond more decisively. I greatly appreciate the information that Grattan and Ton gives us about the opinions of WBFLC and its members and about the intention behind laws. However, WBFLC should not make authoritative interpretations. WBFLC has always conceded decision making to ruling bodies (TDs, ACs, national authorities). BLML makes no decisions. BLML discusses interpretation, and thus influences decisions by ruling bodies. If a lot of ruling bodies in the world can use BLML to come to some common understanding of what an interpretation should be, that is fine - much better than the former situation where each body was on its own because we had no common forum for discussion. If WBFLC has a view that differs from a view that is common on BLML, then I think that WBFLC should either convince the world with good arguments or change the law (or change its own view). WBFLC should not try to force specific interpretations of the law as written upon us. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 08:45:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:37 +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 IAA10491 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:29 +1000 Received: from ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.124]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980807224841.GYZF2781.fep4@ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:48:41 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 00:47:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35cc7885.591430@post12.tele.dk> References: <35CA01D2.C09E2988@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <35CA01D2.C09E2988@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 21:19:46 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >The House of Commons, and any parliament, has a host of legal minds >behind it in writing the Laws. >Besides that, they publish (or at least the Belgian Parliament does) >several side papers, which go to show the intent of the Law that is >being written. >If a judge then decides the Law in it's literal sense is not enough, he >can go look into the parliamentary debates to find what was truly meant. Yes: he looks into the debates and uses the information there - together with the law itself and any other available information - to form his own opinion. He does not ask the chairman of the parliament what his ruling in a specific case should be. >So when someone asks "does this sentence mean A or B" and there are >arguments for both interpretations, I would certainly like Ton to say >"we were intending it to mean B" and stop the discussion. I would also like Ton to say that. But it should not necessarily stop the discussion: it should be used as input to a decision by the ruling body (TD, AC, national authority). And though that decision will undoubtedly most often follow Ton's recommendation, it should not need to do so, just as the judge does not automatically follow the parliament chairman's idea of how to rule in a specific case. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 08:45:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:48 +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 IAA10506 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:39 +1000 Received: from ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.124]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980807224851.GYZH2781.fep4@ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:48:51 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 00:47:53 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d78141.2826904@post12.tele.dk> References: <199808070315.UAA07761@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199808070315.UAA07761@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 Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:13:45 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >So the WBFLC has no true authority? Maybe it should disband. What >good is it? Aren't we appealing rulings indirectly by getting Grattan >and Ton to work out authoritative interpretations with the WBFLC? The WBFLC has the authority to write the laws. That is certainly "true authority". It should not have the authority to also be the primary interpreter of its own laws. >In the U. S., you would be called a "states-rights" man. However, >giving states the right to interpret U. S. law as they see fit has >never been seriously considered. There are local rulings, but they >cannot conflict with the interpretations of a higher court. The >alternative is anarchy, or what actually happened here, civil war. The laws say that the ultimate rulings are made by the national authority. Even if WBFLC had/has some official law-interpreting authority, that authority means nothing in practice if WBFLC is not also the final court of appeal. >And I see no reason for failing to follow the recommendations that >come between editions of the Laws, especially since the various >national authorities have representation on the WBFLC. Usually there is no such reason, and the recommendation will be followed. I'm glad that you use the word "recommendations" rather than "instructions" - I have nothing at all against _recommendations_ from WBFLC - on the contrary. >> Law-makers should not interpret their own laws.=20 > >Who is more qualified to do so? Would you also have parliaments function as the ultimate courts of law in everyday life? I think having professional judges who do not write the laws is a really good idea. >I would think that requiring them to interpret what they write would >give them more, not less, motivation to write better.=20 The problem is that if WBFLC is the ultimate law interpreter, it will not really have to interpret the written laws - it can interpret the intentions behind the laws instead, and never need to take the trouble to make the laws understandable. >If they can't >write well, throw them out and get another crew. First, let's kill >all the lawyers. More seriously, I have maintained for a long time >that the lawmakers should hire a bridge-playing professional >wordsmith to help them create simple, unambiguous, non-contradictory, >complete, etc., laws. It's not that hard, really. I nominate Danny >Kleinman. Yes, it's that hard, really. It is easy to point out individual passages in the laws that could have been written much better, but I am convinced that it really _is_ very hard to write the laws, and that anybody who tried would also end up with several problematic passages - though not necessarily the same passages that are problematic today. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 08:45:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:59 +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 IAA10520 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:45:50 +1000 Received: from ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.124]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980807224901.GYZK2781.fep4@ip124.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 00:49:01 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 00:48:04 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d88190.2906299@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 Fri, 7 Aug 1998 04:37:22 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++ [These questions lie outside of the scope of the laws; they >are resolved by the statutes, treaties and agreements binding the >affiliations of NBOs and ZOs to the promulgating Federation. >WBFLC acts as may be required of it by the Executive of the >WBF ~~ Grattan] ++ Yes. I sincerely hope that the WBF and its ZOs/NBOs will not establish WBFLC as an authoritative law interpreter. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 08:50:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:50:44 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA10543 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:50:35 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z4vNR-0002Fv-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:52:49 +0000 Message-ID: <3AWgn3AiQ2y1EwaG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 21:31:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808071605.JAA01377@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: >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> As I understand Law 92A Either a contestant or his Captain may >appeal. > >L92A is poorly written, as it's intent is clearly shown in L92D. It >should read "A contestant or (in the case of a team) its captain may >appeal..." Note that "his" is the wrong word in L92A; it should be >"its." Why? Because: > >A *team* is a contestant in a team game, a pair in a pair game, a >single player in an individual game (see Definitions in the Laws). >For pairs, there must be an agreement (assuming both are present) >between the two players to appeal, since pairs don't officially have >a captain. With agreement among the members of a team more difficult >to achieve, the Laws have wisely provided that the captain makes the >decision. That's one reason captains are required. Something more >complicated: a majority of the team members, or in case of a tie >vote, the captain's decision, or if the captain is not available, >etc., etc., would be inappropriate for a number of reasons. > >> As I understand Law 92D The appeal from a contestant in a team >should not >> be heard unless the Captain of that team, if present, agrees. If he >is >> not present it is deemed that he agrees. >> Thus a contestant may appeal, or his Captain may appeal, but if his >> Captain makes it known that he does not wish to appeal, then the >> contestant may not appeal. > >But these words are not in L92D! L92D plainly says that an individual >in an individual game, an agreeing pair in a pair game, or the >captain in a team game, may initiate an appeal. These words are not in L92D either: that is the problem. You have argued quite logically what the Law should say - but it does not. > The language is quite >clear and I don't understand the difficulty. Surely no one can >believe that a single team member, in the absence of the captain, >could appeal. I don't think anyone has suggested that, and the language clearly precludes it. The question is when a pair concurs in appealing, and their captain does not. >It might be argued that L92D is poorly worded, and should have an >added sentence before the last sentence: In the absence of the >captain, all members of a team who are present must concur in >appealing. I don't think so, because this leads to complications. >Captains are usually team members, for one thing. For another, if >only one member is present, then L92D would allow an appeal because >absent members are deemed to concur. No, the captain has to do it, as >L92D clearly states. If s/he is not present, too bad. Part of his/her >job is to be present at such times. I don't think this is what L92D says. -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 09:08:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 09:08:40 +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 JAA10572 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 09:08:34 +1000 Received: from ip222.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.222]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980807231147.GZMU2781.fep4@ip222.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 01:11:47 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 01:10:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d98692.4187811@post12.tele.dk> References: <199808072218.PAA11125@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199808072218.PAA11125@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 Fri, 7 Aug 1998 15:16:46 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >The complexity is usually >unnecessary, as it is better to keep rules simple.=20 That is possible for some rules, but I don't think it is possible to the degree that the laws as a whole will not still be very complex. >Two tricks for a >revoke, period. No problem. Forget the subtleties aimed at achieving >an unrealistic level of equity.=20 On that point, I agree completely. >Who is "we"? Is that an editorial we? I thought the consensus was >that BLML does not have consensuses. If so, what is the methodology? >Where are they documented? Could I get a copy of current ones? Are >there any that you disagree with? Of course, I cannot answer on behalf of David as to what he means by "we". But I can say what I would mean by "we" in a similar situation: a group of BLML participants who have debated a certain subject and have worked out a solution that at least almost all the participants agree to be the correct one. I might even use the word "consensus". However, that is not a "BLML consensus" - it is only a consensus among some people who took active part in a discussion. If this sound like rather loose definitions of what I mean by those words, that is because they are loose - and that is no problem as long as BLML is not an AC who makes decisions, but (as I believe it is and should be) a discussion forum that provides quite unofficial inspiration to those who make decisions. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 09:34:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 09:34:50 +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 JAA10592 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 09:34:44 +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 TAA24949 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 19:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09986; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 19:37:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 19:37:18 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808072337.TAA09986@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > +++[ It seems that in transcribing Law 92D from the 1987 book, > and intending no change, the comma has been wiped after 'contest)' > and before 'or'. I am convinced that no alteration has been intended > in the effect of the Law as it was in the 1975 code:"No appeal shall > be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual > contest) or, in team events, the captain, concur in appealing," The comma should be there, but I don't think it changes the meaning. The actual language in the 1975 Laws (L88D) was "unless both members of a pair (except in an individual contest), or the captain of a team, concurs in appealing." The language Grattan cites seems unambiguous, and so does the 1975 language, for that matter, but they lead to opposite results. Does the LC really wish for a team captain to veto an appeal if both members of the pair concerned want to lodge one? The SO might reach that decision and incorporate it into regulation, but I don't believe the LC should mandate it. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 13:12:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 13:12:23 +1000 Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA11091 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 13:12:15 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 0MNAa03745; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:13:48 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <3193f100.35cbc26e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:13:48 EDT To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My suggestion was to add two words, "for pairs" to the phrase referring to both members of a partnership and two words, "for teams" to the part referring to the captain. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 15:13:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 15:13:50 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA11326 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 15:13:44 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA24674 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808080515.WAA24674@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 22:14:03 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen Allison, member of the ACBL Laws Commission, wrote: > My suggestion was to add two words, "for pairs" to the phrase referring to > both members of a partnership and two words, "for teams" to the part referring > to the captain. > Yes, the obvious intent. This is an example of why a wordsmith should assist the LC in writing the laws. Sounds like Karen is one; put her in charge of the final edit. and Grattan wrote: +++[ It seems that in transcribing Law 92D from the 1987 book, and intending no change, the comma has been wiped after 'contest)' and before 'or'. I am convinced that no alteration has been intended in the effect of the Law as it was in the 1975 code:"No appeal shall be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual contest) or, in team events, the captain, concur in appealing," But, yes, the law as it is now set in the 1998 book produces some ambiguity, depending whether in 92D you read 'pair' and 'team' respectively to be the contestants. I have included this in an Addendum to the papers circulated for Lille. +++ The current L92D has a comma that makes the sentence ungrammatical unless you assume the missing comma is there. An obvious typo, which literalists pounce on in an attempt to divine a meaning that isn't there. Here is the 1987 law: "An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual contest), or the captain of a team, concur in appealing." To suggest that the inadvertent omission of the first comma (clearly a typo because of the second comma) in the 1997 Laws was intended as a change in the law is pretty far out. There is no ambiguity, just fix the typo by putting the comma back. The "streamlining" of the 1975 language for the 1987 version, with no change in meaning, was evidently misguided. Sometimes a few extra words, while unattractive to the eye, are necessary to make sure the meaning is clear to everyone. And I wrote: >>L92D plainly says that an individual >>in an individual game, an agreeing pair in a pair game, or the >>captain in a team game, may initiate an appeal. And David wrote: >These words are not in L92D either: that is the problem. You have >argued quite logically what the Law should say - but it does not. Just fix the obvious typo, and it does. To argue that the comma was removed for a reason, making the sentence into "both members of a pair...or the captain of a team," asserts that "of a team" modifies both "pair" and "captain." That means that the sentence no longer applies to a pair game, a rather unlikely intent. It also means that the remaining comma is a grammatical error or a typo. Occam's Razor says to take the simplest path to the truth, and that path is to add the comma that was inadvertently omitted. For those who find the sentence ambiguous anyway, go back to the 1975 Laws for a clearer wording of the same intent. I am out of this thread. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 17:28:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:28:04 +1000 Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA11553 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:27:59 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsyd90p17.ozemail.com.au [203.108.214.17]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA23993 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:30:19 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:30:19 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199808080730.RAA23993@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Fifth Friday Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:40 PM 6/08/98 -0400, you wrote: >Have you folks visited the web page Herman has created re our Fifth >Friday event. Again he has presented a great page and has overseen a >great event. We had 149 pairs taking part just for fun! We really >would like to have more of you join us. Come on, Dany, talk your group >into joining us. You fit right down to the "y". Thanks again to Herman >for a job well done! Nancy Don't be afraid if your regular club night isn't Friday. What Americans call "friday", we in Australia call "saturday" in any case. I am sure Herman would be happy to have you on board so long as the results arrive before the following Monday. Tony > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 8 17:28:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:28:03 +1000 Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA11549 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:27:58 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsyd90p17.ozemail.com.au [203.108.214.17]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA23980 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:30:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 17:30:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199808080730.RAA23980@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:39 PM 7/08/98 +0100, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Which is why we have made several suggestions already, at least one of >>which was incorporated in the 1993 Laws, and no doubt will make more >>suggestions in the run-up to 2003. > > Add 5 to make sense of this! > and then subtract 1? >-- >David Stevenson > I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside > England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at > . I shall send my CV on request. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 06:37:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 06:37:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA15244 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 06:37:40 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z5FmP-0006Bf-00; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 20:39:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 21:36:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fifth Friday In-Reply-To: <199808080730.RAA23993@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199808080730.RAA23993@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >At 11:40 PM 6/08/98 -0400, you wrote: >>Have you folks visited the web page Herman has created re our Fifth >>Friday event. Again he has presented a great page and has overseen a >>great event. We had 149 pairs taking part just for fun! We really >>would like to have more of you join us. Come on, Dany, talk your group >>into joining us. You fit right down to the "y". Thanks again to Herman >>for a job well done! Nancy > >Don't be afraid if your regular club night isn't Friday. What Americans >call "friday", we in Australia call "saturday" in any case. I am sure >Herman would be happy to have you on board so long as the results arrive >before the following Monday. > >Tony Could the YC play it on Thursday? It's our social night and it is match-points. It would be much more attractive to our social members than to the hard-bitten cynical bridge-players who cause mayhem in the bear-pit every Friday. >> >> > -- 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 Sun Aug 9 08:11:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 08:11:58 +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 IAA15380 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 08:11:51 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA22337; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 14:14:08 -0800 Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 14:14:08 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fifth Friday Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since it seems everyone is wanting a different day, perhaps we need a whole fleet of games, held on the second Saturday, third Thursday, and fifth Friday of the months in question. :) Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 08:29:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 08:29:05 +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 IAA15422 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 08:28:59 +1000 Received: from modem105.taz.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.233] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z5HW8-0005i8-00; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 23:31:16 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Craig Senior" , "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 01:28:12 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Craig Senior > > What I do find offensive is for a lesser > player to lose his rights against a strong offender because he does not > play as good bridge as some arbiter thinks he should. > +++ [This in itself should not happen since the general principle throughout the laws is to judge each player by his own playing capabilities. We have no disagreement on this point.] Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 09:21:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:21:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA15479 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:21:00 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z5IKT-0006SW-00; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 23:23:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:36:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <199808080730.RAA23980@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 02:39 PM 7/08/98 +0100, you wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Which is why we have made several suggestions already, at least one of >>>which was incorporated in the 1993 Laws, and no doubt will make more >>>suggestions in the run-up to 2003. >> >> Add 5 to make sense of this! >> >and then subtract 1? OK, OK, I give up. -- David Stevenson I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 09:29:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:29:07 +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 JAA15504 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:29:00 +1000 Received: from client25e0.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.224] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z5ISC-0000x8-00; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 00:31:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Fifth Friday Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 00:31:31 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc324$ac730520$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 In Wales we have a Simultaneous Pairs event which is played during a particular week, whichever night your club has a suitable slot. We have not had any problems, and if we did have, we would know how to deal with it. I think that at least 95% of bridge players are basically honest. It would be a pity if the upright and honest were to suffer for the minority who get their pleasure by cheating. We do not as a rule organise our competitions ( other than the most presitious) with security in mind, and then it is surely only so that "right" is seen to be done. I would have no objection whatsoever to YC holding a heat of Fifth Friday on a Thursday. I hope if I was in London I would be welcome. I have visited Herman's web page, and was most impressed. Anne -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, August 08, 1998 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Fifth Friday >In article <199808080730.RAA23993@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove > writes >>At 11:40 PM 6/08/98 -0400, you wrote: >>>Have you folks visited the web page Herman has created re our Fifth >>>Friday event. Again he has presented a great page and has overseen a >>>great event. We had 149 pairs taking part just for fun! We really >>>would like to have more of you join us. Come on, Dany, talk your group >>>into joining us. You fit right down to the "y". Thanks again to Herman >>>for a job well done! Nancy >> >>Don't be afraid if your regular club night isn't Friday. What Americans >>call "friday", we in Australia call "saturday" in any case. I am sure >>Herman would be happy to have you on board so long as the results arrive >>before the following Monday. >> >>Tony > >Could the YC play it on Thursday? It's our social night and it is >match-points. It would be much more attractive to our social members >than to the hard-bitten cynical bridge-players who cause mayhem in the >bear-pit every Friday. > >>> >>> >> > >-- >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 Sun Aug 9 10:49:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:57 +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 KAA15614 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:49 +1000 Received: from modem72.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.72] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z5JiQ-0002pp-00; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:52:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:41:51 +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 In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" --------- From: Jesper Dybdal Yes. I sincerely hope that the WBF and its ZOs/NBOs will not establish WBFLC as an authoritative law interpreter. -- +++[ Under Kaplan the Committee both devised and interpreted the laws. Remembering that the 'laws' are in fact the international rules of a game, comparison with Parliaments is less appropriate in my view than comparison with the interpretation of the rules of other games played internationally. I do not share the opinion that it makes sense to have different interpretations of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge from one country to another and I do not think this is the intention. NBOs do ask for guidance when they encounter a problem and we supply it - the President has recently referred one such enquiry to me and I have assisted the NBO concerned. Another NBO has approached me direct with a question in the last few days. That is how it operates and the communication is not via public channels. When we deal with such enquiries personal opinion is set aside; I may debate commas with you here but I stay with the intentions of the WBF when giving formal Opinion to those who seek it. What is the case, and to be recognized, is that having given a meaning to the Laws there are still variations in the attachment of values to some descriptive terms present in the Laws, some of which values generate heat in BLML. ~ Grattan ~] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 10:49:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:52 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA15607 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:45 +1000 Received: from modem72.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.72] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z5JiN-0002pp-00; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:52:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 23:59:28 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: KRAllison@aol.com > > My suggestion was to add two words, +++[ Edgar was always very difficult or impossible to persuade on the English grammar of the laws. He was certainly a good exponent of a certain style of English, but not an open-minded one in discussion of his view of what he wrote, as the long archive of my exchanges with him bears witness. I think we have no shortage of wordsmiths in the current committee. ~ Grattan ~] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 10:49:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:58 +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 KAA15618 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:50 +1000 Received: from modem72.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.72] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z5JiS-0002pp-00; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:52:08 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:50:46 +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 In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" > From: David Stevenson > > > > I don't think this is what L92D says. > +++[ In my observation, most Conditions of Contest include a procedure for Appeals Committees; these usually say who is entitled to attend an appeal and very often say who is required to attend. They sometimes provide an instruction on the requisites of an appeal for it to be heard. The arrangements must be 'suitable' (Law 80G) - Grattan -] +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 10:49:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:54 +1000 Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA15609 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:49:46 +1000 Received: from modem72.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.72] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z5JiO-0002pp-00; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:52:05 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Tony Musgrove" Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:00:55 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Tony Musgrove > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Add 5 to make sense of this! and TM: > and then subtract 1? > [Do I surmise DS is not a mathematician while TM is so ? DS used to count to 12 reasonably well.....] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 12:48:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 12:48:57 +1000 Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA15830 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 12:48:51 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 0GBBa27848; Sat, 8 Aug 1998 22:50:22 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <35abb756.35cd0e6f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 22:50:22 EDT To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk Cc: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan, >>no shortage of wordsmiths<< That reminds me of our first meetings of the Drafting Committee, when I was warned by Edgar and Roger that the work was only a bit more complex than determining how many angels could dance on the head of a pin . I'm sure we can add two or four words in the interest of clarifying that Law. I'll be in Lille until the 2 Sept., unless, of course, the Women's Team I'm captaining (!) should do extremely well (and with Lynn Deas and Beth Palmer on it I can't count that out) in which case I may persuade myself to stay. If I'd be welcome, I would enjoy attending any Laws Committee meetings that didn't conflict with the Mixed Pairs or Women's Teams. Cheers Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 17:43:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA16177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:43:27 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA16172 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 17:43:21 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA10909 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 00:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808090744.AAA10909@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 00:42:48 -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 Grattan wrote: > > > +++[ In my observation, most Conditions of Contest include > a procedure for Appeals Committees; these usually say who is > entitled to attend an appeal and very often say who is required > to attend. They sometimes provide an instruction on the > requisites of an appeal for it to be heard. The arrangements > must be 'suitable' (Law 80G) - Grattan -] +++ Good idea, I didn't think of that. Looking in the ACBL's Handbook for Appeals Committees, I see the following: ######### G. STANDING After the committee resolves all challenges, it decides if the appealing party has standing to make the appeal...Both members of a partnerhip, and, in a team game, the captain, must concur in the appeal. ######### That makes it pretty clear, at least in ACBL-land. Well, wait a minute. Does it mean that a team can only appeal if "a partnership" plus the captain concur? It looks to me like the "and" should be an "or." No, that wouldn't work either. At any rate, the captain must concur, that's plain. Another thing that is clear is that extra words can sometimes be helpful when communicating: Both members of a partnership in a pairs event must concur in the appeal. In a team game, the captain must concur. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Who forgot he was out of this thread) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 9 19:00:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:00:57 +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 TAA16270 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:00:51 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z5RNc-0005hL-00; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:03:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 23:56:32 +0100 To: Michael Farebrother Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <19980807153018.5961.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <19980807153018.5961.qmail@hotmail.com>, Michael Farebrother writes > >Michael "Of course, the FLB defines neither pairs nor >partnerships, but that's another issue" Farebrother. > Labeo: It may be that a definition of partnership can be inferred from the definition of 'side'. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 05:57:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 05:57:46 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA19941 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 05:57:39 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-139.uunet.be [194.7.14.139]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA25921 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:59:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35CDEF36.6B4E67F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 20:49:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Fifth Friday X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bdc324$ac730520$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by carbon.uunet.be id VAA25921 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >=20 > In Wales we have a Simultaneous Pairs event which is played during a > particular week, whichever night your club has a suitable slot. We have > not had any problems, and if we did have, we would know how to deal wit= h > it. I think that at least 95% of bridge players are basically honest. I= t > would be a pity if the upright and honest were to suffer for the > minority who get their pleasure by cheating. We do not as a rule > organise our competitions ( other than the most presitious) with > security in mind, and then it is surely only so that "right" is seen to > be done. I would have no objection whatsoever to YC holding a heat of > Fifth Friday on a Thursday. I hope if I was in London I would be > welcome. >=20 Then drive to Bristol on the friday, and play the same boards again ! No, I am joking. Much as I would like to heve John participate on Thursday, and Dany would surely join on any day but friday, and even if I realise that Tony's game on friday morning (in Sydney) is finished more than 24 hours before Gordy begins his in Alaska, I feel somewhat strange at having a tournament called "fifth friday" to be played on Thursday or, in this case, Saturday the first of August. I am running this event for clubs. I would like to see more clubs join in, but they should decide to make it a regular event. In some years, I wuold like to see every major city in the world participating. Surely there is some place in London where they play duplicate bridge on fridays. I would hate to see that club be refused into our fould because the YC is already playing the hands on thursdays. I have already been asked by the other main club in Antwerp to join, but they'd play on thursdays. Then what with the p=EAople that frequent both tournaments ? > I have visited Herman's web page, and was most impressed. > Anne >=20 > > > >Could the YC play it on Thursday? It's our social night and it is > >match-points. It would be much more attractive to our social members > >than to the hard-bitten cynical bridge-players who cause mayhem in the > >bear-pit every Friday. > > I see no problem in having a heat that uses IMPs locally be integrated into the match-point world rankings and I have even offered to calculate an IMP-result solely for them ... --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 06:41:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 06:41:38 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA20010 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 06:41:32 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA07672 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808092043.NAA07672@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 13:41:31 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote (late at night) > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > +++[ In my observation, most Conditions of Contest include > > a procedure for Appeals Committees; these usually say who is > > entitled to attend an appeal and very often say who is required > > to attend. They sometimes provide an instruction on the > > requisites of an appeal for it to be heard. The arrangements > > must be 'suitable' (Law 80G) - Grattan -] +++ > > Good idea, I didn't think of that. Looking in the ACBL's Handbook for > Appeals Committees, I see the following: > > ######### > G. STANDING > > After the committee resolves all challenges, it decides if the > appealing party has standing to make the appeal...Both members of a > partnerhip, and, in a team game, the captain, must concur in the > appeal. > ######### > > That makes it pretty clear, at least in ACBL-land. Well, wait a > minute. Does it mean that a team can only appeal if "a partnership" > plus the captain concur? It looks to me like the "and" should be an > "or." No, that wouldn't work either. At any rate, the captain must > concur, that's plain. > > Another thing that is clear is that extra words can sometimes be > helpful when communicating: > Both members of a partnership in a pairs event must concur in the > appeal. In a team game, the captain must concur.> > Marv, I think you've left something out. "Concur" means that there's someone else involved, and you should identify that someone. Here's the apparent intent: ######## Both members of a partnership in a pairs event must concur in the appeal. In a team game, in addition to both members of a partnership, the captain must concur. ########## This seems quite reasonable, and accords with the ACBL wording." However, while reasonable, the handbook's intent does not accord with the intent of L92D. I should have known better than to suppose it would. The "and" is wrong, since L92D says "or." It also fails to mention that an absent member is deemed to concur. My conclusion, offered while eating some crow: L92D is correct as it stands if the remaining comma is removed to make it grammatical. The first comma was evidently removed accidentally. However, the meaning of L92D is the same (and grammatically okay) with two commas or with none. While more than a little ambiguous, it says that both members of a partnership, or, in the case of a team contest, the captain and at least one member, must concur. The last sentence, "An absent member shall be deemed to concur," becomes hard to reconcile with the first sentence when a team is involved. A reasonable interpretation is that this sentence applies to pair events only. Otherwise it would permit the captain alone to make an appeal, which might not be the intent. Who would testify? On the other hand, if it's a playing captain, the ruling occurred at his/her table, and his/her partner is absent...? Grattan said, ###... intending no change, the comma has been wiped after 'contest)' and before 'or'. I am convinced that no alteration has been intended in the effect of the Law as it was in the 1975 code:"No appeal shall be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual contest) or, in team events, the captain, concur in appealing,"### Actually, at least in my edition, the word in 1975 was "concurs," a simple mistake in English that was fixed in my 1990 revision. ####But, yes, the law as it is now set in the 1998 book produces some ambiguity, depending whether in 92D you read 'pair' and 'team' respectively to be the contestants. I have included this in an Addendum to the papers circulated for Lille. ~~ Grattan That's reasonable, reading "pair" and "team" that way, but leaves open the question concerning with whom the captain concurs. While L92A says that the captain alone may appeal, L92D requires that there be concurrence before the appeal can be heard. How about this: D. Concurrence of Appellants Other than in an individual contest, an appeal shall not be heard unless both members of the pair involved concur in appealing. In a team contest the captain may represent one of the pair for this purpose. An absent member shall be deemed to concur unless a team captain rules otherwise. If a playing captain is a member of the pair involved, and his/her partner is absent, he/she may then (and only then) bring the appeal alone. If one member of a pair does not concur, or is absent, the captain may concur in his/her place. If the captain and one member of the pair is absent, they both are deemed to concur. A concurring pair (both present) do not need a captain's concurrence. Now that I re-read the 1975, 1987/90, and 1997 versions, I believe this may have been the intended meaning through all three. If not, I believe that L92D's wording nevertheless leads to these conclusions. Moreover, they are reasonable, as the right to an appeal should be respected unless it is brought by a maverick who is refused concurrence. See David, it's easy! Only took me two hours. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > (Who forgot he was out of this thread) > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 12:33:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:33:36 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA20765 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:33:25 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA8293 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:35:43 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980810043525.0078b530@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:35:25 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808092043.NAA07672@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:41 09-08-98 -0700, you wrote: >Marv wrote (late at night) >> >> Grattan wrote: >> > > >> > +++[ In my observation, most Conditions of Contest include >> > a procedure for Appeals Committees; these usually say who is >> > entitled to attend an appeal and very often say who is required >> > to attend. They sometimes provide an instruction on the >> > requisites of an appeal for it to be heard. The arrangements >> > must be 'suitable' (Law 80G) - Grattan -] +++ >> >> Good idea, I didn't think of that. Looking in the ACBL's Handbook >for >> Appeals Committees, I see the following: >> >> ######### >> G. STANDING >> >> After the committee resolves all challenges, it decides if the >> appealing party has standing to make the appeal...Both members of a >> partnerhip, and, in a team game, the captain, must concur in the >> appeal. >> ######### >> >> That makes it pretty clear, at least in ACBL-land. Well, wait a >> minute. Does it mean that a team can only appeal if "a partnership" >> plus the captain concur? It looks to me like the "and" should be an >> "or." No, that wouldn't work either. At any rate, the captain must >> concur, that's plain. >> >> Another thing that is clear is that extra words can sometimes be >> helpful when communicating: > >> Both members of a partnership in a pairs event must concur in the >> appeal. In a team game, the captain must concur.> >> >Marv, I think you've left something out. "Concur" means that there's >someone else involved, and you should identify that someone. Here's >the apparent intent: > >######## >Both members of a partnership in a pairs event must concur in the >appeal. In a team game, in addition to both members of a partnership, >the captain must concur. >########## > >This seems quite reasonable, and accords with the ACBL wording." >However, while reasonable, the handbook's intent does not accord with > the intent of L92D. I should have known better than to suppose it >would. The "and" is wrong, since L92D says "or." It also fails to >mention that an absent member is deemed to concur. > >My conclusion, offered while eating some crow: L92D is correct as it >stands if the remaining comma is removed to make it grammatical. The >first comma was evidently removed accidentally. However, the meaning >of L92D is the same (and grammatically okay) with two commas or with >none. While more than a little ambiguous, it says that both members >of a partnership, or, in the case of a team contest, the captain and >at least one member, must concur. > >The last sentence, "An absent member shall be deemed to concur," >becomes hard to reconcile with the first sentence when a team is >involved. A reasonable interpretation is that this sentence applies >to pair events only. Otherwise it would permit the captain alone to >make an appeal, which might not be the intent. Who would testify? On >the other hand, if it's a playing captain, the ruling occurred at >his/her table, and his/her partner is absent...? > >Grattan said, >###... intending no change, the comma has been wiped after 'contest)' > >and before 'or'. I am convinced that no alteration has been intended >in the effect of the Law as it was in the 1975 code:"No appeal shall >be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual >contest) or, in team events, the captain, concur in appealing,"### > >Actually, at least in my edition, the word in 1975 was "concurs," a >simple mistake in English that was fixed in my 1990 revision. > >####But, yes, the law as it is now set in the 1998 book produces >some ambiguity, depending whether in 92D you read 'pair' and >'team' respectively to be the contestants. I have included this in an > >Addendum to the papers circulated for Lille. ~~ Grattan > >That's reasonable, reading "pair" and "team" that way, but leaves >open the question concerning with whom the captain concurs. While >L92A says that the captain alone may appeal, L92D requires that >there be concurrence before the appeal can be heard. > >How about this: > >D. Concurrence of Appellants > Other than in an individual contest, an appeal shall not be > heard unless both members of the pair involved concur in > appealing. In a team contest the captain may represent one > of the pair for this purpose. An absent member shall be > deemed to concur unless a team captain rules otherwise. > >If a playing captain is a member of the pair involved, and his/her >partner is absent, he/she may then (and only then) bring the appeal >alone. If one member of a pair does not concur, or is absent, the >captain may concur in his/her place. If the captain and one member of >the pair is absent, they both are deemed to concur. A concurring pair >(both present) do not need a captain's concurrence. > >Now that I re-read the 1975, 1987/90, and 1997 versions, I believe >this may have been the intended meaning through all three. If not, I >believe that L92D's wording nevertheless leads to these conclusions. >Moreover, they are reasonable, as the right to an appeal should be >respected unless it is brought by a maverick who is refused >concurrence. > >See David, it's easy! Only took me two hours. > >> Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) >> (Who forgot he was out of this thread) >> > to be clear. can we summarize the subject and come to terms in the following cases perhaps? a) one pair protests and capt. doesnt concur b) capt protests and others dont concur c) all members concur, but captain isnt there (away) d) one member protests, other dont concur but cptn isnt availabale (away) regards, anton btw it is an interesting discussion after all Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 12:33:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:33:21 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20758 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:33:11 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z5hnz-0002eD-00; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 02:35:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 23:15:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808092043.NAA07672@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: >See David, it's easy! Only took me two hours. I'll bet someone thinks they have a better version, as well. This shows the difficulty of writing Laws. Not only will someone claim a better wording with the same intent, someone else will think you have the intent wrong and want to change the wording for that reason. So, that was just the *first* two hours. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 12:43:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:43:23 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA20809 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:43:16 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA9034 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:45:33 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980810044515.011060a0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 04:45:15 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Fifth Friday In-Reply-To: <35CDEF36.6B4E67F@village.uunet.be> References: <01bdc324$ac730520$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:49 09-08-98 +0200, you wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >>=20 >> In Wales we have a Simultaneous Pairs event which is played during a >> particular week, whichever night your club has a suitable slot. We have >> not had any problems, and if we did have, we would know how to deal with >> it. I think that at least 95% of bridge players are basically honest. It >> would be a pity if the upright and honest were to suffer for the >> minority who get their pleasure by cheating. We do not as a rule >> organise our competitions ( other than the most presitious) with >> security in mind, and then it is surely only so that "right" is seen to >> be done. I would have no objection whatsoever to YC holding a heat of >> Fifth Friday on a Thursday. I hope if I was in London I would be >> welcome. >>=20 > >Then drive to Bristol on the friday, and play the same boards again ! > >No, I am joking. > >Much as I would like to heve John participate on Thursday, and Dany >would surely join on any day but friday, and even if I realise that >Tony's game on friday morning (in Sydney) is finished more than 24 hours >before Gordy begins his in Alaska, I feel somewhat strange at having a >tournament called "fifth friday" to be played on Thursday or, in this >case, Saturday the first of August. > >I am running this event for clubs. I would like to see more clubs join >in, but they should decide to make it a regular event. > >In some years, I wuold like to see every major city in the world >participating. Surely there is some place in London where they play >duplicate bridge on fridays. I would hate to see that club be refused >into our fould because the YC is already playing the hands on thursdays. > >I have already been asked by the other main club in Antwerp to join, but >they'd play on thursdays. Then what with the p=EAople that frequent both >tournaments ? > >> I have visited Herman's web page, and was most impressed. >> Anne >>=20 >> > >> >Could the YC play it on Thursday? It's our social night and it is >> >match-points. It would be much more attractive to our social members >> >than to the hard-bitten cynical bridge-players who cause mayhem in the >> >bear-pit every Friday. >> > > >I see no problem in having a heat that uses IMPs locally be integrated >into the match-point world rankings and I have even offered to calculate >an IMP-result solely for them ... > > >--=20 >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > I think herman is starting a situation in which we can play a whole week different games (like we have in holland thwe 'ruitenboer'tournament (each day a different set) provided WE give the scores in a we they can be recalculated in short time. I think we all would love to see it happen and then we can have real world-around championships with (virtual) cups - from hotmail.com ::)) - i suppose. I surely hope we can manage to get lots of tournaments trough tis way; my club loves it. regards, anton witzen Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 13:02:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:02:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA20835 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:02:00 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z5iFu-0003Fn-00; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 03:04:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 03:59:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980810043525.0078b530@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >to be clear. can we summarize the subject and come to terms in the >following cases perhaps? There are two separate items in this thread: what the current Law means, and what people think it ought to say. >a) one pair protests and capt. doesnt concur This is the main argument. I believe that the current Law allows an appeal. I accept that was not the intention but owing to the wording of the Law it is now permitted. >b) capt protests and others dont concur No appeal. No concurrence! >c) all members concur, but captain isnt there (away) That's easy: appeal is OK [because the Captain is assumed to concur]. >d) one member protests, other dont concur but cptn isnt availabale (away) I don't think Marv thought of this one in his two hours! The captain is assumed to concur but who with? I think the current Law is ambiguous on this one. >btw it is an interesting discussion after all True. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 13:56:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:56:26 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA20934 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:56:19 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAB08866; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808100358.UAB08866@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Advocates in Appeals Cases Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 20:57:43 -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 Going through the ACBL Handbook of Appeals Committees, I discovered something I didn't know before: Either party is allowed to have an advocate who presents the facts and arguments for their side of the case. The player(s) so represented may be called on as witnesses to answer questions, but cannot volunteer additional information or argue on their own behalf. When one reads through the NABC casebooks, it is obvious that many parties would have been wise to have had an advocate representing them. A good advocate would be knowledgeable about the Laws and ACBL regulations, savvy about the right words to say (and not to say) in order to win, have good debating skills, and would not be subject to the strong emotions that often adversely affect a participant's case. An advocate would also be the best person to give an appellant advice on the merits of the appeal. His/her negative opinion would be accepted more readily than that of some unknown TD. Who's going to do the job? Ideally, there would be a professional society of advocates, independent of the ACBL of course, who volunteer their services. They would develop standards for membership, meet regularly in seminars to update their knowledge; give examinations, written and oral to prospective members; hold mock AC meetings to hone their skills, consult with each other on difficult cases, do post-mortems on cases that are lost, and so on. Unfortunately, I don't see that many qualified people would be willing to perform this service for free, and I doubt that charging a fee would be successful. Meanwhile, I recommend that those appearing before an AC try to find a good advocate to present their side of the case. They say a person who represents himself in a legal matter has a fool for a client. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 10 22:02:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:02:29 +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 WAA22385 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:02:22 +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 IAA17650 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980810080527.006d2d38@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:05:27 -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 10:28 PM 8/5/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > For the moment I do not see how changing the law to give >redress for all damage, whether consequent or subsequent, would work >in practice. The NOS is to be protected against any bad score once >an infraction has occurred, no matter how it has been obtained? Such >an arrangement seems to allow, once there has been an infraction, >total licence to throw the game out of the window so that the play >may as well cease on a board when an infraction is determined, >an adjusted score being awarded.~ Grattan ]++ I think that's a misreading of the intent of those who oppose the Kaplan approach. We do not suggest protecting the NOS against any bad score, no matter how obtained, which, indeed, would be the apparent consequence of expanding protection to include damage which is (merely) subsequent rather than consequent. The point is to eliminate Kaplan's distinction between consequent and merely subsequent, and to put in its place a wholly different distinction: Once an infraction has occurred, the NOS should be protected against any damage which they would not have suffered had there been no infraction. That, of course, will have its own subtleties and problems of interpretation, but would establish a standard which is not dependent on judging the "egregiousness" of bridge errors. 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 Aug 10 22:32:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:32:20 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22766 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:32:13 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA18146 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980810083518.006d570c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:35:18 -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 01:33 AM 8/7/98 +0100, John wrote: >So I call the Director when the infraction occurs and tell him "because >of this infraction, and directly as a consequence of it I am now going >to take a double shot". Please rule when I get a poor result. But you don't -- you call the director when a *possible* infraction occurs. Whether or not the possible infraction is a real infraction will only be determined after the fact, when the hand is evaluated, LAs determined, etc. When you get your poor result, that determination will be made, and if it doesn't go your way, you will suffer as a result of your deciding to "take a double shot". A risk-free double shot would require you to ask the director to "please rule *now*, so I know whether I can afford the double shot I want to take", which will result only in the director laughing at you (politely out of earshot, one hopes). 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 Aug 10 23:30:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:30:12 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA23107 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:30:06 +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 JAA19550 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980810093313.0068cb28@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:33:13 -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 01:28 AM 8/8/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+++ [This in itself should not happen since the general principle >throughout the laws is to judge each player by his own playing >capabilities. We have no disagreement on this point.] Grattan +++ For this to be fair, adjudicators must have some standard of "his own playing capabilities" that can be applied independently of the case being adjudicated; I have serious doubts as to whether this is at all appropriate or practical. If two players take an identical but inferior action in a given situation, and both offer the same (albeit misguided) explanation for their deciding on their action (and the adjudicators believe them), and both produce the same outcome, should their legal rights really depend on what the adjudicator believes they might have done in some other unrelated situation at some other time in some other event under some other circumstances? Should they have different rights? Should they get different adjudications? If a player makes an honest but wrong judgment in some situation, should his rights depend on someone's opinion as to whether his judgment would have been better on a different day? Isn't there a more important general principle that must be assumed to be inherent in the laws if the laws are to function -- that each situation should be judged on its own merits, not as a function of the adjudicators' personal opinions of the players involved? 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 Aug 10 23:50:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:50:39 +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 XAA23157 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:50:30 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:52:26 +0100 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21597 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:47:37 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Fifth Friday In-Reply-To: <35CDEF36.6B4E67F@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:47:24 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Anne Jones wrote: > >=20 > > In Wales we have a Simultaneous Pairs event which is played during a > > particular week, whichever night your club has a suitable slot. We have > > not had any problems, and if we did have, we would know how to deal wit= h > > it. I think that at least 95% of bridge players are basically honest. I= t > > would be a pity if the upright and honest were to suffer for the > > minority who get their pleasure by cheating. We do not as a rule > > organise our competitions ( other than the most presitious) with > > security in mind, and then it is surely only so that "right" is seen to > > be done. I would have no objection whatsoever to YC holding a heat of > > Fifth Friday on a Thursday. I hope if I was in London I would be > > welcome. > >=20 >=20 > Then drive to Bristol on the friday, and play the same boards again ! >=20 > No, I am joking. >=20 > Much as I would like to heve John participate on Thursday, and Dany > would surely join on any day but friday, and even if I realise that > Tony's game on friday morning (in Sydney) is finished more than 24 hours > before Gordy begins his in Alaska, I feel somewhat strange at having a > tournament called "fifth friday" to be played on Thursday or, in this > case, Saturday the first of August. >=20 > I am running this event for clubs. I would like to see more clubs join > in, but they should decide to make it a regular event. >=20 > In some years, I wuold like to see every major city in the world > participating. Surely there is some place in London where they play > duplicate bridge on fridays. I would hate to see that club be refused > into our fould because the YC is already playing the hands on thursdays. >=20 > I have already been asked by the other main club in Antwerp to join, but > they'd play on thursdays. Then what with the p=EAople that frequent both > tournaments ? I tend to agree with Herman. I'm not at all worried about the=20 possibility of cheating, but the inconvenience caused to people who may innocently turn up to two different clubs who are running=20 the event on two different nights does seem a real problem. At the moment the event is small enough that this is unlikely to happen (although I have played at my local club and at the Young Chelsea on consecutive nights more than once ... and the YC is much further away than the closest of the other clubs that took part last time!), but if the number of participants grows, it could be more of a problem, especially in the more compact countries such as mine. Like everybody else, I would love more clubs to join us, but it=20 doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that they make some effort to fit in with the existing arrangements. Maybe a more liberal attitude could be adopted for the SS Finland competition each October, so that more clubs could test the waters on a night that was convenient for=20 them, and realize how much fun they're missing! I wouldn't be against making an exception for Dany, or for anybody else with a very good reason for not playing on Fridays. =09Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 00:25:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:25:56 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA25476 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:25:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA30631 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00380; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:28:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:28:12 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808101428.KAA00380@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >a) one pair protests and capt. doesnt concur > > This is the main argument. I believe that the current Law allows > an appeal. I accept that was not the intention but owing to the wording > of the Law it is now permitted. This seems correct to me, too. I would only add that I believe the SO has the right to enforce stricter conditions. In particular, they could require the captain's concurrence. I would have given the same answer based on the 1975 language, not that that is relevant any longer. That is, I don't believe the missing comma changes anything. > >b) capt protests and others dont concur > > No appeal. No concurrence! Clear enough. > >c) all members concur, but captain isnt there (away) > > That's easy: appeal is OK [because the Captain is assumed to concur]. Also clear. In fact, the only relevant parties are the two players at the table where the ruling was made and the captain. Opinions of other members of the team are not relevant. > >d) one member protests, other dont concur but cptn isnt availabale (away) > > I don't think Marv thought of this one in his two hours! The captain > is assumed to concur but who with? I think the current Law is ambiguous > on this one. I think the law allows an appeal. The absent member (captain) is deemed to concur, and in context "concur" means "concur with lodging the appeal." So one member of the pair plus the captain (are deemed to) wish to appeal, and the appeal is permitted. Again, I think SO's could require more stringent conditions. The only limitation is that they cannot require a specific party to be present; that would overrule "An absent member shall be deemed to concur." ----- In considering changes to L92D, I would recommend that the LC be reluctant to forbid appeals when they might make sense. The SO can always create stricter rules if it wants them. (Perhaps it is even worth saying so explicitly, although the general authority under L80F and L80G seems sufficient.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 01:01:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:01:26 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25584 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:01:14 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA27169; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:02:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.71) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027090; Mon Aug 10 10:02:13 1998 Received: by har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC44D.B0579E60@har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:57:38 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC44D.B0579E60@har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Tony Musgrove , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Grattan'" Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:32:59 -0400 Encoding: 28 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Could it be because he has had MadDog for a partner recently instead of you? Or, perhaps more likely, is the lemonade rotting his brian? :-)) ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 8:00 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Tony Musgrove > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Add 5 to make sense of this! and TM: > and then subtract 1? > [Do I surmise DS is not a mathematician while TM is so ? DS used to count to 12 reasonably well.....] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 01:01:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:01:15 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25578 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:01:03 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA15073; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:02:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.71) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014961; Mon Aug 10 10:02:05 1998 Received: by har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC44D.AB2386C0@har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:57:29 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC44D.AB2386C0@har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridgelaws , "'Grattan'" , Craig Senior Subject: RE: my proposal to the WBFLC Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:27:06 -0400 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The difficulty that has arisen is that in some jurisdictions the standard of the player's peers is taken to be the players in the event, rather than players of equivalent ability to the one whose actions are being evaluated. This serves to deter players from playing up, or else denies them the protection of the laws if they are so impertinent as to try to improve themselves and upgrade their level of play by so doing. An objective standard, such as "normal" does not deny redress to a flight B player who deigns to enter the Spingold if a world class player on the other team commits an offense and the flight B'er plays only slightly above his own level rather than at world class. The same would apply to the flight C player who takes on an open sectional or regional field: a case where the director would be most unlikely to know how to evaluate his true playing ability and might well judge by the level of his entry rather than a fairer measure. If we want developing players to advance, we must remove artificial barriers to such progress from the laws. When he plays against the experts, they WILL be penalised for their revokes. They SHOULD be penalised for taking advantage of UI without the developing player having to play at a level that for him would win a Bols. Craig Senior ---------- From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 8:28 PM To: Craig Senior; Bridgelaws Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Craig Senior > > What I do find offensive is for a lesser > player to lose his rights against a strong offender because he does not > play as good bridge as some arbiter thinks he should. > +++ [This in itself should not happen since the general principle throughout the laws is to judge each player by his own playing capabilities. We have no disagreement on this point.] Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 02:19:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:19:04 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA25925 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:18:57 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.68.7.183]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980810162048.GMPU27163@jay-apfelbaum> for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:20:48 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:17:27 -0400 Message-ID: <01bdc47a$5e1dafe0$b707440c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After some thought, I decided to reply in a new thread. It seems to me the discussion is moving away from the literal wording of the laws. Law 92A: A contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. Law 92D: An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual contest) or the Captain of a team, concur in appealing. An absent member shall be deemed to concur. First question: Who may appeal? ANSWER: The laws (92A) are clear that a contestant may appeal for a ruling made at his table. It is also clear that his Captain may appeal a ruling made at either table at which his or her team is playing. The phrase "contestant or his Captain" is in the disjunctive. This necessarily means that EITHER may appeal. Further, as by definition Captain need not be a contestant (otherwise why have the word there at all) there is no need for the Captain to be at the table. The Laws must be read to reach a logical result. While interpretative statements from the law makers are very helpful to resolve ambiguities, where the language is clear there is no need to refer to the intent of the law makers. The only way that "made at his table" makes any sense for a Captain is if it is limited to the tables at which his/her team is playing. Therefore, a contestant may appeal any ruling made at his or her table. A Captain may appeal any ruling made at a table his or team is playing. ******** Second Question: Who has to concur so the appeal may be heard? ANSWER: Any single contestant in an individual event. Both members of the partnership for a pair event. Either both members of the partnership or the Captain for a team event. As there was no debate over individual or pair events, I will deal only with team events. The literal wording of the law permits no other interpretation. Consider the phrase, "both members of a pair or the Captain of a team." The pair must act together for the appeal to be heard. The Captain need not act with the pair. The phrase "or" means that either both members OR the Captain can appeal. **************** I take no position on whether this wording is the way this SHOULD be. Only that this is the way this IS. The law makers can decide whether this is the result they intended. If not, then they should discuss what word changes are needed. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 03:35:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:35:51 +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 DAA26095 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:35:42 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z5vtR-0004fu-00; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:38:02 +0000 Message-ID: <6GPD2lACZwz1EwTz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:40:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Reply-To: Quango 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 Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin 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 Tue Aug 11 03:35:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:35:50 +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 DAA26096 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:35:42 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z5vtR-0004ft-00; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:38:02 +0000 Message-ID: <6mPD+hAAYwz1Ewxh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:38:56 +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: <3.0.1.32.19980810093313.0068cb28@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:28 AM 8/8/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>+++ [This in itself should not happen since the general principle >>throughout the laws is to judge each player by his own playing >>capabilities. We have no disagreement on this point.] Grattan +++ > >For this to be fair, adjudicators must have some standard of "his own >playing capabilities" that can be applied independently of the case being >adjudicated; I have serious doubts as to whether this is at all appropriate >or practical. > >If two players take an identical but inferior action in a given situation, >and both offer the same (albeit misguided) explanation for their deciding >on their action (and the adjudicators believe them), and both produce the >same outcome, should their legal rights really depend on what the >adjudicator believes they might have done in some other unrelated situation >at some other time in some other event under some other circumstances? >Should they have different rights? Should they get different adjudications? > >If a player makes an honest but wrong judgment in some situation, should >his rights depend on someone's opinion as to whether his judgment would >have been better on a different day? > >Isn't there a more important general principle that must be assumed to be >inherent in the laws if the laws are to function -- that each situation >should be judged on its own merits, not as a function of the adjudicators' >personal opinions of the players involved? No, I don't think so. When the day comes that Jeff Meckstroth is treated identically to a beginner in *any* Laws situation then humanity has been completely lost and bridge will no longer be worth playing. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 06:01:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:01:04 +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 GAA26521 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:00:57 +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 QAA02216 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980810160357.006d3168@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:03:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <6mPD+hAAYwz1Ewxh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980810093313.0068cb28@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:38 PM 8/10/98 +0100, David wrote: > No, I don't think so. When the day comes that Jeff Meckstroth is >treated identically to a beginner in *any* Laws situation then humanity >has been completely lost and bridge will no longer be worth playing. But even Jeff has his rare bad days. And if he is under the weather and not playing well that day, and commits an uncharacteristicly "egregious" (by his usual standards) error, should his score be less than someone of lesser stature's would be just because he's Jeff Meckstroth? I will grant that because he's Jeff Meckstroth he should be held to higher standards of knowledge of the laws, of ethics, of knowledge of unusual bidding systems, etc., but if he screws up a hand by making a pure bridge mistake, it just proves that he's human, and he should be entitled to the same protection as anyone else who screws up the same hand in the same way. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 06:27:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:27:00 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26616 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:26:54 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA23579; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808102028.NAA23579@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "JApfelbaum" , "BLML Group" Cc: Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:26:09 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > > Law 92A: A contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review of any ruling > made at his table by the Director. Since a contestant is an individual in an individual event, a pair in a pair event, and a team in a team event, it is pretty obvious that the word "contestant" is a mistake here, and that "player" is the proper word, so let's assume "player," as Jay has done. > > Law 92D: An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of a pair (except > in an individual contest) or the Captain of a team, concur in appealing. An > absent member shall be deemed to concur. > > First question: Who may appeal? > > ANSWER: The laws (92A) are clear that a contestant may appeal for a ruling > made at his table. It is also clear that his Captain may appeal a ruling > made at either table at which his or her team is playing. > > The phrase "contestant or his Captain" is in the disjunctive. This > necessarily means that EITHER may appeal. Further, as by definition Captain > need not be a contestant (otherwise why have the word there at all) there is > no need for the Captain to be at the table. True. Any player at the table, or a team captain (non-playing or otherwise), may appeal. > > The Laws must be read to reach a logical result. While interpretative > statements from the law makers are very helpful to resolve ambiguities, > where the language is clear there is no need to refer to the intent of the > law makers. > > The only way that "made at his table" makes any sense for a Captain is if it > is limited to the tables at which his/her team is playing. Of course. > > Therefore, a contestant may appeal any ruling made at his or her table. A > Captain may appeal any ruling made at a table his or team is playing. Yes, but the appeal will not be heard without the concurrence required by L92D. One person may file an appeal, and even get to an AC meeting, but at that time he/she will be asked to show that the concurrence requirements of L92D have been met. > ******** > > Second Question: Who has to concur so the appeal may be heard? > > ANSWER: > Any single contestant in an individual event. > Both members of the partnership for a pair event. > Either both members of the partnership or the Captain for a team event. > Wrong answer, as I see it. The third item should be: For a team event, either both members of the partnership or one member and the captain. > As there was no debate over individual or pair events, I will deal only with > team events. > > The literal wording of the law permits no other interpretation. Consider the > phrase, "both members of a pair or the Captain of a team." The pair must act > together for the appeal to be heard. The Captain need not act with the pair. > The phrase "or" means that either both members OR the Captain can appeal. L92D does not address the matter of who can appeal, as your last sentence implies. It deals with the concurrence necessary for an appeal to be heard. The words used are "concur in appealing." With whom is the captain concurring when he acts alone? Himself? I quote from the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees: "Both members of a partnership, and, in a team game, the captain, must concur in the appeal." Are you saying that this handbook, presently being used by Alan LeBendig for NABC AC seminars, is wrong? (Of course it *is* wrong, but it's correct in not giving standing to a captain acting alone when the required concurrence has been refused.) > > **************** > > I take no position on whether this wording is the way this SHOULD be. Only > that this is the way this IS. The law makers can decide whether this is the > result they intended. If not, then they should discuss what word changes are > needed. > Since L92A and L92D are evidently not written with sufficient clarity, a rewrite is probably in order. The handbook should have a rewrite too. I'd be glad to do it, no charge. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 06:59:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:59:34 +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 GAA26770 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:59:28 +1000 Received: from ip233.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.233]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980810210245.FFL2884.fep4@ip233.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:02:45 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:01:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d051ea.798398@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 Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:41:51 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >From: Jesper Dybdal >Yes. I sincerely hope that the WBF and its ZOs/NBOs will not >establish WBFLC as an authoritative law interpreter. >--=20 >+++[ Under Kaplan the Committee both devised and interpreted >the laws. Remembering that the 'laws' are in fact the international=20 >rules of a game, comparison with Parliaments is less appropriate >in my view than comparison with the interpretation of the rules >of other games played internationally. It is true that the fact that we have no separate global "supreme court" makes the comparison with parliaments and courts of law less than perfect. (And I admit that I have no idea whatsoever about the interpretation of the rules of other games played internationally.) However, I still find it important that the highest authority on law interpretation is not the legislators themselves. I maintain the Danish tournament regulations, and in that respect act as a bridge legislator in a small way myself. If I should happen to make a mistake so that a regulation as written seems to mean something different from what I intended it to mean, then I would hate to have to also be the one to decide whether the mistake means that our rules really _are_ different from the intention or whether the wording is vague enough to allow us to rule according to the intention (or for that matter whether we _want_ to rule according to the intention). If desired, I will of course provide information on the intention as well as my personal opinion on the ruling question, but I am very happy that the final ruling is the responsibility of somebody else (the national AC). >I do not share the opinion >that it makes sense to have different interpretations of the Laws >of Duplicate Bridge from one country to another and I do not >think this is the intention. I agree with this in principle. But I still find it so important to have some separation between law making and law interpretation that I would prefer to have the goal of equal interpretation reached by real law changes when and if turns out that laws are interpreted differently. I also think that the boundary between "variations on the attachment of values to some descriptive terms", as you describe it below, and "pure" law interpretation is not always clear, and that it is very reasonable for the national authorities to be the ones to draw the line between such variations (where they will follow their own ideas) and pure law interpretation (where they will usually follow any recommendations from WBFLC). >NBOs do ask for guidance when they >encounter a problem and we supply it - the President has recently >referred one such enquiry to me and I have assisted the NBO=20 >concerned. Another NBO has approached me direct with >a question in the last few days. That is how it operates and the >communication is not via public channels. When we deal with=20 >such enquiries personal opinion is set aside; I may debate=20 >commas with you here but I stay with the intentions of >the WBF when giving formal Opinion to those who seek it.=20 This is fine. I would certainly not want the WBFLC to stop giving guidance. As I hope I've made clear, I very much appreciate any information I can get on background, intention, and opinion from the WBFLC and its members. All I'm saying is that guidance from the WBFLC should have clearly less authority than the letter of the law. Such guidance should simply be information to be considered in relation to the wording of the laws by the authoritative interpreters: the national authorities. > What is the case, and to be recognized, is that having >given a meaning to the Laws there are still variations in the=20 >attachment of values to some descriptive terms present in the=20 >Laws, some of which values generate heat in BLML.=20 Yes, indeed. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 07:28:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:28:38 +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 HAA26914 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:28:32 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA00152; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808102130.OAA00152@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:28:07 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > >a) one pair protests and capt. doesnt concur > > > > This is the main argument. I believe that the current Law allows > > an appeal. I accept that was not the intention but owing to the wording > > of the Law it is now permitted. I agree, but the intention is not known, is it? > > This seems correct to me, too. I would only add that I believe the SO > has the right to enforce stricter conditions. In particular, they > could require the captain's concurrence. I disagree. L92D says *or* the captain, and SOs must comply with the Law. > > I would have given the same answer based on the 1975 language, not that > that is relevant any longer. That is, I don't believe the missing > comma changes anything. > > > >b) capt protests and others dont concur > > > > No appeal. No concurrence! > > Clear enough. > > > >c) all members concur, but captain isnt there (away) > > > > That's easy: appeal is OK [because the Captain is assumed to concur]. That's all members of the partnership, not all members of the team, I hope. As Steve says: > > Also clear. In fact, the only relevant parties are the two players at > the table where the ruling was made and the captain. Opinions of other > members of the team are not relevant. Presence of the captain doesn't matter, if both partners concur. > > > >d) one member protests, other dont concur but cptn isnt availabale (away) > > > > I don't think Marv thought of this one in his two hours! The captain > > is assumed to concur but who with? I think the current Law is ambiguous > > on this one. > Who with? With the protesting member. Any doubt about the missing captain's concurrence must be resolved in favor of the appellant. That is only fair, and I believe that is what L92D says. "An absent member is deemed to concur." The captain is a member of the team, whether he plays or not. > I think the law allows an appeal. The absent member (captain) is > deemed to concur, and in context "concur" means "concur with lodging > the appeal." So one member of the pair plus the captain (are deemed > to) wish to appeal, and the appeal is permitted. Again, I think SO's > could require more stringent conditions. The only limitation is that > they cannot require a specific party to be present; that would overrule > "An absent member shall be deemed to concur." Sounds good to me. > > ----- > In considering changes to L92D, I would recommend that the LC be > reluctant to forbid appeals when they might make sense. The SO can > always create stricter rules if it wants them. (Perhaps it is even > worth saying so explicitly, although the general authority under L80F > and L80G seems sufficient.) And we haven't brought the TD into this. If the TD wants an AC to confirm a ruling, what then? As it stands now, s/he evidently has to persuade one or more participants to make (and concur in) the appeal. Wasn't this previously discussed? I don't remember the "consensus" (excuse the expression), if there was one. It's hard to see how L80F/L80G could be used to supplement L92, or how an SO could create stricter rules, without conflicting with it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 08:16:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:16:21 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA27075 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:16:14 +1000 Received: from jay-apfelbaum ([12.69.2.33]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980810221804.PDSJ27097@jay-apfelbaum>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:18:04 +0000 From: "JApfelbaum" To: , "BLML Group" Cc: Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:14:26 -0400 Message-ID: <01bdc4ac$3c9d4240$2102450c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a response to Marvin's comments on my earlier post. For the sake of brevity, I will eliminate those portions on which we agree, excepting the conclusion. >Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >> >> Law 92A: A contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review of any ruling >> made at his table by the Director. > >> Law 92D: An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of a pair (except >> in an individual contest) or the Captain of a team, concur in appealing. An >> absent member shall be deemed to concur. << message snipped >> >> Therefore, a contestant may appeal any ruling made at his or her table. A >> Captain may appeal any ruling made at a table his or team is playing. > >Yes, but the appeal will not be heard without the concurrence >required by L92D. One person may file an appeal, and even get to an >AC meeting, but at that time he/she will be asked to show that the >concurrence requirements of L92D have been met. > >> ******** >> >> Second Question: Who has to concur so the appeal may be heard? >> >> ANSWER: >> Any single contestant in an individual event. >> Both members of the partnership for a pair event. >> Either both members of the partnership or the Captain for a team event. >> >Wrong answer, as I see it. The third item should be: For a team >event, either both members of the partnership or one member and the >captain. < message snipped > >> The literal wording of the law permits no other interpretation. Consider the >> phrase, "both members of a pair or the Captain of a team." The pair must act >> together for the appeal to be heard. The Captain need not act with the pair. >> The phrase "or" means that either both members OR the Captain can appeal. > >L92D does not address the matter of who can appeal, as your last >sentence implies. It deals with the concurrence necessary for an >appeal to be heard. The words used are "concur in appealing." With >whom is the captain concurring when he acts alone? Himself? I quote >from the ACBL Handbook for Appeals Committees: > >"Both members of a partnership, and, in a team game, the captain, >must concur in the appeal." Are you saying that this handbook, >presently being used by Alan LeBendig for NABC AC seminars, is wrong? >(Of course it *is* wrong, but it's correct in not giving standing to >a captain acting alone when the required concurrence has been >refused.) To make my position clear, Law 92D makes it clear that an appeal must be heard if either the Captain or both members of the pair concur. Read the text of the law again, "An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of a pair . . . or the Captain of a team, concur in appealing." Nowhere in the text can we imply the Captain needs concurrence from either member of the pair at the table. A literal reading requires an appeal be heard when both members of the pair concur. There is no problem here. The literal reading also requires an appeal be heard when the Captain concurs. In the context, concur must refer back to the person who appealed the ruling in the first place. And there is no reason why these people have to be different. Consider that in an individual event there cannot be anyone else to concur with. Putting the list "both members of a pair. . . or the Captain" in the disjunctive means that one OR the other is sufficient. I cannot say this is what the law makers intended. I do say this is what they wrote. I also say that until they change the wording we should not try to interprete this sentence in any other fashion. As the literal wording allows a Captain to press an appeal without his or her team, and to have the appeal be heard without his or her team, we should allow a Captain to appeal a ruling made at either table and without the concurrence of his or her team members prosecute the ruling. (NOTE: I do not think the odds of success very high if the Captain's own team does not support this appeal. However, that is not the issue here.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 08:22:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:22:52 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27117 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:22:45 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z60NE-0002ud-00; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:25:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:47:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants In-Reply-To: <01bdc47a$5e1dafe0$b707440c@jay-apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JApfelbaum wrote: >Second Question: Who has to concur so the appeal may be heard? > >ANSWER: > Either both members of the partnership or the Captain for a team event. >The literal wording of the law permits no other interpretation. Consider the >phrase, "both members of a pair or the Captain of a team." The pair must act >together for the appeal to be heard. The Captain need not act with the pair. >The phrase "or" means that either both members OR the Captain can appeal. This does not make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain it. "... permits no other interpretation ..." - but from what? I see no interpretation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 08:22:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:22:58 +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 IAA27126 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:22:51 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z60NI-0002v6-00; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:25:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:42:32 +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: <01BDC44D.AB2386C0@har-pa2-07.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >The difficulty that has arisen is that in some jurisdictions the standard >of the player's peers is taken to be the players in the event, rather than >players of equivalent ability to the one whose actions are being evaluated. >This serves to deter players from playing up, or else denies them the >protection of the laws if they are so impertinent as to try to improve >themselves and upgrade their level of play by so doing. An objective >standard, such as "normal" does not deny redress to a flight B player who >deigns to enter the Spingold if a world class player on the other team >commits an offense and the flight B'er plays only slightly above his own >level rather than at world class. The same would apply to the flight C >player who takes on an open sectional or regional field: a case where the >director would be most unlikely to know how to evaluate his true playing >ability and might well judge by the level of his entry rather than a fairer >measure. If we want developing players to advance, we must remove >artificial barriers to such progress from the laws. When he plays against >the experts, they WILL be penalised for their revokes. They SHOULD be >penalised for taking advantage of UI without the developing player having >to play at a level that for him would win a Bols. *But* there are two possible solutions, not one. _Either_ re-arrange the Laws so that everyone gets treated the same _or_ make a better effort to rule at the palyer's level. I much prefer the second. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 09:19:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:19:12 +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 JAA27296 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:19:05 +1000 Received: from modem87.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.87] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z61Fj-0006Ko-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:21:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:59:32 +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 In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ++++ I wrote > What is the case, and to be recognized, is that having > given a meaning to the Laws there are still variations in the > attachment of values to some descriptive terms present in the > Laws, some of which values generate heat in BLML. so I am amused when I chance upon a letter written July 1987 to the then chairman of WBFLC - Ed Theus - in which I was urging that the Committee temper the rigidity of its proposals on score adjustment: "It is not for our committee to seek to dictate the policy of Organisations, as distinct from the framework of laws within which they operate. Still less is it right for our committee to enter into the field of value judgements which are, in essence, matters for Appeals Committees. To have a law which, as here, dictates a value judgement is autocratic and inappropriate." And what was I proposing ? This footnote to Law 93B3 in the 1987 Laws: "But may vary a score assigned under Law 12C2 on grounds of equity." Well, of course, if the boy is to have his way at least we will put the footnote somewhere else ! - at Ocho Rios that October the Committee minuted "Held that the next reprinting of the Laws include a footnote appended to Law 12C2 (in reference to Director) as follows: 'An Appeals Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity.'." History. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 10:31:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:31:52 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA27487 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:31:46 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z62O0-0005U3-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:34:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:16:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808102130.OAA00152@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: >> > >d) one member protests, other dont concur but cptn isnt >availabale (away) >> > I don't think Marv thought of this one in his two hours! The >captain >> > is assumed to concur but who with? I think the current Law is >ambiguous >> > on this one. >Who with? With the protesting member. Any doubt about the missing >captain's concurrence must be resolved in favor of the appellant. >That is only fair, and I believe that is what L92D says. "An absent >member is deemed to concur." The captain is a member of the team, >whether he plays or not. This makes no sense to me. You have a team composed of A-B, C-D, E-F, G[NPC]. A wishes to appeal: B does not. Please explain why G is assumed to concur with A and not to concur with B. [s] >And we haven't brought the TD into this. If the TD wants an AC to >confirm a ruling, what then? As it stands now, s/he evidently has to >persuade one or more participants to make (and concur in) the appeal. Not at all: he merely applies L81C9 and takes it to appeal himself. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 11:17:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:17:04 +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 LAA27636 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:16:58 +1000 Received: from modem118.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.118] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z635p-0004Si-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:19:18 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:17:43 +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 In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > > > Grattan said, > I am convinced that no alteration has been intended > in the effect of the Law as it was in the 1975 code:"No appeal shall > be heard unless both members of a pair (except in an individual > contest) or, in team events, the captain, concur in appealing,"### > Marv said > Actually, at least in my edition, the word in 1975 was "concurs," a > simple mistake in English that was fixed in my 1990 revision. ++ My edition, printed 1975, has 'concur'. ~Grattan~++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 12:42:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:42:28 +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 MAA27852 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:42:19 +1000 Received: from modem61.bananaman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.4.189] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z64QR-0008I8-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:44:40 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:43:47 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" From: Jesper Dybdal >From: Jesper Dybdal ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:30:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA24877; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808110528.WAA24877@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "JApfelbaum" , , "BLML Group" Cc: Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 22:27:28 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > To make my position clear, Law 92D makes it clear that an appeal must be > heard if either the Captain or both members of the pair concur. Read the > text of the law again, "An appeal shall not be heard unless both members of > a pair . . . or the Captain of a team, concur in appealing." Nowhere in the > text can we imply the Captain needs concurrence from either member of the > pair at the table. > > A literal reading requires an appeal be heard when both members of the pair > concur. There is no problem here. > > The literal reading also requires an appeal be heard when the Captain > concurs. In the context, concur must refer back to the person who appealed > the ruling in the first place. And there is no reason why these people have > to be different. Consider that in an individual event there cannot be anyone > else to concur with. But an indvidual in a contest for individuals does not need concurrence per L92D ("except in an individual contest"). It takes two to tango, and it takes two (at least) to concur. > > Putting the list "both members of a pair. . . or the Captain" in the > disjunctive means that one OR the other is sufficient. I cannot say this is > what the law makers intended. I do say this is what they wrote. I also say > that until they change the wording we should not try to interprete this > sentence in any other fashion. My reading is that the word "concur" implies something to be understood, although not explicit. That is, I read the sentence as, "...unless both members of a pair, or, in place of one member, the captain, concur in appealing. If the intent had been otherwise, L92D would surely have stated that a captain needs no concurrence. Moreover, "concur" should then be something like "concur(s)" > > As the literal wording allows a Captain to press an appeal without his or > her team, and to have the appeal be heard without his or her team, we should > allow a Captain to appeal a ruling made at either table and without the > concurrence of his or her team members prosecute the ruling. (NOTE: I do not > think the odds of success very high if the Captain's own team does not > support this appeal. However, that is not the issue here.) Yes, the captain can appeal without a teammate's concurrence, but my reading (I won't call it interpretation, which has connotations of guesswork) says the appeal won't be heard if that concurrence is refused, unless the captain was one of the pair involved. This is only common sense, because an appellant has to testify as to what happened at the table. How could a captain give such evidence, if he wasn't there? Jay, if we keep this up we're going to be characterized as debaters of the "David-Herman" school. Is there any higher authority whose judgment you would defer to, as I would? Outside the ACBL, I mean. Besides, a new problem has crept in: How does a player or captain register non-concurrence? If absence constitutes concurrence, then I guess anyone opposed to the appeal had better show up to express their opposition to it. My suggestion is that the ACBL Appeals Form be modified to require the signature of not only the appellant, but also his/her partner (or optionally, a team captain), sometime before the AC meeting takes place. The signature would constitute concurrence, so that the person signing would not have to be present at the AC meeting in order to have his/her concurrence recognized. As it is, apparently a player can appeal without the knowledge of his/her partner (or captain, in a team event). S/he alone would show up at the AC meeting, and the absent would be deemed to be in concurrence. That loophole should be closed. Alternatively, it could be required that whoever accepts the appeal form makes sure (and signs off on it) that the appellant's partner (or optionally, the team captain) is aware of the appeal. Then a no-show's concurrence can be assumed. I also believe that an AC should usually (not always) refuse to hear an appeal when only a captain who was not at the table shows up, even when one of the pair involved has signed his/her concurrence. In most cases an AC would want to speak to someone involved in the disputed ruling. That doesn't mean the appeal won't be heard at all, only that it will be postponed until at least one of the pair involved can attend. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 17:59:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA28467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:59:06 +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 RAA28462 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:59:00 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA10049; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808110800.BAA10049@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:58:55 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >> > >d) one member protests, other dont concur but cptn isnt > >availabale (away) > > >> > I don't think Marv thought of this one in his two hours! The > >captain > >> > is assumed to concur but who with? I think the current Law is > >ambiguous > >> > on this one. > > >Who with? With the protesting member. Any doubt about the missing > >captain's concurrence must be resolved in favor of the appellant. > >That is only fair, and I believe that is what L92D says. "An absent > >member is deemed to concur." The captain is a member of the team, > >whether he plays or not. > > This makes no sense to me. You have a team composed of A-B, C-D, E-F, > G[NPC]. A wishes to appeal: B does not. Please explain why G is > assumed to concur with A and not to concur with B. He concurs in the appeal, not with the appellant, with whom there may be violent disagreement. As I brought up in another e-mail, the appeal regulations should be such that a concerned person (partner of the appellant, and/or the captain) knows about the appeal, so that his/her absence can be taken as concurrence in the appeal. If not concurring, a player (or captain) must then show up at the meeting and say so, unless regulations provide some other means of registering non-concurrence. In the absence of such regulations, an appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt (as L92D says in effect) about whether an absent captain is really signifying concurrence by not showing up. I think the lawmakers assumed that the "absent" particpant(s) would know about the appeal, and good appeal procedures should make sure this is true. It would not be illogical to treat absence as evidence of non-concurrence, but evidently the lawmakers decided otherwise. Many times one partner will not want to appeal, or have any part of it, but the other goes ahead. When the dissenter doesn't show up, he/she is deemed to have concurred in the appeal. If the appeals process would require explicit concurrence by the absent (a signature, or whatever), there would be fewer AC meetings, and L92D's statement that absence is deemed to be concurrence would be deeming a truth. > > [s] > > >And we haven't brought the TD into this. If the TD wants an AC to > >confirm a ruling, what then? As it stands now, s/he evidently has to > >persuade one or more participants to make (and concur in) the appeal. > > Not at all: he merely applies L81C9 and takes it to appeal himself. > I think I remember you and others discussing this matter, and I didn't participate. I guess your statement represents the consensus, even though it looks like quite a stretch to me. Another time, another thread. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 19:22:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA28759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:22:33 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA28752 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:22:27 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-215.uunet.be [194.7.13.215]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25188 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:24:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35D00877.9B62B230@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:01:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <35d051ea.798398@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: (a lot, but among this :) > > > I also think that the boundary between "variations on the > attachment of values to some descriptive terms", as you describe > it below, and "pure" law interpretation is not always clear, and > that it is very reasonable for the national authorities to be the > ones to draw the line between such variations (where they will > follow their own ideas) and pure law interpretation (where they > will usually follow any recommendations from WBFLC). > Indeed this difference is important. When the question is "is a 1Cl opening on 4-4-3-2 a convention?", this is a case for interpretation, and it can even be that different countries have different ideas about it, and such is not bad. But when the question is "can an appeal be heard when the captain is absent" then the rules should be clear and the answer a YES or NO but the same all over the world. When the Lawmakers have apparently written something that can be understood in two ways, it is up to the Lawmakers to clarify this, either by rewriting the Law, or by a simple answer from Ton saying "YES" or "NO". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 21:59:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:59:15 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA29138 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:59:08 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA13471 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980811080212.006ccdc8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:02:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants In-Reply-To: References: <01bdc47a$5e1dafe0$b707440c@jay-apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reality check: What effect does L92D have in real life? A player who wishes to lodge an appeal makes this known to partner and (in teams) captain. If they don't feel the appeal is worth pursuing, they inevitably say something like "Well, you can go ahead and appeal; I'm going to the bar." Then they are absent for the appeal, and deemed to concur. For L92D to have any practical application, the dissenting partner (or the captain) would have to show up in front of the AC and tell them that they do not concur in the appeal. I've never seen this happen. Has anyone? 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 Aug 11 22:06:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:06:24 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA29175 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:06:18 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA13586 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980811080926.006d7e34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:09:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:43 AM 8/11/98 +0100, Grattan wrote: >++++ Thank you for your view. We are not in agreement. [ I am >of the opinion that the rules for the playing of duplicate bridge >promulgated by the WBF Executive, by ratification of the >decisions of WBFLC, are comprised not in the words of the >'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' but in the meanings attached to those >words by the promulgating body.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'" -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass. 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 Aug 11 23:37:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:37:24 +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 XAA29394 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:37:15 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6EeE-00050s-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:39:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:33:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Bidding Boxes MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have known some players who have put a Bidding Box on a small side- table, where it is too low to be visible to LHO or partner. LHO can not tell now when a call is made, assuming regulations that make a call made when it is taken from the box. Is it legal to have an invisible Bidding box? Does LHO have a right to know when a call is made? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 23:37:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:37:30 +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 XAA29405 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:37:23 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6EeH-00050o-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:39:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:36:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Deliberate UI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the players involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the UI, and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably deliberately. He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any other action? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 11 23:37:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:37:23 +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 XAA29393 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:37:15 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6EeE-00050r-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:39:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:31:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980811080212.006ccdc8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Reality check: What effect does L92D have in real life? A player who >wishes to lodge an appeal makes this known to partner and (in teams) >captain. If they don't feel the appeal is worth pursuing, they inevitably >say something like "Well, you can go ahead and appeal; I'm going to the >bar." Then they are absent for the appeal, and deemed to concur. For L92D >to have any practical application, the dissenting partner (or the captain) >would have to show up in front of the AC and tell them that they do not >concur in the appeal. I've never seen this happen. Has anyone? I have known dissension in a team and have explained the Law to them. They have then followed it. I believe this showing up in the front of the AC and arguing then is from fantasy-land, but Laws are applied by TDs as well, and players often ask questions. We may not need this Law often, but this also applies to a number of other Laws we have discussed, and it helps to know the answer when the question is asked. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 01:12:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:12:09 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA02097 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:12:02 +1000 Received: from default (ptp75.ac.net [205.138.54.177]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA04320 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808111514.LAA04320@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:17:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980811080212.006ccdc8@pop.cais.com> References: <01bdc47a$5e1dafe0$b707440c@jay-apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:02 AM 8/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >Reality check: What effect does L92D have in real life? A player who >wishes to lodge an appeal makes this known to partner and (in teams) >captain. If they don't feel the appeal is worth pursuing, they inevitably >say something like "Well, you can go ahead and appeal; I'm going to the >bar." Then they are absent for the appeal, and deemed to concur. For L92D >to have any practical application, the dissenting partner (or the captain) >would have to show up in front of the AC and tell them that they do not >concur in the appeal. I've never seen this happen. Has anyone? It is now going to have effect with the new 'Appeal without Merit Point System' that is in effect. You can still go to the bar, but now you may have points assessed against you for bringing an appeal without merit that may have an effect on future disclipinary actions. I am hoping that some of these 'non-concurring' absent partners may begin to show up to protect their record and help get rid of some of the appeals that should never be brought in the first place. I also don't believe it has to go as far as the dissenting partner having to show up in front of the AC. It can be stopped when the Yellow Appeals form is being filled out. If one of the pair makes it clear to the Director that they do not agree with the appeal their partner wants to pursue, the form will never be filled out. I have done that when my partner wanted to bring an appeal that I thought was silly. I stopped it at that stage. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 01:17:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:17:22 +1000 Received: from hd1.usuhs.mil ([131.158.107.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA02127 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:17:16 +1000 Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil by hd1.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 3.00) id 00001A72; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:17:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199808111517.00001A72@hd1.usuhs.mil> Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:16:57 -0400 From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:16:47 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grattan > Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 10:44 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" > [snip] > > ++++ Thank you for your view. We are not in agreement. [ I am > of the opinion that the rules for the playing of duplicate bridge > promulgated by the WBF Executive, by ratification of the > decisions of WBFLC, are comprised not in the words of the > 'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' but in the meanings attached to those > words by the promulgating body.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > With respect, I am greatly disturbed by the statement above. The only access many Directors have to the Laws are the words printed in the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge". Most of the TDs in the world do not read this list, where they can have their questions explained by those who are aware of meanings that have somehow not made it into the exact wording of the Laws, but even this list is not useful when a Director has to interpret a Law and make a table ruling *now*. If there are meanings attached to the words of the Laws by the promulgating body, then that body must make those meanings available to those who must use the Laws to regulate bridge games, or they are useless. This can take the form of annotations to the Laws and examples (such as that used in Law 75 to clarify the difference between misexplanation and misbid), or alterations to the words so that the meaning intended is clear. The output of the WBFLC is the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge". If the rules for playing bridge are not encompassed by the words of that document, but rather in the meanings attached to the words by the WBFLC, then the Laws must be altered so that those meanings are somehow included in the words. Otherwise, there is no way for most Directors to know the real rules of the game they are trying to administer. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 01:55:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:55:01 +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 BAA02258 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:54:55 +1000 Received: from client087a.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.122] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z6GnQ-0002xR-00; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:57:12 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:25:56 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc53c$55e7b4c0$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 Grattan Endicott"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'" -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass. > ["Be sure that you go to the author to get at *his* meaning, not to find yours." John Ruskin] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 03:53:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 03:53:19 +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 DAA02660 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 03:53:13 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA28336; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808111754.KAA28336@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Deliberate UI Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:53:06 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote; > > A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the players > involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the UI, > and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably > deliberately. > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any other > action? > I have no idea, and will look forward to the comments of others. Additional related question: Is it proper for the TD to make remarks such as, "You must be careful to bid as if your partner had not made the insufficient bid of 2C, and play him for the values implied by the 3C bid which he chose to make." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 04:49:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:49:33 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02877 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 04:49:27 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05622 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808111851.LAA05622@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: Right to Appeal, Concurrence of Appellants Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:49:07 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Weinstein wrote: > I also don't believe it has to go as far as the dissenting partner having > to show up in front of the AC. It can be stopped when the Yellow Appeals > form is being filled out. If one of the pair makes it clear to the > Director that they do not agree with the appeal their partner wants to > pursue, the form will never be filled out. I have done that when my > partner wanted to bring an appeal that I thought was silly. I stopped it > at that stage. > A minor point here: One partner can disagree with the other's appeal, but still concur in the appeal. Sounds paradoxical, but "concurring in the appeal" only means that the appellant's partner won't stop the process, not that s/he agrees with the appeal. There was a notable case in Dallas (I believe it was) wherein a pro was very much against a client's baseless appeal, but let it go forward anyway to avoid alienating the client. Captain: "I think your appeal is baseless, as does your partner, who refuses to concur in it. I won't do anything to support you in this, but since you feel so strongly about it I will concur in the appeal rather than block it. Good luck!" Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 05:57:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 05:57:59 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA03127 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 05:57:53 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA12388 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01819; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:00:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:00:19 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808112000.QAA01819@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the players > involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the UI, > and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably > deliberately. > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any other > action? You mean there was further bidding after the UI and before the TD was called, and its nature has made the TD suspicious? In that case, perhaps the TD should have asked to be called back when the hand was over, regardless of the apparent result. And of course his instructions should have mentioned a possible adjusted score although taking into account that he cannot _know_ there has been an infraction. If there is no callback, then presumably the NOS is happy with the result. If the competition is one where a PP would not be considered, there seems no need to do anything. I don't see anything wrong if the TD wishes to satisfy his curiousity, however. If the TD would consider a PP if his suspicions prove correct, L81C6 seems to apply. Of course the facts have to be discovered, but if that can be done, there's no reason not to act on them. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 06:42:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:42:17 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA03259 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:42:11 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA19635; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808112043.NAA19635@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:42:29 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > [snip] > > > > ++++ Thank you for your view. We are not in agreement. [ I am > > of the opinion that the rules for the playing of duplicate bridge > > promulgated by the WBF Executive, by ratification of the > > decisions of WBFLC, are comprised not in the words of the > > 'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' but in the meanings attached to those > > words by the promulgating body.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > > With respect, I am greatly disturbed by the statement above. The only > access many Directors have to the Laws are the words printed in the "Laws of > Duplicate Bridge". Most of the TDs in the world do not read this list, > where they can have their questions explained by those who are aware of > meanings that have somehow not made it into the exact wording of the Laws, > but even this list is not useful when a Director has to interpret a Law and > make a table ruling *now*. It is also not useful, as is apparently the case, when ACBL TDs, ACs, and Laws Commission feel that any interpretions not originating in their jurisdiction are to be disregarded. This is not merely an impression; I have a number of e-mails from highly-placed individuals who have made this very clear to me. The attitude seems to be: "No foreigner is going to tell *us* how to read the Laws!" > > If there are meanings attached to the words of the Laws by the promulgating > body, then that body must make those meanings available to those who must > use the Laws to regulate bridge games, or they are useless. This can take > the form of annotations to the Laws and examples (such as that used in Law > 75 to clarify the difference between misexplanation and misbid), or > alterations to the words so that the meaning intended is clear. There is such a document, entitled "Duplicate Decisions," available from the ACBL for a small cost. Part I, Review of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, has guidelines for applying the Laws. Part II, Guidelines for Club Directors, includes pertinent ACBL regulations and other aids for running a club game. Although it is meant for club directors, and is not up to date (so far as I know), it would be a good starting point for a higher-level handbook for all TDs. Articles in the ACBL's *The Bridge Bulletin* (e.g., Ruling the Game, Appeals) should be collected and incorporated into the handbook on a regular basis. The ACBLScore program's Tech Files include a lot of such information, but I doubt that many TDs read them. > The output of the WBFLC is the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge". If the rules for > playing bridge are not encompassed by the words of that document, but rather > in the meanings attached to the words by the WBFLC, then the Laws must be > altered so that those meanings are somehow included in the words. > Otherwise, there is no way for most Directors to know the real rules of the > game they are trying to administer. Well said. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the WBFLC meeting in Lille. If there is some offical alteration of the wording for various laws, then the ACBL will be forced to abandon those idiosyncratic interpretations that clearly become untenable. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 07:00:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:00:21 +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 HAA03336 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:00:16 +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 RAA12742 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01840; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:02:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:02:42 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808112102.RAA01840@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > There is such a document, entitled "Duplicate Decisions," available > from the ACBL for a small cost. Part I, Review of the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge, has guidelines for applying the Laws. Part II, > Guidelines for Club Directors, includes pertinent ACBL regulations > and other aids for running a club game. Although it is meant for club > directors, and is not up to date (so far as I know), There was a revision of "DD" produced after the 1997 Laws revision. I seem to recall a cost of US$18, but perhaps my memory is faulty. As Jesper has pointed out, regardless of what the WBFLC or any other body says, the _practical_ interpretation of the Laws is what TD's, AC's, and (if it hears appeals) the NA actually do. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 07:36:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:36:26 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03561 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:36:18 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA15590 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01866; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:38:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:38:42 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808112138.RAA01866@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > > I would only add that I believe the SO > > has the right to enforce stricter conditions. In particular, they > > could require the captain's concurrence. > From: "Marvin L. French" > I disagree. L92D says *or* the captain, and SOs must comply with the > Law. This is another example of the standard disagreement about how conditionals in the Laws are to be read. There are many examples where the Laws say something like if A (no concurrence), then B (appeal vetoed). What happens if , i.e. there is concurrence? The mathematical reading is that B may or may not be true, according to other laws and regulations. I believe all the Laws should be read in this "mathematical" way. If the laws are meant to specify rules for condition , then they should say so. Other people believe "if" should be read as "if and only if," i.e., the original construction above also includes the meaning if , then . I don't see any good way to settle the debate short of an explicit statement from the WBFLC, preferably in the Preface of the next edition. (Do you have your notebook, Grattan?) Each side seems to think the opposing point of view is ridiculous. Whatever you think about the powers of the SO, its restrictions on appeals may not be so limiting as to violate L92. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 08:08:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:08:21 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03701 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:08:14 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA17019 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:10:34 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980812001011.008e2750@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:10:11 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Deliberate UI In-Reply-To: <199808112000.QAA01819@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:00 11-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the players >> involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the UI, >> and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably >> deliberately. >> >> He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any other >> action? > >You mean there was further bidding after the UI and before the TD was >called, and its nature has made the TD suspicious? In that case, >perhaps the TD should have asked to be called back when the hand was >over, regardless of the apparent result. And of course his instructions >should have mentioned a possible adjusted score although taking into >account that he cannot _know_ there has been an infraction. > >If there is no callback, then presumably the NOS is happy with the >result. If the competition is one where a PP would not be considered, >there seems no need to do anything. I don't see anything wrong if the >TD wishes to satisfy his curiousity, however. > >If the TD would consider a PP if his suspicions prove correct, L81C6 >seems to apply. Of course the facts have to be discovered, but if that >can be done, there's no reason not to act on them. > one thing isnt clear. Is the UI after the TD ruled and went away? I think that if a TD thinks there is UI then he should stay (if possible) until the end of the game and then rule accordingly. Usually this is difficult if he also plays, but he has to sacrifice his time for these players. Then he also can rule to OS which information is illegal for them and can also see if OS gains from UI during play (and can possibly prevent it) regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 09:04:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:04:09 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03928 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:04:03 +1000 Received: from client2644.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.68] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z6NUm-0006W3-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:06:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Deliberate UI Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:07:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc57c$cc278300$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: David Stevenson Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 12:04 AM Subject: Re: Deliberate UI >David Stevenson wrote.... >Subject: Deliberate UI > > >> >> A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the players >>involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the UI, >>and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably >>deliberately. >> >> He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any other >>action? > >Law 16A2 says that the TD should be "standing ready to assign an >adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in >damage" >This seems to be at odds with the philosophy which says that the TD will >be reluctant to award redress for damage which is not claimed. >This is specifically the UI situation and seems to be saying that in >this instance the TD should not go away and expect to be called back >only if the NOs are unhappy. >The example given explains that the TD thinks there is deliberate abuse. >I would find it easier to look at this more objectively if you would >give us an instance.Any time a player choses from among logical >alternatives a bid suggested by the UI he makes a deliberate choice, >assuming always that he had received the UI. Are some deliberate choices >more deliberate than others? >Anne >> >>-- >>David Stevenson Liverpool, UK >> I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside >> England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at >> . I shall send my CV on request. >> > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 09:06:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:06:57 +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 JAA03955 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:06:53 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA02263 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:09:16 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:09:15 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the players > involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the UI, > and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably > deliberately. > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any other > action? Yes, if he believes an irregularity has occurred, then he should investigate further to see if the NOS has been damaged by use of the UI. This is especially true if the NOS is inexperienced, which may be true since it appears that the original director call may have been delayed. As much as sometimes one may wish to "turn a blind eye" Law 81C6 makes it clear that this would be a dereliction of duty. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 09:08:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:08:22 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03972 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:08:16 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA26967 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:10:36 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980812011014.008dd100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:10:14 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808112138.RAA01866@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:38 11-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >I wrote: >> > I would only add that I believe the SO >> > has the right to enforce stricter conditions. In particular, they >> > could require the captain's concurrence. > >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> I disagree. L92D says *or* the captain, and SOs must comply with the >> Law. > >This is another example of the standard disagreement about how >conditionals in the Laws are to be read. There are many examples >where the Laws say something like > if A (no concurrence), then B (appeal vetoed). > >What happens if , i.e. there is concurrence? The mathematical >reading is that B may or may not be true, according to other laws and >regulations. I believe all the Laws should be read in this >"mathematical" way. If the laws are meant to specify rules for >condition , then they should say so. Other people believe "if" >should be read as "if and only if," i.e., the original construction >above also includes the meaning > if , then . > >I don't see any good way to settle the debate short of an explicit >statement from the WBFLC, preferably in the Preface of the next >edition. (Do you have your notebook, Grattan?) Each side seems to >think the opposing point of view is ridiculous. > >Whatever you think about the powers of the SO, its restrictions on >appeals may not be so limiting as to violate L92. > Perhaps i am very silly, but i really think the law means 'the captain has to concur' (if available) in a team game (period). There is a very good reason for this rule. Usually the captain is the one who gets the blame if the appeal goes wrong (is silly or has no merits ....) and pays the dues, and he also should be the one who guides his team trough all he perils of the game ( ::))) and who should be most aquainted with the rues also ........ I think that if he cant support an appeal he should have the power to halt it before his whole team will be regarded as silly folks who like to throw dollars, pounds or dutch florins into the drains (they arent yacht owners who spend their time shredding 100$ bills into the sewers, arent they?). (thats why i dont agree with david when he says that if a captain appeals and others dont concor the appeal halts) We only have one problem left thenp; who IS the captain. There is no definition in the laws and that is in my opinion a severe problem. Is it the guy or doll who plays either NS or EW on the odd table??? perhaps we also should ask to grattan for a definition in the laws also. regards, anton witzen Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 09:19:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:19:49 +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 JAA04045 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:19:45 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA27347 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:22:09 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:22:09 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate UI In-Reply-To: <199808111754.KAA28336@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > David Stevenson wrote; > > > > > A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the > players > > involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the > UI, > > and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably > > deliberately. > > > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any > other > > action? > > > I have no idea, and will look forward to the comments of others. > Additional related question: Is it proper for the TD to make remarks > such as, "You must be careful to bid as if your partner had not made > the insufficient bid of 2C, and play him for the values implied by > the 3C bid which he chose to make." While I understand that Marv is making a general inquiry about TD procedure in explaining to a table about UI ramifications. The choice of an insuficient bid is not a good example of UI, since this scenario is specifically excluded from Law 16C2. A player is entitled to know his partner has made an insufficient bid and then corrected it. The opponents are still protected from damage (Law 27B1b), but the OS is not constrained by LA considerations. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 10:13:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:13:25 +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 KAA04162 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:13:18 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6OZn-0000h1-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:15:40 +0000 Message-ID: <$Q3OoxA+jN01Ew7t@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:51:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Deliberate UI In-Reply-To: <199808111754.KAA28336@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199808111754.KAA28336@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> snip the deliberate use of UI (but one wonders whether a PP is in order) >Additional related question: Is it proper for the TD to make remarks >such as, "You must be careful to bid as if your partner had not made >the insufficient bid of 2C, and play him for the values implied by >the 3C bid which he chose to make." > I am of the view that one should do this. Not only must you read the relevant law to a player, you must also explain the implications of it such that the player understands all of the implications. A similar position arises when the you are explaining to the LHO of the undercaller. If the LHO has a call of 2S on the table and the undercall is 2D I read the Law and would then say something like: "If you accept the undercall you could for example rebid 2S, and I leave as the infraction is condoned. If you don't accept it then the offender may make his bid good and the auction continues without penalty unless I take the view that offender's partner has taken advantage of making the bid good. And if he does anything else then partner is silenced and he can't double - so accept if you wish or reject and see what transpires" The call is rejected, and made good. Now to offender's partner "You must be .... " as above. I think most UK TDs do something similar. >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) -- 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 Aug 12 10:52:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:52:15 +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 KAA04334 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:52:08 +1000 Received: from modem101.sylvester.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.101] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z6PBN-0004BA-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:54:30 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:47:22 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" --------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? > > I don't see any good way to settle the debate short of an explicit > statement from the WBFLC, preferably in the Preface of the next > edition. (Do you have your notebook, Grattan?) Each side seems to > think the opposing point of view is ridiculous. ++++ In two separate despatches each to seventeen committee members (postage circa US$9 a head) I have sent papers on eighteen subject headings, one of which has three sub-sets. Say six of these I estimate to entail lengthy discussion, a couple of others I have no feel for how much time they will occupy (and one of these latter items is the 'Who can appeal?' matter). I do regard this Law as a piece of mediocre writing and one that I might have reduced considerably if the pen had been in my hands. Allowing that, rightly in my view, Ton does not wish to change the text of any laws as early as this, it remains to be seen how we will go about our exercise. On this one, if the Committee thinks it enough (with an accompanying interpretation), I would say we might perhaps restore the elided comma. We might also 'recognize' regulations made under Law 80G. David S. tells me he adopts a slightly 'aggressive' manner on BLML because he feels it drives home the point better. I am aware that my own style is one of uncompromising views. I do not think this reflects any disrespect in either of us for other opinions - well maybe just occasionally for something that seems to go right off the rails - and I am kind enough to believe this of all the contributors to a very lively channel. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 15:05:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:05:14 +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 PAA04960 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:05:08 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA23502 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808120507.WAA23502@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:02:18 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > I wrote: > > > I would only add that I believe the SO > > > has the right to enforce stricter conditions. In particular, they > > > could require the captain's concurrence. > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > I disagree. L92D says *or* the captain, and SOs must comply with the > > Law. > > This is another example of the standard disagreement about how > conditionals in the Laws are to be read. There are many examples > where the Laws say something like > if A (no concurrence), then B (appeal vetoed). > > What happens if , i.e. there is concurrence? The mathematical > reading is that B may or may not be true, according to other laws and > regulations. I believe all the Laws should be read in this > "mathematical" way. If the laws are meant to specify rules for > condition , then they should say so. Other people believe "if" > should be read as "if and only if," i.e., the original construction > above also includes the meaning > if , then . > It would be very dreary to read a book of rules that kept repeating "If and only if." I'll accept that I must interpret "if" according to context. "2-Hour Parking Sundays" does not mean to me that I can park there for a longer time on other days. The context tells me I can park there only on Sundays. Steve would insist that the sign should in that case say, "Parking Sundays Only, Limit 2 Hours." Signs aren't that big! This is analogous to the use of "or," which is only disjunctive in strict usage. We have no conjunctive "or," so we use "and/or," or at least the lawyers do. The Laws use "and or" in at least one place, but usually let the "or" be understood as conjunctive by context (e.g., L73E). Steve, you can now go through the Laws and argue that wherever "or" occurs, a person must choose one alternative or the other, not both. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 15:28:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:28:23 +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 PAA05011 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:28:14 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA26977; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808120529.WAA26977@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Laurie Kelso" , Subject: Re: Deliberate UI Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:27:14 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote; > > > > > > > > A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the > > players > > > involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the > > UI, > > > and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably > > > deliberately. > > > > > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any > > other > > > action? > > > > > I have no idea, and will look forward to the comments of others. > > Additional related question: Is it proper for the TD to make remarks > > such as, "You must be careful to bid as if your partner had not made > > the insufficient bid of 2C, and play him for the values implied by > > the 3C bid which he chose to make." > > While I understand that Marv is making a general inquiry about TD > procedure in explaining to a table about UI ramifications. The choice of > an insuficient bid is not a good example of UI, since this scenario is > specifically excluded from Law 16C2. A player is entitled to know his > partner has made an insufficient bid and then corrected it. The opponents > are still protected from damage (Law 27B1b), but the OS is not constrained > by LA considerations. Right, although TDs around here are making such statements in regard to insufficient bids made barely sufficient when neither call is a convention. Better example: A player Alerts, then withdraws the Alert. TD called, who instructs the Alerter's partner that s/he should be careful to bid as if the mistake had not been made, as it is UI. I believe that the TD should merely inform the opponents that UI exists, and not tell them how to bid. When a player revokes, it is not proper (David told us) for the TD to tell the revoker that he should avoid winning a trick in that suit later. Same principle? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 18:54:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:54:45 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA05382 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:54:38 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6WiI-0005fA-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:56:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:03:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <199808111517.00001A72@hd1.usuhs.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grattan >> Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 10:44 PM >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" >> >[snip] >> >> ++++ Thank you for your view. We are not in agreement. [ I am >> of the opinion that the rules for the playing of duplicate bridge >> promulgated by the WBF Executive, by ratification of the >> decisions of WBFLC, are comprised not in the words of the >> 'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' but in the meanings attached to those >> words by the promulgating body.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ >> > >With respect, I am greatly disturbed by the statement above. The only >access many Directors have to the Laws are the words printed in the "Laws of >Duplicate Bridge". Most of the TDs in the world do not read this list, >where they can have their questions explained by those who are aware of >meanings that have somehow not made it into the exact wording of the Laws, >but even this list is not useful when a Director has to interpret a Law and >make a table ruling *now*. > >If there are meanings attached to the words of the Laws by the promulgating >body, then that body must make those meanings available to those who must >use the Laws to regulate bridge games, or they are useless. This can take >the form of annotations to the Laws and examples (such as that used in Law >75 to clarify the difference between misexplanation and misbid), or >alterations to the words so that the meaning intended is clear. > >The output of the WBFLC is the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge". If the rules for >playing bridge are not encompassed by the words of that document, but rather >in the meanings attached to the words by the WBFLC, then the Laws must be >altered so that those meanings are somehow included in the words. >Otherwise, there is no way for most Directors to know the real rules of the >game they are trying to administer. Why is there no way for Directors to know? Surely they do not work in isolation? Do not their NBO's train them? Inform them? A Director is not just given a Law book and sent out to direct - well, I sincerely hope not! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 18:57:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:57:27 +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 SAA05403 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:57:20 +1000 Received: from modem3.daffy.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.131] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z6Wku-0002Rz-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:59:41 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:36:50 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Hirsch Davis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" > Date: 11 August 1998 16:16 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grattan > > Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 10:44 PM > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" > > > [snip] >> > With respect, I am greatly disturbed by the statement above. The only > access many Directors have to the Laws are the words printed in the "Laws of > Duplicate Bridge". Most of the TDs in the world do not read this list, > where they can have their questions explained by those who are aware of > meanings that have somehow not made it into the exact wording of the Laws, > but even this list is not useful when a Director has to interpret a Law and > make a table ruling *now*. +++ Yes. I accept that anxiety and I agree that our every effort is to make the wording as watertight as possible; but the experience is that there is a great difficulty in keeping a sufficient measure of uniformity of understanding of the laws as between even the *largest* and most sophisticated organisations (see this space!). So we supplement the text with explanatory material which is circulated to NBOs and Zones - EK did a lot of this and I did some during his Chairmanship - and by responding to enquiry. If we are to achieve a reasonable level of implementation of the intentions of the Laws this has to go on. None of us now speaks with nearly the authority that Edgar achieved through the years so we are probably needing to work even harder in Committee upon consensus over the detail of meaning. On top of that, the internet now ensures that differences are recognized almost instantaneously and a quicker response time for the Committee is imperative which is probably the most immediate problem of all. ~~~ Grattan ~~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 18:57:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:57:30 +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 SAA05404 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:57:23 +1000 Received: from modem3.daffy.pol.co.uk ([195.92.3.131] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.01 #1) id 0z6Wkx-0002Rz-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:59:44 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:58:04 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan In the morning thou shalt say "Would God it were even!" and at even thou shalt say "Would God it were morning!" ---------- > From: Hirsch Davis > > Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC > >> > If there are meanings attached to the words of the Laws by the promulgating > body, then that body must make those meanings available to those who must > use the Laws to regulate bridge games, or they are useless. This can take > the form of annotations to the Laws and examples (such as that used in Law > 75 to clarify the difference between misexplanation and misbid), or > alterations to the words so that the meaning intended is clear. ++ This is recognized. Of course agreed footnotes are not always added to the book in every part of the World, in our past experience; something we have to work on. ++ > > The output of the WBFLC is the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge". > ++ But not this alone. Other material goes down the line too, following each year's meeting(s). I do not see it being picked up all that well in even the advanced Western European areas. ++ > > If the rules for > playing bridge are not encompassed by the words of that document, but rather > in the meanings attached to the words by the WBFLC, then the Laws must be > altered so that those meanings are somehow included in the words. > Otherwise, there is no way for most Directors to know the real rules of the > game they are trying to administer. ++ NBOs should pick up what we do from the minutes and other material published to them. Hitherto the lines of communication have been weak. I am hoping to change this once Lille produces something to get my teeth into. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 19:48:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:48:24 +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 TAA05508 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:48:18 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA21872; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:50:38 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:50:38 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Why is there no way for Directors to know? Surely they do not work in > isolation? Do not their NBO's train them? Inform them? > > A Director is not just given a Law book and sent out to direct - well, > I sincerely hope not! Indeed not. I had to buy my own copy of the Law book, too. I am only certified to direct at the club and unit level, not at sectionals, regionals, or nationals, here, and I *think* that there is a fair amount of formal training, on an ongoing basis, that the higher-ranked directors get. Some regionals offer seminars for club dorectors to attend, and some also offer a 2-days course to prepare people for the club director's exam. But after passing the test, there is no training or contact of any kind between a club director and ACBL. When the new laws came into effect in 1997, there were a couple articles in the bulleting on the changes -- but no mailing to directors, club managers, or unit officials, no effort to make sure that anyone at the local level was informed of the changes. This can be a serious problem -- when I moved to Alaska in 1993, I discovered that the games were run under the 1975 laws (play did not cease after claim) because the changes were not brought to the previous director's attention and, apparently, the players did not care. (The club here is predominantly social players.) Perhaps those of the ACBL brass who read this list will make a note of things that could be done better next time the laws are updated. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 20:24:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA05577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:24:49 +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 UAA05572 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:24:43 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA22959 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:27:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <199808120507.WAA23502@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > It would be very dreary to read a book of rules that kept repeating > "If and only if." I'll accept that I must interpret "if" according to > context. "2-Hour Parking Sundays" does not mean to me that I can park > there for a longer time on other days. The context tells me I can > park there only on Sundays. Steve would insist that the sign should > in that case say, "Parking Sundays Only, Limit 2 Hours." Signs aren't > that big! > > This is analogous to the use of "or," which is only disjunctive in > strict usage. We have no conjunctive "or," so we use "and/or," or at > least the lawyers do. The Laws use "and or" in at least one place, > but usually let the "or" be understood as conjunctive by context > (e.g., L73E). Steve, you can now go through the Laws and argue that > wherever "or" occurs, a person must choose one alternative or the > other, not both. I would submit that normal English/American usage has no _Disjunctive_ "or." The word as normally used means "and/or." If one wishes to state the disjunctive, one writes "either . . . or." Certainly the word can be ambiguous, but I would expect it to be conjunctive. The "and/or" usage is hideous and not English. -- Richard Lighton |"But then the prospect of a lot/ Of dull M.P.s in close (lighton@idt.net)| proximity/ All thinking for themselves, is what/ Wood-Ridge NJ | No man can face with equanimity." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 20:40:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA05616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:40:54 +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 UAA05610 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:40:48 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA25673 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 06:43:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Bidding Boxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > I have known some players who have put a Bidding Box on a small side- > table, where it is too low to be visible to LHO or partner. > > LHO can not tell now when a call is made, assuming regulations that > make a call made when it is taken from the box. > > Is it legal to have an invisible Bidding box? Does LHO have a right > to know when a call is made? Does anywhere still have a rule that says you have made a call when it is taken from the bidding box without qualifying it with words such as "with intent?" In practical terms it would be better if no one could see how a player is fumbling with the bidding box. Given sufficient floor space, the trading of floor space for table space increases the adherence to other regulations, such as the ACBL rule that requires convention cards to be on the table at all times. I know of no such rule about bidding boxes! -- Richard Lighton |"But then the prospect of a lot/ Of dull M.P.s in close (lighton@idt.net)| proximity/ All thinking for themselves, is what/ Wood-Ridge NJ | No man can face with equanimity." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 20:52:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA05651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:52:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA05645 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:52:27 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6YYI-0001NX-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:54:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:25:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate UI In-Reply-To: <199808120529.WAA26977@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: >Laurie Kelso wrote: > >> > David Stevenson wrote; >> > >> > > >> > > A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the >> > players >> > > involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after >the >> > UI, >> > > and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used >probably >> > > deliberately. >> > > >> > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take >any >> > other >> > > action? >> > > >> > I have no idea, and will look forward to the comments of others. >> > Additional related question: Is it proper for the TD to make >remarks >> > such as, "You must be careful to bid as if your partner had not >made >> > the insufficient bid of 2C, and play him for the values implied >by >> > the 3C bid which he chose to make." >> >> While I understand that Marv is making a general inquiry about TD >> procedure in explaining to a table about UI ramifications. The >choice of >> an insuficient bid is not a good example of UI, since this scenario >is >> specifically excluded from Law 16C2. A player is entitled to know >his >> partner has made an insufficient bid and then corrected it. The >opponents >> are still protected from damage (Law 27B1b), but the OS is not >constrained >> by LA considerations. > >Right, although TDs around here are making such statements in regard >to insufficient bids made barely sufficient when neither call is a >convention. > >Better example: A player Alerts, then withdraws the Alert. TD called, >who instructs the Alerter's partner that s/he should be careful to >bid as if the mistake had not been made, as it is UI. I believe that >the TD should merely inform the opponents that UI exists, and not >tell them how to bid. I think a middle ground is called for. The TD should avoid suggesting bids, but he should make clear the effect. Telling people UI exists without telling them the effect is not right - for one thing it favours the laws-knowledgeable player. But telling them the effect of any particular call is wrong as well. >When a player revokes, it is not proper (David told us) for the TD to >tell the revoker that he should avoid winning a trick in that suit >later. Same principle? He should tell the players the effect of certain actions, but not give any advice as to what to do. It is a fine line. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 22:34:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:34:10 +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 WAA06081 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 22:34:02 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6a8c-0000l2-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:36:23 +0000 Message-ID: <6pxvrLBIXX01EwYl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:00:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: > > >On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> It would be very dreary to read a book of rules that kept repeating >> "If and only if." I'll accept that I must interpret "if" according to >> context. "2-Hour Parking Sundays" does not mean to me that I can park >> there for a longer time on other days. The context tells me I can >> park there only on Sundays. Steve would insist that the sign should >> in that case say, "Parking Sundays Only, Limit 2 Hours." Signs aren't >> that big! >> >> This is analogous to the use of "or," which is only disjunctive in >> strict usage. We have no conjunctive "or," so we use "and/or," or at >> least the lawyers do. The Laws use "and or" in at least one place, >> but usually let the "or" be understood as conjunctive by context >> (e.g., L73E). Steve, you can now go through the Laws and argue that >> wherever "or" occurs, a person must choose one alternative or the >> other, not both. > >I would submit that normal English/American usage has no _Disjunctive_ >"or." The word as normally used means "and/or." If one wishes to state >the disjunctive, one writes "either . . . or." > >Certainly the word can be ambiguous, but I would expect it to be >conjunctive. The "and/or" usage is hideous and not English. > Not that I am an expert on English usage [unlike Jesper and Herman ] but it seems to me that normal English allows for usage to be decided by context. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I am looking for experience as a Tournament Director outside England and Wales. Can you help? If so, please email me at . I shall send my CV on request. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 23:30:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:30:28 +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 XAA06270 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:30:19 +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 0z6b14-0004r1-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:32:39 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Deliberate UI Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:13:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc5f3$06813de0$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 Grattan Endicott> > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take >any other action> ++ Has the Director become aware of an irregularity? If so Law 81C6 applies. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 12 23:30:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:30:51 +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 XAA06293 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:30:42 +1000 Received: from client0977.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.9.119] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z6b16-0004r1-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:32:41 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:35:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc5f6$17aa37e0$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 Grattan EndicottIt would be very dreary to read a book of rules that kept repeating >"If and only if." I'll accept that I must interpret "if" according to >context. "2-Hour Parking Sundays" does not mean to me that I can park >there for a longer time on other day> ++ [Kaplan wrote Laws on the basis of his belief that what is not specified to be authorised is not authorised. Since the corollary is that what is not prohibited may occur I contend that what is not the subject of a provision in the laws is 'extraneous'. The intention of the Committee up to today is that Kaplan's view holds good. Until Lille I am unable to say whether the Committee takes on board my amplification of it. ~ Grattan ~] ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 00:25:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:25:55 +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 AAA08711 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:25:49 +1000 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA25231 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA16719; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808121428.KAA16719@freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >We only have one problem left thenp; who IS the captain. There is no >definition in the laws and that is in my opinion a severe problem. Is it >the guy or doll who plays either NS or EW on the odd table??? >perhaps we also should ask to grattan for a definition in the laws also. > >regards, >anton witzen >Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) >Tel: 020 7763175 >ICQ 7835770 > And this is a real problem. In my experience, the entry card is often filled out from the bottom up. On a 4 player team, the names start at the bottom , and the name at the top is the loser; on a six player team, it's more like musical chairs; the last player to get the card gets to fill in the top line. :-) I would guess that well over 90% of teams could care less who is the official captain; the large majority of players who get stuck with being captain don't know their responsibilties, other than they are the ones who are supposed to check the result with their opponents, hand in the results, and pick up the next assignment (if that!)--and thereby missing out on the coffee and cookies. :-) Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 00:52:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:52:38 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA08831 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:52:32 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA12102 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:54:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.69) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012071; Wed Aug 12 09:54:11 1998 Received: by har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC5DE.E3CCBFE0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:49:33 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC5DE.E3CCBFE0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:45:39 -0400 Encoding: 41 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:david@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Why is there no way for Directors to know? Surely they do not work in isolation? Do not their NBO's train them? Inform them? A Director is not just given a Law book and sent out to direct - well, I sincerely hope not! #####Well, you are half right. After passing a rather rudimentary exam which is administered locally directors are indeed sent out to direct in the ACBL. They are not GIVEN a law book, though it is suggested (but not required) that they purchase one. No refresher courses are required, and few are given on the local level. Some instruction may be available, at a price, at certain NABC's and some major regionals if the unpaid club director can afford to also bear the often considerable travel and lodging expense as well as take the time off work. Most, as you might expect, don't avail themselves of the opportunity. No bulletins are ever sent to certified directors; the only update on ACBL law interpretation they ever receive is the Ruling the Game column in the ACBL Bulletin sent to the general membership. You have a fine program of initial and continuing education in the EBL, and we envy you. Much of the rest of the world is not nearly so fortunate. A few certified club directors make an active effort to become and remain informed on the application of the laws. Most do not. It is asking a lot for some of them to even RTFLB, and if you cite to them the Law and paragraph number sometimes it is still like pulling teeth to get them to abide by it. Yes, the Laws must state clearly what they mean, or they will be universally and inconsistently misapplied in the real world, to the detriment of the game. Most people play bridge at the lower levels where the best, most informed directors are not. We should strive to regulate the games most people play according to the Laws, rather than according to fiat. Thus the Laws should be clear, offer a minimum of need for interpretation, and spell out the intent of the framers if this is to be the standard for their application. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 01:23:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:23:01 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08918 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:22:52 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA25190 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02521; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:25:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:25:19 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808121525.LAA02521@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "G. R. Bower" > This can be a serious problem -- when I moved to Alaska in 1993, I > discovered that the games were run under the 1975 laws (play did not cease > after claim) I don't doubt that both statements are true (more or less), but play was supposed to cease after a claim even in 1975 (L68D "Play ceases"). The overall procedure after a claim has not changed very much, in fact, although some of the details are different. I discovered another interesting thing when I pulled out my 1975 FLB to check the above. Tucked inside the front cover is a 32 page pamphlet titled "Director's Guide" by Edgar Kaplan. It claims to be "Reprinted from series of articles first printed in ACBL BULLETINS, November 1975 through April 1976." I don't recall buying this separately, so it probably came automatically when I purchased the lawbook. The Guide contains a discussion of the laws changes since 1963 and in many cases gives examples of how the new laws should be applied. I didn't receive anything like that in 1987 or 1997, although "Duplicate Decisions" has some similar material. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 01:36:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:36:29 +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 BAA08984 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:36:23 +1000 Received: from client2543.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.67] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z6cz4-00005b-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:38:43 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Deliberate UI Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:34:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc606$b8ddf7e0$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: Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: Deliberate UI >>> > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take >>any other action> > >++ Has the Director become aware of an irregularity? If so >Law 81C6 applies. ~ Grattan ~ ++ I'm not sure that it does. Assume that the NOs were not damaged. There is no redress. However we assume from David's posting that there is something more to the action taken by the offenders. This is presumably suggesting a PP or a walk to meet the L&EC. Law 81C6 talks of rectifying a situation. PPs do not rectify anything. They might prevent similar action being taken on a future occasion but that is preventative medicine, not the cure. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 02:00:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:00:51 +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 CAA09215 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:00:45 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6dMd-0004IJ-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:03:07 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:24:42 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Deliberate UI Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:24:42 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > A TD is called to the table, rules that UI exists, warns the players > involved. In fact, there has been some further bidding after the UI, > and the auction suggests to the TD that UI has been used probably > deliberately. > > He is not recalled at the end of the hand. Should he take any other > action? > > ########### This is a tricky one as the TD has to balance his Law > 81C5 responsibility to "advise the players of their rights and > responsibilities" and his Law 81C6 duty of rectifying "an error or > irregularity of which he has become aware in any manner" with the > presumption that the NOs do not consider themselves damaged if he > hasn't been recalled. If the NOs are a competent pair who are likely > to be able to protect themselves in the event of any damage then I > probably let it go but if I have any reason to suppose that the NOs > are a weak pair then I will intervene in case they do not realise that > they may have been damaged. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 02:02:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:02:04 +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 CAA09232 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:01:58 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6dNm-0004IC-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:04:21 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:23:48 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Fifth Friday Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:23:47 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > I see no problem in having a heat that uses IMPs locally be integrated > into the match-point world rankings and I have even offered to > calculate > an IMP-result solely for them ... > > > ########## I do as the tactics in the two forms of scoring are so > clearly different that a single ranking list would be meaningless. It > is also unnecessary as the YC Committee agreed at its last meeting > that we would participate in the next Fifth Friday competition as an > experiment in order to gauge members' reactions. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 02:02:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:02:32 +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 CAA09246 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:02:25 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6dOC-0004IC-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:04:47 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:26:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:26:06 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: > Could it be because he has had MadDog for a partner recently instead > of > you? Or, perhaps more likely, is the lemonade rotting his brian? :-)) > > ########## Given the amusing typo, perhaps David is not the only one > suffering from *brain* rot. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 02:11:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:11:54 +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 CAA09288 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:11:47 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa11404; 12 Aug 98 9:12 PDT To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:00:24 PDT." <6pxvrLBIXX01EwYl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:12:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9808120912.aa11404@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Not that I am an expert on English usage [unlike Jesper and Herman > ] but it seems to me that normal English allows for usage to be > decided by context. Since I'm American, my opinions regarding the English language of course carry no weight at all; but I agree with David. Richard Lighton wrote: > I would submit that normal English/American usage has no _Disjunctive_ > "or." The word as normally used means "and/or." If one wishes to state > the disjunctive, one writes "either . . . or." I will explain this to the waitress next time I go to a restaurant and she asks if I want "soup or salad" with that. I'll explain to her that the way she used the word "or", this implies that one of my choices is to have both the soup and salad with my meal. I'll try this next time I'm really hungry. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 03:03:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:03:03 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09382 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:02:57 +1000 Received: from client12a8.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.12.168] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z6eKb-0007sZ-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:05:01 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Lighton" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:25:04 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc605$61823020$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 Grattan Endicott> It would be very dreary to read a book of rules that kept repeating >> "If and only if." I'll accept that I must interpret "if" according to >> context. "2-Hour Parking Sundays" does not mean to me that I can park >> there for a longer time on other days. The context tells me I can >> park there only on Sundays. ++ I knew we had to come back to the Parking problem. A sign that tells you "2 Hour Parking Sundays" infers that something different applies on Mondays through Saturdays - 1 Hour Parking Mon through Friday and no parking Saturday, maybe? Or no parking any day Mon through Sat ? Or 24-hour parking every day but Sunday? What will get you a ticket? You just have to go elsewhere for the answer and you are not permitted any assumptions; the mistake is to assume something that is not said. But I can offer advice: get it taxed - then it will be legal. ++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 03:03:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:03:29 +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 DAA09391 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:03:22 +1000 Received: from client12a8.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.12.168] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z6eKn-0007sZ-00; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:05:14 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:14:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc60c$41f93440$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 Grattan Endicott Not that I am an expert on English usage [unlike Jesper and Herman >] but it seems to me that normal English allows for usage to be >decided by context. ++ [Yes. If car parking is generally permitted in the absence of a ban then you can park Monday through Saturday, but not maybe on the sidewalk, when the notice says "Sunday Parking 2 Hours". The world will be interested to learn that our freedom Government is moving to the taxing of car park spaces at our places of business. Well, anyway parking in them will at least be legal - and chargeable no doubt to visitors. There is a difficulty, of course, if a general condition is not established - which is why the WBFLC adopts Kaplan's approach to style for a default button. ~ Grattan ~] ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 03:56:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:56:20 +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 DAA09626 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 03:56:13 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA19279 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:58:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <9808120912.aa11404@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Not that I am an expert on English usage [unlike Jesper and Herman > > ] but it seems to me that normal English allows for usage to be > > decided by context. > > Since I'm American, my opinions regarding the English language of > course carry no weight at all; but I agree with David. > > Richard Lighton wrote: > > > I would submit that normal English/American usage has no _Disjunctive_ > > "or." The word as normally used means "and/or." If one wishes to state > > the disjunctive, one writes "either . . . or." > > I will explain this to the waitress next time I go to a restaurant and > she asks if I want "soup or salad" with that. I'll explain to her > that the way she used the word "or", this implies that one of my > choices is to have both the soup and salad with my meal. I'll try > this next time I'm really hungry. It's worth a try only if you want to annoy your waitress. Okay, you and David are right, I'm wrong. It is context dependent. (I should only try to read mail before breakfast, not answer it) If I'm allowed to modify my statement, in anything resembling a formal statement (e.g. the Laws) "or" without "either" should be conjunctive. Not that my view carries a lot of weight, but I claim to be bilingual in English and 'Merican. I owe Adam either a soup or a salad. -- Richard Lighton |"But then the prospect of a lot/ Of dull M.P.s in close (lighton@idt.net)| proximity/ All thinking for themselves, is what/ Wood-Ridge NJ | No man can face with equanimity." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 04:01:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:01:25 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09679 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:01:19 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA07952 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02771; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:03:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:03:49 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808121803.OAA02771@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: parking tax X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The world will be interested to learn that our freedom Government > is moving to the taxing of car park spaces at our places of business. Our fair city of Cambridge is under a "parking ban," which means that businesses may not add parking spaces without a permit. In general, both employees and visitors (but not customers) can expect to pay for parking at businesses. A simple tax looks pretty good from here. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 04:04:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:04:08 +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 EAA09721 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:04:02 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA00919 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:05:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.69) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000700; Wed Aug 12 13:05:19 1998 Received: by har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC5F9.8D147A60@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:00:24 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC5F9.8D147A60@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:40:16 -0400 Encoding: 21 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It would be very dreary to read a book of rules that kept repeating "If and only if." I'll accept that I must interpret "if" according to context. "2-Hour Parking Sundays" does not mean to me that I can park there for a longer time on other days. The context tells me I can park there only on Sundays. Steve would insist that the sign should in that case say, "Parking Sundays Only, Limit 2 Hours." Signs aren't that big! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) ##### Fortunately we do not have to squeeze the Laws into a small sign. We would not bring about the end of the world if we were to add a full signature to TFLB in order to enhance its clarity dramatically. "Parking Sundays Only, Limit 2 Hours" is overwhelmingly more clear in its meaning. That is exactly what we should be attempting with the Laws. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 04:04:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:04:00 +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 EAA09714 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:03:54 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA17250 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:05:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-05.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.69) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017218; Wed Aug 12 13:05:29 1998 Received: by har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC5F9.9C446AE0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:00:49 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC5F9.9C446AE0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:06:51 -0400 Encoding: 28 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Richard Lighton[SMTP:lighton@idt.net] I would submit that normal English/American usage has no _Disjunctive_ "or." The word as normally used means "and/or." If one wishes to state the disjunctive, one writes "either . . . or." Certainly the word can be ambiguous, but I would expect it to be conjunctive. The "and/or" usage is hideous and not English. ##### "Give me liberty or give me death" "We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately" How can you contend that American English usage of "or" is conjunctive and equivalent to and/or? It just is not so. Unless qualified, "or" implies "one OR the other...not both." Is this true in TQE (The Queen's English) as well? It would seem to be in what I have read, but I would defer to our contingent in GB on this. Are the Laws written in English? In American? OR in some other language initially? Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 04:13:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:13:52 +1000 Received: from pm06sm.pmm.mci.net (pm06sm.pmm.mci.net [208.159.126.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09767 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:13:46 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr2-dialup38.mix1.Bloomington.mci.net) by PM06SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #U2935) with SMTP id <0EXL00ENT9DZ0A@PM06SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:15:39 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:07:45 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <00f201bdc61c$1d115120$661337a6@uymfdlvk> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >I would submit that normal English/American usage has no _Disjunctive_ >"or." The word as normally used means "and/or." If one wishes to state >the disjunctive, one writes "either . . . or." > >Certainly the word can be ambiguous, but I would expect it to be >conjunctive. The "and/or" usage is hideous and not English. Do you want to play Two-way Stayman or Jacoby transfers? Do you play RKC regular or 1430? Do you want to go to Tahiti or Venice on your vacation this year? Seems pretty disjunctive to me. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 05:00:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 05:00:03 +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 EAA09909 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:59:57 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA16773 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:02:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <01BDC5F9.9C446AE0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Craig Senior wrote: > > How can you contend that American English usage of "or" is conjunctive and > equivalent to and/or? It just is not so. Unless qualified, "or" implies > "one OR the other...not both." > Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary "or .... 4--used in logic as a sequential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true--compare DISJUNCTION" Yes, it is context dependent. Lighton, write down several times "I must not make categorical statements before drinking coffee." -- Richard Lighton |"But then the prospect of a lot/ Of dull M.P.s in close (lighton@idt.net)| proximity/ All thinking for themselves, is what/ Wood-Ridge NJ | No man can face with equanimity." USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 05:02:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 05:02:37 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA09941 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 05:02:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA10174 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:04:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02872; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:05:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:05:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808121905.PAA02872@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:40:22 +0100 > From: David Stevenson Sorry for the late response, but there are a few things worth comment. > To summarise the hand [deleted] West had UI available from his > partner. He chose a bid of 4H, and the UI suggested *not* choosing 4S. > Assume for the sake of argument that 4S leads to -100: 3D and 4H both > lead to +620. Suppose we polled some players on their choice of action: > it is believed that 20% would bid 4S, 40% 4H, and 40% 3D. > > Now, under ACBL interpretations, the player has made an illegal call > of 4H, since 4S *is* an LA. Thus the opponents may have been damaged > [L16A2] and L12C2 comes into play. All fine so far. > For the OS we want to find "the most unfavourable result that was at > all probable": according to the ACBL "at all probable" is one found by > one in six players, ie > 17.66%. The three actions given are all > greater than this percentage, so the AC picks the one that is "most > unfavourable", and gives the OS -100. Well, 16.67%, but so far OK. > For the NOs we want to find "the most favourable result that was > likely had the irregularity not occurred": according to the ACBL > "likely" is one found by one in three players, ie > 33.32%. Only two of > the three actions given are greater than this percentage, namely 3D and > 4H, so the AC picks the one that is "most favourable", and gives the OS > -620 since that is where both actions lead. But here we part company. We must _exclude_ the illegal 4H bid for figuring the NOS score. So of the remaining calls, 4S is exactly 1 chance in 3 with 3D being 2/3. So this is exactly a borderline decision, resolved in favor of the NOS if it's unresolvable any other way. In practice, I expect the AC would vote on whether 4S/(4S+3D) is more or less likely than 1/3, i.e. on which way to adjust the percentages. If they were, say 15%, 40%, 45%, then -620 would be correct. If 25%, 40%, 35%, then +100. > The problem is with the ACBL interpretation, and not with the AC. This > has nothing to do with the definition of an LA: it is the definition of > "likely" that causes the trouble. > > How do we solve it in England/Wales? Easy: an LA is an action found > by 30% of ... A "likely" action is one that you would expect 30% of ... > In other words, we equate the two and never get this problem. No; you still have the problem. The two definitions need not match. All your definition of LA means is that you adjust fewer scores. > ...there is something basically wrong > with using percentages: they only properly work in two option cases! Oh, David, why make something simple into something hard? Percentages work fine if one interprets them in a sensible way. There is no conceptual problem no matter how many results are possible. The concept will be familiar to anyone who deals with "percentiles," perhaps as a result of surveys or test scores. Simply order all the possible results (for the OS) or all the legal results (for the NOS) and assign a percentage probability to each one. (This last is hard in practice, but let's have a purely theoretical discussion for a moment.) Now start at the least favorable result for the OS, and go up the list until the sum of the probabilities totals 1/6. That's the result to give. Do the same for the NOS list, stopping at 1/3. In David's example, with five 20% alternatives, the OS gets the worst result of the five (20%>17%), and the NOS gets the next one (40%>33%), i.e. the second-best of their possible results. What could be simpler? Of course all this assumes one can assign probabilities. In general, that is very hard, and no two people are likely to agree. I don't have a perfect answer to that one, but no method is perfect. If the committee members roughly agree on the percentages but disagree about the exact numbers, then it's reasonable to assign either result if near a borderline. (Often they will agree on the result even if not on the exact percentages that lead to the result.) If the members grossly disagree, then that's a fundamental problem no matter what method you use. Sorry if this is unclear; it was written in haste. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 05:39:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 05:39:39 +1000 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10028 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 05:39:34 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-52-227.s227.tnt1.brd.erols.com [207.172.52.227]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00618 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808121941.PAA00618@smtp3.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:41:55 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of G. R. Bower > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 5:51 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" > > > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > Why is there no way for Directors to know? Surely they > do not work in > > isolation? Do not their NBO's train them? Inform them? > > > > A Director is not just given a Law book and sent out to > direct - well, > > I sincerely hope not! > > Indeed not. I had to buy my own copy of the Law book, too. > > I am only certified to direct at the club and unit level, not at > sectionals, regionals, or nationals, here, and I *think* that > there is a > fair amount of formal training, on an ongoing basis, that the > higher-ranked directors get. [snip] There's no formal training in the ACBL that I've ever seen, after the club director's course, and I have directed at tournaments up to the Regional level. Maybe they only do Director training at the Nationals? ;) ISTR that as an ACBL rated Director, I was able to buy my Law book at a discount. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 07:21:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 07:21:38 +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 HAA10301 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 07:21:32 +1000 Received: from ip37.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.37]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980812212452.EIAC2884.fep4@ip37.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:24:52 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:23:54 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d4fffa.3046610@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 Tue, 11 Aug 1998 03:43:47 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ Thank you for your view. We are not in agreement. That seems to be an established fact. > [ I am >of the opinion that the rules for the playing of duplicate bridge=20 >promulgated by the WBF Executive, by ratification of the=20 >decisions of WBFLC, are comprised not in the words of the=20 >'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' but in the meanings attached to those=20 >words by the promulgating body.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ If that is also the official WBF view, then the law book should say so: a law that simply says that the WBFLC's statements on law interpretation are authoritative should do it. I wouldn't like it, but it would at least end part of the discussion. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 07:21:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 07:21:29 +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 HAA10294 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 07:21:23 +1000 Received: from ip37.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.37]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980812212443.EHZW2884.fep4@ip37.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:24:43 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:23:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d7010f.3323949@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 Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:03:00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Hirsch Davis wrote: >>The output of the WBFLC is the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge".=20 [...] >>Otherwise, there is no way for most Directors to know the real rules of= the >>game they are trying to administer. > > Why is there no way for Directors to know? Surely they do not work in >isolation? Do not their NBO's train them? Inform them? In Denmark, the primary responsibility for informing our national TDs has been mine for about 5 years. In those 5 years, I haven't received any information whatsoever originating from the WBFLC other than the law book, rumours from people who participated in the EBL course in Milan, and what Grattan and Ton has written on BLML. Grattan wrote: >So we supplement the text with explanatory material which is >circulated to NBOs and Zones - EK did a lot of this and I did some >during his Chairmanship - and by responding to enquiry. Grattan also wrote: >++ But not this alone. Other material goes down the line too,=20 >following each year's meeting(s).=20 I have never seen any of this. Is this really being sent to the NBOs? If so, I obviously need to find out where in the DBF it disappears. May I suggest that you also consistently publish such material on BLML in the future? - BLML seems to be a more reliable distribution channel. Somewhere on the WBF WWW site would also be a good place for it. >I do not see it being picked up=20 >all that well in even the advanced Western European areas. ++ Neither do I! >++ NBOs should pick up what we do from the minutes and other=20 >material published to them. Hitherto the lines of communication=20 >have been weak. I am hoping to change this once Lille produces=20 >something to get my teeth into. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++ Yes, please. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 10:20:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:20:36 +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 KAA10715 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:20:26 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6lA8-0002lz-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:22:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:03:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fifth Friday In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Martin writes >Herman wrote: > > >> I see no problem in having a heat that uses IMPs locally be integrated >> into the match-point world rankings and I have even offered to >> calculate >> an IMP-result solely for them ... >> >> >> ########## I do as the tactics in the two forms of scoring are so >> clearly different that a single ranking list would be meaningless. It >> is also unnecessary as the YC Committee agreed at its last meeting >> that we would participate in the next Fifth Friday competition as an >> experiment in order to gauge members' reactions. ############ ... but was a decision made as to the form of scoring. As usual no-one ever tells the poor TD anything. ... Thanks for letting me know :) -- 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 Aug 13 10:20:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:20:26 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10710 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:20:20 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6lA9-0007Fa-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:22:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:16:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <199808121941.PAA00618@smtp3.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199808121941.PAA00618@smtp3.erols.com>, Hirsch Davis writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of G. R. Bower >> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 5:51 AM >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, David Stevenson wrote: >> > Why is there no way for Directors to know? Surely they >> do not work in >> > isolation? Do not their NBO's train them? Inform them? >> > >> > A Director is not just given a Law book and sent out to >> direct - well, >> > I sincerely hope not! >> >> Indeed not. I had to buy my own copy of the Law book, too. >> >> I am only certified to direct at the club and unit level, not at >> sectionals, regionals, or nationals, here, and I *think* that >> there is a >> fair amount of formal training, on an ongoing basis, that the >> higher-ranked directors get. > >[snip] > >There's no formal training in the ACBL that I've ever seen, after the >club director's course, and I have directed at tournaments up to the >Regional level. Maybe they only do Director training at the Nationals? >;) > >ISTR that as an ACBL rated Director, I was able to buy my Law book at a >discount. > >Hirsch > As an EBU Director I was sent mine through the post by the EBU with a complements slip. And my 17 month diary arrived last week too. (August to December 1999). The January 2000 page seems to read 5th Jan 1980 :) -- 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 Aug 13 10:37:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:37:09 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10822 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:37:02 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA19041 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:39:23 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980813023856.008de2d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:38:56 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: <01bdc605$61823020$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:25 12-08-98 +0100, you wrote: > >Grattan Endicott "Take care of the sense, and the sounds > will take care of themselves." > - Alice in Wonderland. > > >>> It would be very dreary to read a book of rules that kept repeating >>> "If and only if." I'll accept that I must interpret "if" according to >>> context. "2-Hour Parking Sundays" does not mean to me that I can park >>> there for a longer time on other days. The context tells me I can >>> park there only on Sundays. > >++ I knew we had to come back to the Parking problem. A sign that tells >you "2 Hour Parking Sundays" infers that something different applies >on Mondays through Saturdays - 1 Hour Parking Mon through Friday and >no parking Saturday, maybe? Or no parking any day Mon through Sat ? >Or 24-hour parking every day but Sunday? What will get you a ticket? >You just have to go elsewhere for the answer and you are not permitted >any assumptions; the mistake is to assume something that is not said. >But I can offer advice: get it taxed - then it will be legal. ++ ~ Grattan >~ > > > > ++ sure, but there is a general rule that only fools pay tax :) btw even i usually get money back from my IRS anton ++ > > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 10:54:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:54:23 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10914 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:54:16 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA20840 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:56:38 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980813025611.008dea60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:56:11 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: References: <01BDC5F9.9C446AE0@har-pa2-05.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:02 12-08-98 -0400, you wrote: > >On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Craig Senior wrote: > PLEASE, lest keep our senses. We arent here to discuss either Wbester's or our drinking habist. So lets keep our attention to the case. 1) If we agree to the fact that a comma was ommitted in the law, I think we have to admit that the captain has to concur to get an appeal to the AC. If the captain isnt available,, we all agree, that he concurs. (i hope now) If a pair appeals but captain doenst concut most of us think the appeal should go on, and if captain appeals and no one eles endorses him, most of us feel the appela halts. I still have some problems withe the last two thesis. In my opinion, the captain is responsible for the whole theam and has (as a matter of fact) the power to act for the team (you wont say to the driver of your car "go right"if this is forbidden and when he gets fined for doing it he wants to blame you for the offence :) so lets keep the discussion sensible please and keep drinking habits (coffee or beer) out of it ::)) anton witzen >> >> How can you contend that American English usage of "or" is conjunctive and >> equivalent to and/or? It just is not so. Unless qualified, "or" implies >> "one OR the other...not both." >> >Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary > >"or .... 4--used in logic as a sequential connective that forms a complex > sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences > is true--compare DISJUNCTION" > >Yes, it is context dependent. Lighton, write down several times >"I must not make categorical statements before drinking coffee." >-- >Richard Lighton |"But then the prospect of a lot/ Of dull M.P.s in close >(lighton@idt.net)| proximity/ All thinking for themselves, is what/ >Wood-Ridge NJ | No man can face with equanimity." >USA | --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 11:13:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:13:45 +1000 Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA10985 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:13:40 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsyd61p39.ozemail.com.au [203.108.19.167]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA02872 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:16:04 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:16:04 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199808130116.LAA02872@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: ArtAss Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night playing teams, my partner and I at Table 1 bid to 4H making 5. This was not exactly routine as there was a possible opponent sacrifice which might have worked, and a better defence would have cost the overtrick. One of our opponents unthinkingly faced a card in the board so that when the board was placed on Table 2, all players could see the Queen of Clubs. Our team-mates refused to play the board thinking apparently that they were going to be penalised via L24. I suggested to the TD that he should stop play and award an assigned adjusted score as per our recent discussions on the matter, but as he pointed out, what score should he assign? Eventually we mutually agreed to wipe the board. My question is, can the director demand that at least the bidding be completed to see what the final contract would have been? If he can't what Artass should he give? Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 11:44:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:44:39 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA11064 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:44:33 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07453; 12 Aug 98 18:46 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ArtAss In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:16:04 PDT." <199808130116.LAA02872@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:46:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9808121846.aa07453@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Last night playing teams, my partner and I at Table 1 bid to 4H making 5. > This was not exactly routine as there was a possible opponent sacrifice > which might have worked, and a better defence would have cost the overtrick. > One of our opponents unthinkingly faced a card in the board so that when the > board was placed on Table 2, all players could see the Queen of Clubs. > Our team-mates refused to play the board thinking apparently that they were > going to be penalised via L24. > > I suggested to the TD that he should stop play and award an assigned > adjusted score as per our recent discussions on the matter, but as he > pointed out, what score should he assign? Eventually we mutually agreed to > wipe the board. My question is, can the director demand that at least the > bidding be completed to see what the final contract would have been? If he > can't what Artass should he give? I believe L6D1 applies, sort of: # 6D. New Shuffle and Re-deal # 1. Cards Incorrectly Dealt or Exposed # There must be a new shuffle and a re-deal if it is ascertained before # the auction begins for both sides (see Law 17A) that the cards have # been incorrectly dealt or that a player could have seen the face of a # card belonging to another hand. However, I'm not sure how this Law is supposed to apply when the board was moved from another table. Certainly, you can't just redeal the cards. This seems to be a hole in Law 6D1. (Unless there's another Law that applies, but I haven't found one.) In any case, I think it's clear from 6D1 that the board *cannot* be played as is, and that implies that no assigned score can be given. So it's not appropriate to bid the hand out to see what contract would have been reached. From the Definitions: # Adjusted Score - An arbitrary score awarded by the Director (see Law # 12). It is either "artificial" or "assigned". 1. An artificial # adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result # can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ # irregularity prevents play of a deal). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So clearly an adjusted score is called for, not an assigned score. At matchpoints, everyone would get an average, and the pair who screwed up when putting the cards back in the board should get a PP. At IMPs, I'd expect 3 IMPs to the non-offenders (L86A). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 11:49:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:49:49 +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 LAA11086 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:49:43 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07716; 12 Aug 98 18:51 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ArtAss In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:46:13 PDT." <9808121846.aa07453@flash.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:51:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9808121851.aa07716@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I believe L6D1 applies, sort of: > > # 6D. New Shuffle and Re-deal > # 1. Cards Incorrectly Dealt or Exposed > # There must be a new shuffle and a re-deal if it is ascertained before > # the auction begins for both sides (see Law 17A) that the cards have > # been incorrectly dealt or that a player could have seen the face of a > # card belonging to another hand. > > However, I'm not sure how this Law is supposed to apply when the board > was moved from another table. Certainly, you can't just redeal the > cards. This seems to be a hole in Law 6D1. (Unless there's another > Law that applies, but I haven't found one.) > > In any case, I think it's clear from 6D1 that the board *cannot* be > played as is, and that implies that no assigned score can be given. > So it's not appropriate to bid the hand out to see what contract would > have been reached. From the Definitions: > > # Adjusted Score - An arbitrary score awarded by the Director (see Law > # 12). It is either "artificial" or "assigned". 1. An artificial > # adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result > # can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > # irregularity prevents play of a deal). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > So clearly an adjusted score is called for, not an assigned score. At ******** uh, I misspelled "artificial" > matchpoints, everyone would get an average, and the pair who screwed > up when putting the cards back in the board should get a PP. At IMPs, > I'd expect 3 IMPs to the non-offenders (L86A). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 16:08:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA11563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:08:24 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA11557 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:08:17 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA05136 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808130610.XAA05136@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:09:17 -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 Grattan wrote: > If car parking is generally permitted in the absence of a > ban then you can park Monday through Saturday, but not maybe > on the sidewalk, when the notice says "Sunday Parking 2 Hours". > The world will be interested to learn that our freedom Government > is moving to the taxing of car park spaces at our places of business. > Well, anyway parking in them will at least be legal - and chargeable > no doubt to visitors. > There is a difficulty, of course, if a general condition is not > established - which is why the WBFLC adopts Kaplan's approach to > style for a default button. ~ Grattan ~] ++ In most cases the general condition is one that is understood by (nearly) everyone, and need not be made explicit. Let's talk about the Laws instead of parking signs. Some on BLML and RGB have said that you can examine an opponent's CC anytime you wish, whether or not it's your turn to bid or play. Why? Because although L40E2 says you may examine the opposing CC at your own turn to bid or play, but not your own CC, there's no Law that says you may not look at their CC at other times, therefore you may. What's more, they say, although you may not look at your own CC when it's your turn to call or play, you may do so at any other time. No law against it. I asked wife and partner Alice, long-time teacher of English as a second language for adults, to come up with some word to characterize such logic. She said "pedantry." I didn't accept her choice, because a pedant, the sort who says "It is I," can claim some sort of validity for his/her uncommon usages of English. A sophist, on the other hand, takes a germ of truth and turns it into a deadly disease. The sophist will insist that we must write "if and only if" it is one's turn to bid or play, when that is the intent. If the sophists will please accept that "at his own turn to call or play" in L40E2 has the same significance as "if it is his turn to call or play," I will write about "if," and what I write will apply to L40E2 and other laws that are obviously stating a condition that must be met before an action can be taken. The primary meaning of the word "if" has four sub-meanings: (1) in the event that, (2) allowing that, (3) on the assumption that, and (4) on condition that. It's a short-form word for any one of those phrases. One must glean the exact meaning from the context, and if the context makes the meaning clear, as in L40E2, which is obviously stating a necessary condition, then it is not at all required that a writer impose the super-clear "if and only if," "when and only when," or "on condition that." Maybe in a legal contract involving millions of bucks, but not in a rule book for a game of cards. That takes care of looking at the opposing card, but what about looking at your own? Well, a footnote to 40E2 clears that up, thank goodness. We have enough problems with the language of the Laws without dragging in sophistic balderdash, so please let's get on with the real issues. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 17:28:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:28:40 +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 RAA11645 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:28:35 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA13869; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808130730.AAA13869@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:28:12 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > There's no formal training in the ACBL that I've ever seen, after the > club director's course, and I have directed at tournaments up to the > Regional level. Maybe they only do Director training at the Nationals? > ;) > According to material in the ACBLScore software, ACBL TDs have "standards" that they must meet in order to advance through these ranks: Local Tournament Director Associate Tournament Director Tournament Director Associate National Tournament Director and, I suppose, National Tournament Director At each stage of advancement, successful performance of the previous stage must be shown, and there are written tests, oral examinations, demonstrations of qualifications, and a list of expected skills. In addition, ACBL TDs are expected to participate in a program of continuing education, which is in the form of seminars, discussions with supervisor, videotapes, audio cassettes, and even a movie. Participating in these earns various "credits," 10 of which are required per year for full-time TDs, 4 for part-time TDs. Maybe some TD on BLML can tell us how well all this is working? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 18:41:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA11754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:41:46 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA11749 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:41:39 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-237.uunet.be [194.7.13.237]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA05439 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:44:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35D183EE.603E8320@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:00:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Deliberate UI X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > He should tell the players the effect of certain actions, but not give > any advice as to what to do. It is a fine line. > Which is why I always give three advices, one normal, one less normal and one ludicrous. FI, in stead of saying 'the lowest possible bid in the same denomination', you of course say '3 diamonds', but in stead of 'if the suit was specified by the same player' I also say 'bid 3 diamonds, or 4 diamonds, or 7 diamonds'. Do you see what I mean ? By giving several alternatives, you clearly state that you are not giving advice, but of course the normal action is included. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 19:50:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:50:56 +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 TAA11816 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:50:50 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:53:05 +0100 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA18485 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:52:39 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: ArtAss In-Reply-To: <9808121846.aa07453@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:52:26 +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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > Last night playing teams, my partner and I at Table 1 bid to 4H making 5. > > This was not exactly routine as there was a possible opponent sacrifice > > which might have worked, and a better defence would have cost the overtrick. > > One of our opponents unthinkingly faced a card in the board so that when the > > board was placed on Table 2, all players could see the Queen of Clubs. > > Our team-mates refused to play the board thinking apparently that they were > > going to be penalised via L24. The card wasn't exposed during the auction so L24 doesn't apply. > > I suggested to the TD that he should stop play and award an assigned > > adjusted score as per our recent discussions on the matter, but as he > > pointed out, what score should he assign? Eventually we mutually agreed to > > wipe the board. My question is, can the director demand that at least the > > bidding be completed to see what the final contract would have been? If he > > can't what Artass should he give? > > I believe L6D1 applies, sort of: > > # 6D. New Shuffle and Re-deal > # 1. Cards Incorrectly Dealt or Exposed > # There must be a new shuffle and a re-deal if it is ascertained before > # the auction begins for both sides (see Law 17A) that the cards have > # been incorrectly dealt or that a player could have seen the face of a > # card belonging to another hand. > > However, I'm not sure how this Law is supposed to apply when the board > was moved from another table. Certainly, you can't just redeal the > cards. This seems to be a hole in Law 6D1. (Unless there's another > Law that applies, but I haven't found one.) Law 6 is entitled "The shuffle and deal", so I think it's clear that L6D1 only applies when the card is exposed during the deal. Doesn't L16B3 apply, since three of the four players have UI? If this UI is deemed to prevent the normal play of the hand, then an artificial adjusted score should be given. In teams, isn't this +3 IMPs for your side, who are completely innocent, and -3 IMPs to your opponents, who (accidently) caused the irregularity? I presume that in a situation like this, if the opponents at the other table had got a dreadful result, they "could have known" that exposing a card in this way might be to their advantage, so L72B1 would allow an assigned adjusted score of more than +3 IMPs? ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 20:53:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:53:59 +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 UAA11949 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:53:53 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6v3H-0006ls-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:56:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:26:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ArtAss In-Reply-To: <199808130116.LAA02872@oznet14.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >Last night playing teams, my partner and I at Table 1 bid to 4H making 5. >This was not exactly routine as there was a possible opponent sacrifice >which might have worked, and a better defence would have cost the overtrick. >One of our opponents unthinkingly faced a card in the board so that when the >board was placed on Table 2, all players could see the Queen of Clubs. >Our team-mates refused to play the board thinking apparently that they were >going to be penalised via L24. > >I suggested to the TD that he should stop play and award an assigned >adjusted score as per our recent discussions on the matter, but as he >pointed out, what score should he assign? Eventually we mutually agreed to >wipe the board. My question is, can the director demand that at least the >bidding be completed to see what the final contract would have been? If he >can't what Artass should he give? This is a simple L16B problem, and Jeremy Rickard has posted the correct solution, so I won't repeat it. However, I am worried by the statement >Our team-mates refused to play the board If this is literally true [I hope it isn't] nothing less than suspension from the tournament can possibly be correct. They do not have any right not to obey an instruction from a Director whether he is right or wrong. As discussed before, there are obvious exceptions to this, especially ones not to do with the actual play of the game. If a Director tells you to play a hand and ignore the fire that is engulfing the other side of the room you do not obey him. But in the general way of things, the fact that a Director's ruling is wrong gives you cause for appeal, but not cause to refuse to follow his instructions. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 22:26:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:26:16 +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 WAA12293 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:26:09 +1000 Received: from client0933.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.9.51] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z6wUW-0004I0-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:28:29 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:07:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc6b2$fe9fb640$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 : Grattan Endicott >It is also not useful, as is apparently the case, when ACBL TDs, ACs, >and Laws Commission feel that any interpretions not originating in >their jurisdiction are to be disregarded. This is not merely an >impression; I have a number of e-mails from highly-placed individuals >who have made this very clear to me. The attitude seems to be: "No >foreigner is going to tell *us* how to read the Laws!" ++ Sad, really, to think that each one of us, and of them, is a foreigner to many times more people than not; of course, some 47% of the WBFLC members come from the North Americas and 35% from Europe but I hope we are none of us foreigners to each other there. ++ >It will be interesting to see what comes out of the WBFLC >meeting in Lille. If there is some offical alteration of the wording >for various laws, then the ACBL will be forced to abandon those >idiosyncratic interpretations that clearly become untenable. +++ Changes of wording in Laws are not foreseen. Footnotes might be added, guidance as to the correct interpretation of the Laws will be an intended objective. But let us be patient for the outcome! ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 22:35:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:35:50 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA12317 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:35:44 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z6wdr-0003PY-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:38:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:37:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: ArtAss In-Reply-To: <9808121846.aa07453@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9808121846.aa07453@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >> Last night playing teams, my partner and I at Table 1 bid to 4H making 5. >> This was not exactly routine as there was a possible opponent sacrifice >> which might have worked, and a better defence would have cost the overtrick. >> One of our opponents unthinkingly faced a card in the board so that when the >> board was placed on Table 2, all players could see the Queen of Clubs. >> Our team-mates refused to play the board thinking apparently that they were >> going to be penalised via L24. >> snip >So clearly an adjusted score is called for, not an assigned score. At >matchpoints, everyone would get an average, and the pair who screwed >up when putting the cards back in the board should get a PP. At IMPs, >I'd expect 3 IMPs to the non-offenders (L86A). > > -- Adam 16B3 governs this one, IMO "when a player accidentally receives UI about a board he is playing or has yet to play, ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the TD should be notified forthwith. ..The TD may .. forthwith award an artificial adjusted score." L12C1. -3 imps (2 at Butler) However, I can award a larger penalty because the law says "(at most 40%)", so I'd consider that if the normal result would have been 10 imps then that is what I'd award (via L72 - [which I can't use for corrected revokes]) -- 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 Aug 13 23:43:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:43:44 +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 XAA12526 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:43:37 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA08290; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:45:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.82) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008274; Thu Aug 13 08:45:07 1998 Received: by har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC69E.66AD2E80@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:40:26 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC69E.66AD2E80@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" , "'David Martin'" Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:40:32 -0400 Encoding: 21 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Got me. I told my wife I was drinking too much lemonade. Back to Coca-Cola at once! Craig ---------- From: David Martin[SMTP:DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 12:26 PM To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Craig wrote: > Could it be because he has had MadDog for a partner recently instead > of > you? Or, perhaps more likely, is the lemonade rotting his brian? :-)) > > ########## Given the amusing typo, perhaps David is not the only one > suffering from *brain* rot. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 13 23:43:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:43:56 +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 XAA12532 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:43:50 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA00151; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:45:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.82) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000118; Thu Aug 13 08:45:26 1998 Received: by har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC69E.71BEBD20@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:40:45 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC69E.71BEBD20@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "'Richard Lighton'" Subject: RE: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:40:47 -0400 Encoding: 29 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:16:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa24740; 13 Aug 98 9:18 PDT To: "Rickard, Jeremy" cc: BLML , adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ArtAss In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:52:26 PDT." Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:17:51 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9808130918.aa24740@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Law 6 is entitled "The shuffle and deal", so I think it's clear that > L6D1 only applies when the card is exposed during the deal. > > Doesn't L16B3 apply, since three of the four players have UI? If this > UI is deemed to prevent the normal play of the hand, then an artificial > adjusted score should be given. In teams, isn't this +3 IMPs for your > side, who are completely innocent, and -3 IMPs to your opponents, who > (accidently) caused the irregularity? Yes, I missed that Law. My lame excuse: I was searching for the word "expose", and L16B doesn't use that term. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 02:27:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:27:00 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA15452 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:26:54 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z70FZ-0006bg-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:29:18 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:09:25 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Fifth Friday Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:09:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: > >Herman wrote: > > > > > >> I see no problem in having a heat that uses IMPs locally be > integrated > >> into the match-point world rankings and I have even offered to > >> calculate > >> an IMP-result solely for them ... > >> > >> > >> ######OLD#### I do as the tactics in the two forms of scoring are > so > >> clearly different that a single ranking list would be meaningless. > It > >> is also unnecessary as the YC Committee agreed at its last meeting > >> that we would participate in the next Fifth Friday competition as > an > >> experiment in order to gauge members' reactions. #####OLD####### > > ... but was a decision made as to the form of scoring. As usual > no-one > ever tells the poor TD anything. ... Thanks for letting me know :) > > > ########### I believe that we agreed to use match-pointed pairs > scoring. ############ > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 02:48:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:48:30 +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 CAA15514 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:48:21 +1000 Received: from client0866.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.102] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z70aA-0004RZ-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:50:35 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:52:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc6b9$4cf95520$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 Grattan EndicottLet's talk about the Laws instead of parking signs. Some on BLML and >RGB have said that you can examine an opponent's CC anytime you wish, >whether or not it's your turn to bid or play. Why? Because although >L40E2 says you may examine the opposing CC at your own turn to bid or >play, but not your own CC, there's no Law that says you may not look >at their CC at other times, therefore you may. What's more, they say, >although you may not look at your own CC when it's your turn to call >or play, you may do so at any other time. No law against it. > ++ Kaplan would say two things: 1. What the Law does not authorize is not authorized 2. That is the way I, Kaplan, wrote the law and that is what the Committee intended, so if there is any argument about what the Law means the Committee's intention resolves it. or, as I have been so controversial as to suggest, the Law means what the Committee says it means. I add, "desirably so". ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 02:48:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:48:31 +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 CAA15515 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:48:22 +1000 Received: from client0866.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.102] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z70aC-0004RZ-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:50:37 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Jesper Dybdal" Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:33:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc6cf$be1f63a0$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 Grattan Endicott; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:48:27 +1000 Received: from client0866.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.102] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z70aL-0004RZ-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:50:46 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: another unworkable law? Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:54:12 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc6da$ff2dbe40$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 Grattan Endicott> The Law about revoke is quite fair > 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> > ++++ Well, maybe; I could contemplate a revoke law which said: 64. When a revoke is established the offending side shall be penalized the equivalent of 10% of the match points available on the board or in team play 3 imps, or such other standard penalty as may be substituted in the applicable regulations, and the Director shall consider whether there is even a reasonable possibility that a non-offending opponent has been damaged through the revoke and if of that opinion shall assign an adjusted score. ~ Grattan ('The TD's Friend') ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 02:48:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:48:57 +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 CAA15550 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:48:47 +1000 Received: from client0866.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.102] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z70aE-0004RZ-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:50:39 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: parking tax Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:48:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc6d1$c014e020$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 Grattan EndicottSubject: parking tax >A simple tax looks pretty good from here. > ++ Ah yes, Endicott, remember to be content with your lot - the other lot may well be worse. ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 04:06:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:06:07 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15792 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:05:58 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-132.uunet.be [194.7.14.132]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA16821 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:08:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35D2AE63.5020E627@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:14:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199808121905.PAA02872@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 20:40:22 +0100 > > From: David Stevenson > > Sorry for the late response, but there are a few things worth comment. > > > To summarise the hand [deleted] West had UI available from his > > partner. He chose a bid of 4H, and the UI suggested *not* choosing 4S. > > Assume for the sake of argument that 4S leads to -100: 3D and 4H both > > lead to +620. Suppose we polled some players on their choice of action: > > it is believed that 20% would bid 4S, 40% 4H, and 40% 3D. > > > > Now, under ACBL interpretations, the player has made an illegal call > > of 4H, since 4S *is* an LA. Thus the opponents may have been damaged > > [L16A2] and L12C2 comes into play. > > All fine so far. > > > For the OS we want to find "the most unfavourable result that was at > > all probable": according to the ACBL "at all probable" is one found by > > one in six players, ie > 17.66%. The three actions given are all > > greater than this percentage, so the AC picks the one that is "most > > unfavourable", and gives the OS -100. > > Well, 16.67%, but so far OK. > > > For the NOs we want to find "the most favourable result that was > > likely had the irregularity not occurred": according to the ACBL > > "likely" is one found by one in three players, ie > 33.32%. Only two of > > the three actions given are greater than this percentage, namely 3D and > > 4H, so the AC picks the one that is "most favourable", and gives the OS > > -620 since that is where both actions lead. > > But here we part company. We must _exclude_ the illegal 4H bid for > figuring the NOS score. So of the remaining calls, 4S is exactly 1 > chance in 3 with 3D being 2/3. So this is exactly a borderline > decision, resolved in favor of the NOS if it's unresolvable any other > way. In practice, I expect the AC would vote on whether 4S/(4S+3D) > is more or less likely than 1/3, i.e. on which way to adjust the > percentages. If they were, say 15%, 40%, 45%, then -620 would be > correct. If 25%, 40%, 35%, then +100. > Let me bring you back into the company, Steve, as you have made an error in reasoning : Since the UI suggested *not bidding 4S*, the 3D bid would also be not allowed, so you would only be able to adjust to 4S making something. But that is not how it works : the sentence "had the irregularity not occured" in L12 can (and IMO must) be interpreted as the whole irregularity, the giving AND receiving of UI. Then 3D and 4H are both "likely", and if indeed the 4S bid is not "likely" then the NOs should get -620. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 05:40:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 05:40:24 +1000 Received: from hd1.usuhs.mil ([131.158.107.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA16130 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 05:40:13 +1000 Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil by hd1.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 3.00) id 00000339; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:40:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199808131940.00000339@hd1.usuhs.mil> Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:06:57 -0400 From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:06:52 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <199808130730.AAA13869@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French [mailto:mfrench1@san.rr.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 3:28 AM > To: Hirsch Davis; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > There's no formal training in the ACBL that I've ever seen, after > the > > club director's course, and I have directed at tournaments up to > the > > Regional level. Maybe they only do Director training at the > Nationals? > > ;) > > > According to material in the ACBLScore software, ACBL TDs have > "standards" that they must meet in order to advance through these > ranks: > > Local Tournament Director > Associate Tournament Director > Tournament Director > Associate National Tournament Director > and, I suppose, National Tournament Director > > At each stage of advancement, successful performance of the previous > stage must be shown, and there are written tests, oral examinations, > demonstrations of qualifications, and a list of expected skills. > The situation in the ACBL may have changed over the last two years (I took a break from directing due to other obligations, and have not yet returned). That being said, I was a Local Tournament Director. The only criterion I was ever given for achieving this rank, or moving to the next one, was the concurrence of the National Director in charge of my area. Advancement in the ACBL while I was there was based on political, not performance, considerations. Again, I hope this has changed. But I doubt it. > In addition, ACBL TDs are expected to participate in a program of > continuing education, which is in the form of seminars, discussions > with supervisor, videotapes, audio cassettes, and even a movie. > Participating in these earns various "credits," 10 of which are > required per year for full-time TDs, 4 for part-time TDs. > Interesting, but this did not exist a couple of years ago. If it did, they did not tell the Local Tournament Directors about it. In a bit over two years as a part time ACBL employee, I was offered no seminars, no discussions of my work with a supervisor, no audiocassettes, videotapes, or movies. I was never informed of any requirements needed to maintain my status as a TD. > Maybe some TD on BLML can tell us how well all this is working? > I must confess to being rather curious myself. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 06:46:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 06:46:33 +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 GAA16281 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 06:46:28 +1000 Received: from ip113.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.113]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980813204948.MGX8087.fep4@ip113.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:49:48 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:48:48 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d345f2.1046304@post12.tele.dk> References: <01bdc6cf$be1f63a0$LocalHost@default> In-Reply-To: <01bdc6cf$be1f63a0$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 Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:33:38 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+++ I am sure you will agree that the Committee should interest >itself in making sure what it has done reaches the NBOs and >ZOs. I am trying to establish whether these all have email >addresses. Once I have launched the material at them and at >non-attending members of the Committee, it would be my wish >to transmit it more widely, but I believe it should be in that >sequence in fairness to the affiliated bodies. Certainly. It is not a problem at all if the widespread distribution is slightly delayed. I am glad to see that you are aware of the communications problem and that you are going to do something about it. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 08:06:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:06:19 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA16574 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:06:11 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z75Xd-0006wv-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:08:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:50:05 +0100 To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Advocates in Appeals Cases In-Reply-To: <199808100358.UAB08866@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199808100358.UAB08866@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >Going through the ACBL Handbook of Appeals Committees, I discovered >something I didn't know before: Either party is allowed to have an >advocate who presents the facts and arguments for their side of the >case. ...................cut..................... > >Who's going to do the job? Ideally, there would be a professional >society of advocates, independent of the ACBL of course, who >volunteer their services. They would develop standards for >membership, meet regularly in seminars to update their knowledge; >give examinations, written and oral to prospective members; hold mock >AC meetings to hone their skills, consult with each other on >difficult cases, do post-mortems on cases that are lost, and so on. > Labeo: I would have thought the bridge world was full of candidates for such employment. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 08:06:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:06:05 +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 IAA16567 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:05:55 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z75Xb-0005Pn-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 22:08:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:06:30 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > ...............................cut.............................. > I don't think Marv thought of this one in his two hours! The captain >is assumed to concur but who with? I think the current Law is ambiguous >on this one. > Labeo: Could it be there is no question of 'who with?'. Could it mean 'concurs in the appeal' in the sense, say, of co-operates or joins? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 09:14:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:14:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA16748 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:14:48 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z76cH-0000Vi-00; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:17:12 +0000 Message-ID: <1A7g3oAOV201EwL0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:14:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: another unworkable law? In-Reply-To: <01bdc6da$ff2dbe40$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having been a teetotaller for a few months, I have naturally been wondering what would drive me back to drink. > ~ Grattan ('The TD's Friend') ~ Perhaps this is it! -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 09:58:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:58:22 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA16858 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:58:15 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA10189 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:00:38 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980814020008.008dd940@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 02:00:08 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Advocates in Appeals Cases In-Reply-To: References: <199808100358.UAB08866@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 11-08-98 +0100, you wrote: >In message <199808100358.UAB08866@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. >French" writes >>Going through the ACBL Handbook of Appeals Committees, I discovered >>something I didn't know before: Either party is allowed to have an >>advocate who presents the facts and arguments for their side of the >>case. >...................cut..................... >> >>Who's going to do the job? Ideally, there would be a professional >>society of advocates, independent of the ACBL of course, who >>volunteer their services. They would develop standards for >>membership, meet regularly in seminars to update their knowledge; >>give examinations, written and oral to prospective members; hold mock >>AC meetings to hone their skills, consult with each other on >>difficult cases, do post-mortems on cases that are lost, and so on. >> >Labeo: I would have thought the bridge world was full of candidates > for such employment. >-- Labeo > But which brigdgeplayer has enough to afford these people????? It looks like a sure way to get the mob in. Lose an appeal and your house will be burnt down perhaps or wife and children raped/stabbed? This only confirms european ideas about how daft americans can get after reading their bill of rights. May god have mercy on them and their players :) regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 10:09:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:09:14 +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 KAA16891 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:09:08 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z77St-0002en-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:11:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:39:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message , David Stevenson > writes >> >...............................cut.............................. > >> I don't think Marv thought of this one in his two hours! The captain >>is assumed to concur but who with? I think the current Law is ambiguous >>on this one. >> >Labeo: Could it be there is no question of 'who with?'. > Could it mean 'concurs in the appeal' in the > sense, say, of co-operates or joins? >-- Labeo This has been suggested by others, and I think it answers my question. I think it is a reasonable way to read the Law. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 10:11:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:11:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA16909 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:11:26 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z77V6-00049n-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:13:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:58:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: another unworkable law? In-Reply-To: <01bdc6da$ff2dbe40$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01bdc6da$ff2dbe40$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott "Take care of the sense, and the sounds > will take care of themselves." > - Alice in Wonderland. > > I was clearing out when I noticed this;- > >>> The Law about revoke is quite fair >> >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> >> The revoke law is PERFECTLY fair. It is a level playing field. It's like saying that it's unfair that Hearts rank higher than diamonds and I've got the diamonds. UI and MI rulings are UNFAIR because they require judgement. One could say the revoke law is unreasonable, but I'd fight like hell to keep it. The TD's job is hard enough without having to consider the ramifications of the three or four revokes (established or not) that one has to deal with in the normal club game. -- 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 Aug 14 10:11:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:11:33 +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 KAA16910 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:11:26 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z77V6-0002lb-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:13:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 01:12:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: UK Brighton Summer Festival MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Matchpoints, Game EW S W N E 1D 1S 1N 3D* *9-11hcp usually 4-cards, spade raise 4D P P 4S P P 5D P(ha) (ha) hesitation and alerted P x End Has the 1S overcaller got enough AI to double with KJxxx Qxx AJ xxx or is pass a LA? Does it matter if both players state that they are clearly in a forcing pass auction (which you believe), and the hesitator explains he took time to work out if his pass was definitely a forcing pass? BTW I shall be in Brighton playing for the next 10 days (and DWS won't be there for the first four). EHAA strikes again :) 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 Fri Aug 14 13:02:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:02:54 +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 NAA17265 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:02:48 +1000 Received: from modem8.bull-winkle.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.8] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0z7AAu-0003AW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:05:09 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: ArtAss Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:01:25 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "We've trod the maze of error round, Long wandering in the winding glade; And now the torch of truth is found It only shows us where we strayed..." (George Crabbe) ------- Jeremy Rickard whose reply to > One of our opponents unthinkingly faced a card in the board so that when the board was placed on Table 2, all players could see the Queen of Clubs. > included: > Doesn't L16B3 apply, since three of the four players have UI? If this > UI is deemed to prevent the normal play of the hand, then an artificial > adjusted score should be given. In teams, isn't this +3 IMPs for your > side, who are completely innocent, and -3 IMPs to your opponents, who > (accidently) caused the irregularity? > > I presume that in a situation like this, if the opponents at the other > table had got a dreadful result, they "could have known" that exposing > a card in this way might be to their advantage, so L72B1 would allow an > assigned adjusted score of more than +3 IMPs? > ++++ 16B3, 72B1, and did I miss who said 90A - "....requires the award of an adjusted score at another table."? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 14:29:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:29:05 +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 OAA17412 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:29:02 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA09959 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:31:31 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980814143046.00971ca0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:30:47 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Assistance with a revoke please! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Adam Wildavsky, bounced to bridge-laws-owner (me). Why I hear you ask ? Because majordomo is kind, and wise, and helpful, and , as I'm sure you *all* know, thinks that messages to the list containing the word 'subscribe' or 'unsubscribe' are probably from people who don't know better. So why did *this* message get bounced ? Because it had the word 'Help' as the first word in the Subject.... Sometimes I think majordomo is being *way* too helpful :-( :-) I am however learning a lot more about the sourcecode for majordomo :-) >We have a small mess here in NYC and I'm hoping the BLML members can help >me deal with it. I'm going to simplify the facts by posing a hypothetical >situation. This may or may not be exactly what occurred at the table, but >even if the facts are different your answers will help me resolve a >sensitive issue. > >In a knockout match, in a notrump contract, a defender revokes, finds the >proper card to play before anyone else plays a card, and plays it. > >The director is called. > >The director explains that the exposed card is a penalty card. > >The director explains that the penalty card must be played at the first >legal opportunity. > >The director explains, incorrectly, that if the revoker's partner gains the >lead then the declarer may require or forbid the lead of the revoke suit. >The correct explanation would have mentioned that this holds only until >penalty card is played. > >The declarer, an experienced player, can now make his contract by ducking a >side suit which he needs to split three-two. A shift to the suit of the >penalty card cannot hurt him. Instead he plays three rounds of the side >suit, and the revoker discards the penalty card, perforce, on the third >round of the suit. > >Declarer now attempts to require the lead of the revoke suit but is told >that he cannot. A shift to a side suit scuttles his contract. He complains >that he was misled by the director's innacurate or incomplete ruling. > >How would you rule? > >Any and all answers, opinions, comments, and reasoning will be greatly >appreciated! I hope I've provided enough context, but if not please let me >know. > >AW > > 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 Fri Aug 14 19:56:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:56:16 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA18335 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:56:09 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z7Gcw-0005x9-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:58:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:52:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: another unworkable law? 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 <01bdc6da$ff2dbe40$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott > writes >> >>Grattan Endicott> "Take care of the sense, and the sounds >> will take care of themselves." >> - Alice in Wonderland. >> >> I was clearing out when I noticed this;- >> >>>> The Law about revoke is quite fair >>> >>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> >>> > >The revoke law is PERFECTLY fair. It is a level playing field. It's like >saying that it's unfair that Hearts rank higher than diamonds and I've >got the diamonds. UI and MI rulings are UNFAIR because they require >judgement. > >One could say the revoke law is unreasonable, but I'd fight like hell to >keep it. The TD's job is hard enough without having to consider the >ramifications of the three or four revokes (established or not) that one >has to deal with in the normal club game. Certainly life would be easier if we followed David Burn's approach of giving -1700 for any infraction, like a LOOT. Everyone finds it funny, but if it was part of the Laws, people would find it workable, and come to accept it. The thing that is really wrong with it is not unfairness - as John says, it is a level playing field - it is that it provides BLs incentive to play their bridge in front of the TD and/or AC. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 19:56:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:56:17 +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 TAA18334 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:56:08 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z7Gcw-0005xA-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:58:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:56:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UK Brighton Summer Festival In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Matchpoints, Game EW >S W N E >1D 1S 1N 3D* *9-11hcp usually 4-cards, spade raise >4D P P 4S >P P 5D P(ha) (ha) hesitation and alerted >P x End > >Has the 1S overcaller got enough AI to double with > >KJxxx Qxx AJ xxx or is pass a LA? > >Does it matter if both players state that they are clearly in a forcing >pass auction (which you believe), and the hesitator explains he took >time to work out if his pass was definitely a forcing pass? If it is a forcing pass then pass is not an LA. Did I miss the problem? >BTW I shall be in Brighton playing for the next 10 days (and DWS won't >be there for the first four). EHAA strikes again :) Cheers John. I am there Monday evening *only*. I am running TGR's Cavendish-style tournament in London this weekend. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 21:18:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:18:47 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA18797 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:18:38 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA29682 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:20:58 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980814132028.008dda60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:20:28 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980814143046.00971ca0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:30 14-08-98 +1000, you wrote: > >From Adam Wildavsky, bounced to bridge-laws-owner (me). > >Why I hear you ask ? Because majordomo is kind, and wise, and helpful, and >, as I'm sure you *all* know, thinks that messages to the list containing >the word 'subscribe' or 'unsubscribe' are probably from people who don't >know better. > >So why did *this* message get bounced ? Because it had the word 'Help' as >the first word in the Subject.... > >Sometimes I think majordomo is being *way* too helpful :-( :-) I am however >learning a lot more about the sourcecode for majordomo :-) > >>We have a small mess here in NYC and I'm hoping the BLML members can help >>me deal with it. I'm going to simplify the facts by posing a hypothetical >>situation. This may or may not be exactly what occurred at the table, but >>even if the facts are different your answers will help me resolve a >>sensitive issue. >> >>In a knockout match, in a notrump contract, a defender revokes, finds the >>proper card to play before anyone else plays a card, and plays it. >> >>The director is called. >> >>The director explains that the exposed card is a penalty card. >> >>The director explains that the penalty card must be played at the first >>legal opportunity. >> >>The director explains, incorrectly, that if the revoker's partner gains the >>lead then the declarer may require or forbid the lead of the revoke suit. >>The correct explanation would have mentioned that this holds only until >>penalty card is played. >> >>The declarer, an experienced player, can now make his contract by ducking a >>side suit which he needs to split three-two. A shift to the suit of the >>penalty card cannot hurt him. Instead he plays three rounds of the side >>suit, and the revoker discards the penalty card, perforce, on the third >>round of the suit. >> >>Declarer now attempts to require the lead of the revoke suit but is told >>that he cannot. A shift to a side suit scuttles his contract. He complains >>that he was misled by the director's innacurate or incomplete ruling. >> >>How would you rule? >> >>Any and all answers, opinions, comments, and reasoning will be greatly >>appreciated! I hope I've provided enough context, but if not please let me >>know. >> >>AW >> >> >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 > This looks rather sdiple, if there can be esthabished that the TD made an error. Both get then 60+ or in IMP +3 ,82C. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 23:09:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:09:35 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19228 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:09:29 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA26289 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:18:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980814091247.006e5c3c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:12:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UK Brighton Summer Festival In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:12 AM 8/14/98 +0100, John wrote: >Matchpoints, Game EW >S W N E >1D 1S 1N 3D* *9-11hcp usually 4-cards, spade raise >4D P P 4S >P P 5D P(ha) (ha) hesitation and alerted >P x End > >Has the 1S overcaller got enough AI to double with > >KJxxx Qxx AJ xxx or is pass a LA? If it is systemically permitted, yes, but... >Does it matter if both players state that they are clearly in a forcing >pass auction (which you believe), and the hesitator explains he took >time to work out if his pass was definitely a forcing pass? ...if "you believe" that "they are clearly in a forcing pass auction" then you believe, by definition, that pass is not an LA *for them*, and should rule accordingly. Which is why, as David S. keeps reminding us, you can't make rulings on stuff like this without talking to the players. 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 Aug 14 23:29:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:29:49 +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 XAA19343 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:29:41 +1000 Received: from client089e.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.158] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z7Jxc-0000qH-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:32:05 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" Subject: Re: another unworkable law? Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc788$1fb0c4c0$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 Grattan Endicott > > Having been a teetotaller for a few months, I have naturally been >wondering what would drive me back to drink. > > >> ~ Grattan ('The TD's Friend') ~ > > > Perhaps this is it! > +++ David just does not appreciate all I do to create employment for TDs. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 23:29:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:29:53 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19350 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:29:47 +1000 Received: from client089e.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.158] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z7Jxe-0000qH-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:32:07 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Deliberate UI Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc788$60505900$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 Grattan Endicott>++ Has the Director become aware of an irregularity? If so >>Law 81C6 applies. ~ Grattan ~ ++ > Anne Jones: >I'm not sure that it does. >Assume that the NOs were not damaged. There is no redress. However we >assume from David's posting that there is something more to the action >taken by the offenders. This is presumably suggesting a PP or a walk to >meet the L&EC. Law 81C6 talks of rectifying a situation. PPs do not >rectify anything. They might prevent similar action being taken on a >future occasion but that is preventative medicine, not the cure. ++++ The Director is to rectify anything that requires it. To get to that point he needs to explore the facts. In doing so he may note something that in his opinion merits a penalty. His/her discretion to apply a PP is not abrogated whilst this exercise is carried through; Law 84A principle is relevant. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 23:30:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:30:00 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19357 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:29:52 +1000 Received: from client089e.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.158] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z7Jxb-0000qH-00; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:32:03 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:32:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc787$fdc4fde0$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 Grattan Endicott If that is also the official WBF view, then the law book should say so ++ We are in the wake of a revered figure who simply established the meaning of the law by pronouncing it to be so. Now we must learn to walk again. A little patience, please, Jesper, whilst we establish a fresh footing.~G~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 14 23:33:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:33:25 +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 XAA19423 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:33:19 +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 JAA26905 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980814093638.00695a0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:36:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980814143046.00971ca0@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:30 PM 8/14/98 +1000, Markus wrote: >>From Adam Wildavsky, bounced to bridge-laws-owner (me). > >>We have a small mess here in NYC and I'm hoping the BLML members can help >>me deal with it. I'm going to simplify the facts by posing a hypothetical >>situation. This may or may not be exactly what occurred at the table, but >>even if the facts are different your answers will help me resolve a >>sensitive issue. >> >>In a knockout match, in a notrump contract, a defender revokes, finds the >>proper card to play before anyone else plays a card, and plays it. >> >>The director is called. >> >>The director explains that the exposed card is a penalty card. >> >>The director explains that the penalty card must be played at the first >>legal opportunity. >> >>The director explains, incorrectly, that if the revoker's partner gains the >>lead then the declarer may require or forbid the lead of the revoke suit. >>The correct explanation would have mentioned that this holds only until >>penalty card is played. >> >>The declarer, an experienced player, can now make his contract by ducking a >>side suit which he needs to split three-two. A shift to the suit of the >>penalty card cannot hurt him. Instead he plays three rounds of the side >>suit, and the revoker discards the penalty card, perforce, on the third >>round of the suit. >> >>Declarer now attempts to require the lead of the revoke suit but is told >>that he cannot. A shift to a side suit scuttles his contract. He complains >>that he was misled by the director's innacurate or incomplete ruling. >> >>How would you rule? >> >>Any and all answers, opinions, comments, and reasoning will be greatly >>appreciated! I hope I've provided enough context, but if not please let me >>know. You must talk to the declarer and decide whether he was genuinely misled or whether, as "an experienced player", he "should have known" (PC code phrase for "knew") better and was "bridge lawyering" after the fact. If you believe that he was indeed misled, and believe that he would have made the contract had he not been, apply L82C. A while back I opined, in a wholly different context, that split AssASs should be given only when justified by L12C2. But on reading L82C, I now believe that its language ("award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending") also permits splitting the assigned result. Here it seems right to rule contract making for declarer and down for defenders. 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 Aug 15 02:52:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 02:52:20 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22468 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 02:52:13 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA03748 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA03978; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:54:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:54:51 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808141654.MAA03978@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Some on BLML and > RGB have said that you can examine an opponent's CC anytime you wish, I don't know of anyone who has said any such thing. > there's no Law that says you may not look > at their CC at other times, therefore you may. Nonsense. See L73B1. > What's more, they say, > although you may not look at your own CC when it's your turn to call > or play, you may do so at any other time. No law against it. L40E2 footnote, as you correctly point out below. > A sophist, on the > other hand, takes a germ of truth and turns it into a deadly disease. And how do you describe a person who misquotes arguments? The "mathematical" reading of L40E2 plus L73B1 is not a disease; it gives exactly the effect one would desire. There is, nevertheless, an argument about whether it is a correct reading or not. The archives contain more than ample material on this argument. I don't see why we need to rehash it, but if we must, let's at least state the positions correctly. (But I'll be on vacation after today and will not be participating.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 15 03:16:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 03:16:54 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA22519 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 03:16:43 +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 NAA06206 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04006; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:19:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:19:21 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808141719.NAA04006@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ArtAss X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jeremy Rickard > Doesn't L16B3 apply, since three of the four players have UI? If this > UI is deemed to prevent the normal play of the hand, then an artificial > adjusted score should be given. In teams, isn't this +3 IMPs for your > side, who are completely innocent, and -3 IMPs to your opponents, who > (accidently) caused the irregularity? Looks correct to me, too, but I have another question. Would it ever be advisable or permissible to play a substitute board in addition? Or is the match always (in effect) shortened by a board? Would the answer to the above be different if both teams (or neither team) were at fault? (Suppose the caddy exposed some cards.) It hardly seems satisfying to play fewer boards than the usual number if there is a legal alternative. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 15 03:30:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 03:30:03 +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 DAA22558 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 03:29:56 +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 NAA06418 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04019; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:32:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:32:35 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808141732.NAA04019@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the ACBL definition of a logical alternative again? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > Suppose we polled some players on their choice of action: > > > it is believed that 20% would bid 4S, 40% 4H, and 40% 3D. > > > > > > Now, under ACBL interpretations, the player has made an illegal call > > > of 4H, since 4S *is* an LA. > From: Herman De Wael > Let me bring you back into the company, Steve, as you have made an error > in reasoning : > Since the UI suggested *not bidding 4S*, the 3D bid would also be not > allowed, so you would only be able to adjust to 4S making something. Well, perhaps an error of understanding. If the UI suggests "Don't bid 4S," then the 4S bid is the only legal option, and the rest follows. This is too easy to be a problem. My reading of the original quote was that the UI suggested "Bid 4H" but did not suggest either 4S or 3D over the other. Then only the 4H bid is illegal. Both 4S and 3D are legal options, and the effect of each one has to be evaluated. This is a problem of some interest, but as noted, I don't think it is terribly difficult. > But that is not how it works : the sentence "had the irregularity not > occured" in L12 can (and IMO must) be interpreted as the whole > irregularity, the giving AND receiving of UI. It is the _use_ of UI that is the irregularity, I think, but I could be convinced I am wrong. > Then 3D and 4H are both > "likely", and if indeed the 4S bid is not "likely" then the NOs should > get -620. I don't see why the NOS get a score on the basis of the OS doing something illegal (bidding 4H). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 15 05:40:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:40:48 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA23106 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 05:40:42 +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 PAA10967 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04127; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:43:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:43:22 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808141943.PAA04127@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > If you > believe that he was indeed misled, and believe that he would have made the > contract had he not been, apply L82C. Yes. Eric's point about "knew better" and "bridge lawyering" is well taken. > Here it > seems right to rule contract making for declarer and down for defenders. A possible outcome but not necessarily the only one. For declarer, if you think it "likely" (L12C2) he would have made the contract with a correct ruling, then he makes it. For the defense, if you think it "likely" declarer would have gone down even with a correct ruling, then give them down 1. In North America, "likely" is one chance in three. So, first estimate declarer's chance of making if given a correct ruling. Then, if p < 1/3 rule down 1 for both sides p > 1/3 but < 2/3, split score as Eric says p > 2/3 rule contract making for both sides. "Non-offending" does not always translate into a favorable score adjustment. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 15 06:40:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 06:40:25 +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 GAA23342 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 06:40:19 +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 QAA08008 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980814164319.006d5ef8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:43:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! In-Reply-To: <199808141943.PAA04127@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:43 PM 8/14/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >A possible outcome but not necessarily the only one. For declarer, if >you think it "likely" (L12C2) he would have made the contract with a >correct ruling, then he makes it. For the defense, if you think it >"likely" declarer would have gone down even with a correct ruling, then >give them down 1. In North America, "likely" is one chance in three. >So, first estimate declarer's chance of making if given a correct ruling. >Then, if >p < 1/3 rule down 1 for both sides >p > 1/3 but < 2/3, split score as Eric says >p > 2/3 rule contract making for both sides. > >"Non-offending" does not always translate into a favorable score >adjustment. Obviously true; just because you're the non-offending side doesn't mean you are entitled to a favorable score adjustment. But it does seem like if you're non-offending, you should not be able to receive an *unfavorable* score adjustment, i.e. if you haven't committed any infraction, you shouldn't get a *worse* result than your actual score at the table. (In the case at hand, the hand was played out, and the contract went down.) Is Steve's third scenario ("rule contract making for both sides") an exception? If not, are there any exceptions? Or does the principle above, which seems in accord with common sense, always hold? 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 Aug 15 16:24:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 16:24:28 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA24808 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 16:24:21 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA18075; Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808150626.XAA18075@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:24:20 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: (snip) > A possible outcome but not necessarily the only one. For declarer, if > you think it "likely" (L12C2) he would have made the contract with a > correct ruling, then he makes it. For the defense, if you think it > "likely" declarer would have gone down even with a correct ruling, then > give them down 1. In North America, "likely" is one chance in three. Careful there, Steve. Careless language like this has led some TDs and ACs to rule that the NOS should get a likely result, not "the most favorable result that was likely," which is what L12C2 says. The "Action Tree" flow chart for handling UI cases, used in the NABC AC seminar, asks, "Is it possible to ascertain the likely or probable result if the infraction had not occurred?" Wrong question. "Likely" by itself is more like two chances in three, not one in three. If ACBL TDs and ACs want to say that "likely" by itself means one chance in three (and "probable" one chance in six), then I can only say that they are using the English language in such a way as to render themselves incomprehensible. > So, first estimate declarer's chance of making if given a correct ruling. > Then, if > p < 1/3 rule down 1 for both sides > p > 1/3 but < 2/3, split score as Eric says > p > 2/3 rule contract making for both sides. A neat little algorithm when both sides are NOs, and a neat solution to the problem. > "Non-offending" does not always translate into a favorable score > adjustment. A fact that is not well known. The corollary is that an OS's assigned score is not always unfavorable. Both facts make the common avg+/avg- score adjustment especially inappropriate. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 15 23:06:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 23:06:14 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25445 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 23:06:08 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-149.uunet.be [194.7.13.149]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA17423 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 15:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35D54A75.51696CA9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:44:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: L12C2 interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199808141732.NAA04019@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote in another thread : > > > From: Herman De Wael > > But that is not how it works : the sentence "had the irregularity not > > occured" in L12 can (and IMO must) be interpreted as the whole > > irregularity, the giving AND receiving of UI. > > It is the _use_ of UI that is the irregularity, I think, but I could > be convinced I am wrong. > What do you think ? The question is : There is UI. The UI suggests one action, but there is another LA. The Os take that action anyway. The LA results in a better score (for Os) than the suggested alternative (SA). An ArtAss is at order. For the Os, the most unfavourable result that ws probable, is of course the result that arises from the LA that they did not take. For the NOs, we need the most favourable result that is likely. First question : could it be that a LA is not considered a likely outcome of a bridge hand ? I believe the ACBL uses things like : 1 in six for a LA, 1 in three for a likely result. So it seems that a certain action can be a LA, and thus lead to the ArtAss for Os, but not a likely action, and thus not lead to the ArtAss for NOs. Second question : If the first question is answered YES, then is it not logical to assume that the SA (if this is a likely action) be the basis for the ArtAss for NOs, thus resulting in "no change" for NOs ? To apply to the example : Os get 4S-1, because 4S is considered a LA and 4H was suggested, but NOs stay at 4H, because 4S is not a likely outcome after all ? Agreed that this can be the case ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 03:26:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 03:26:22 +1000 Received: from smtp03.iafrica.com (BgoZVw72gfXI4+2kJ3tJHI0igWseVv+Q@smtp03.iafrica.com [196.7.0.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28385 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 03:26:09 +1000 Received: from [196.31.20.111] (helo=196-31-20-111.iafrica.com) by smtp03.iafrica.com with smtp (Exim 1.92 #2) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z7k7x-0006MC-00; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:28:30 +0200 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rusty Court" Organization: Internet Africa To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:10:20 +0200 Subject: Entries for Lille Reply-to: ruscourt@iafrica.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can anyone assist me with an e-mail address where I can check for entries of certain South African player in Lille Thanks Rusty Court. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 08:14:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 08:14:24 +1000 Received: from cyclops.xtra.co.nz (cyclops.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA28957 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 08:14:20 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz (203-96-104-225.dds.xtra.co.nz [203.96.104.225]) by cyclops.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA28708 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:16:14 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <341DB00F.8F878488@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:00:47 +1200 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Careless or Irrational Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm sure the the difference between careless and irrational lines has been discussed many times before but the following two incidents in yesterday's tournament caused me to think carefully (or perhaps irrationally) about what is meant by those terms. In session one, late in the play, my partner lead a plain suit in which I was void around to declarer. Before I got to play declarer claimed the rest tabling her trump seven and saying I am going to ruff that and then separately tabling her remaining higher trumps (she held no other suits). After a short wait in which I did not acquiesce her claim she repeated her claim stating "I am going to ruff this trick with the seven and then draw the rest of the trumps". I said you may regret saying that because I am going to ruff with the ten (and therefore the seven would be a careless or irrational under-ruff). Later in the day when we were trying our best to squander our 11% lead in the final session I was in charge of the dummy and received an opening low trump lead through dummy's 10xxxx around to my AQxx. The King was played by my RHO and I carelessly or irrationally contributed the Queen. This demonstrated that even if others never would I certainly could carelessly play a lower card than I intended to lose an unnecessary trick. If it matters I can assure you that the play of the Queen was a mechanical error. I had in mind clearly seen the King played and accidently pulled the wrong card. Oh by the way in the first example I insisted that declarer won all of the remaining tricks. -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html D A S E A C {"} C My skite: Flashed seven 28/7/98 \_Y__/ Eight throws and catches 9/8/98 (:) /^\ I I @ @ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 08:46:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 08:46:10 +1000 Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29016 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 08:46:04 +1000 From: BuzzKribs@aol.com Received: from BuzzKribs@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id THZGa22588; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9147b057.35d61010@aol.com> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:47:43 EDT To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Careless or Irrational Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Day Everyone, IMO both acts result from lack of attention and are therefore careless, not irrational. Buzz Kribs PS I believe this is my first contribution but long time subscriber. No cats, but we're cat friendly. All of our neighbors cats visit & play in our yard. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 09:36:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:36:45 +1000 Received: from boito.videotron.net (boito.videotron.net [205.151.222.85]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29082 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:36:40 +1000 Received: from default (ppp144.121.mmtl.videotron.net [207.253.121.144]) by boito.videotron.net (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id TAA15589; Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000f01bdc8a5$ea3a72e0$9079fdcf@default> Reply-To: "christian chantigny" From: "christian chantigny" To: , "BLML" Subject: Re: Careless or Irrational Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:39:09 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Wayne. These two cases occur everyday everywhere. Two textbook cases of carelessness. In the first case, declarer clearly stated her intention to ruff with the 7 of trump, thus leaving herself in the position to have to underruff...Sorry, but the seven is a stated play...Next time, simply state to will ruff low, or overruff whatever trump is played, in your claim. It is valid, trust me! As for the second case, unfortunately, you did detach that card and placed it in the played position. Of course, you never intended to underplay the opp. Still, you should have made sure you had played the right card...Sorry again, another played card...!! You could argue that it would be irrational for you to make those play but then, wouldn't it be irrational for someone to revoke? Yet, hundreds of tricks are lost every day because people fail to follow suit, and none of them ever do it purposely! This, however, would be irrational : You are declaring a 3 NT contract and need 6 tricks to make your contract. Dummy holds in a suit : AKQXXX with no other entry. You have a stiff in that suit. You play the singleton to the board and call "low" but retract yourself and say "High". Here, your intention was incontroversely to play the A, K, and Q,hoping the suit would run. Therefore, you would be allowed to retract the "low" and play the Ace. Now you hold a worthless doubleton in the same suit and can afford to lose one more trick. Once again, you play low from your hand to the board, with every intention to play the Ace (you're playing MPs). But once again, you call "low" and immediately retract yourself. Here, you would not be allowed to change your call. Why? Because it might be an inferior play, but certainly not an irrational one, to make a safety play, even at MPs. -----Message d'origine----- De : Wayne Burrows À : BLML Date : 15 août, 1998 19:06 Objet : Careless or Irrational >I'm sure the the difference between careless and irrational lines has >been discussed many times before but the following two incidents in >yesterday's tournament caused me to think carefully (or perhaps >irrationally) about what is meant by those terms. > >In session one, late in the play, my partner lead a plain suit in which >I was void around to declarer. Before I got to play declarer claimed >the rest tabling her trump seven and saying I am going to ruff that and >then separately tabling her remaining higher trumps (she held no other >suits). After a short wait in which I did not acquiesce her claim she >repeated her claim stating "I am going to ruff this trick with the seven >and then draw the rest of the trumps". I said you may regret saying >that because I am going to ruff with the ten (and therefore the seven >would be a careless or irrational under-ruff). > >Later in the day when we were trying our best to squander our 11% lead >in the final session I was in charge of the dummy and received an >opening low trump lead through dummy's 10xxxx around to my AQxx. The >King was played by my RHO and I carelessly or irrationally contributed >the Queen. > >This demonstrated that even if others never would I certainly could >carelessly play a lower card than I intended to lose an unnecessary >trick. > >If it matters I can assure you that the play of the Queen was a >mechanical error. I had in mind clearly seen the King played and >accidently pulled the wrong card. > >Oh by the way in the first example I insisted that declarer won all of >the remaining tricks. >-- >Wayne Burrows >mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz >Home Page: http://members.tripod.com/~wayne_burrows/index.html > > D > A S > E A > > C {"} C My skite: Flashed seven 28/7/98 > \_Y__/ Eight throws and catches 9/8/98 > (:) > /^\ > I I > @ @ > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 09:41:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:41:58 +1000 Received: from fep6.mail.ozemail.net (fep6.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29112 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:41:55 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsyd97p18.ozemail.com.au [203.108.215.210]) by fep6.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA06036 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:44:23 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:44:23 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199808152344.JAA06036@fep6.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Declarer OLOOT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is not made up. Declarer makes an opening lead, face up. Can either defender accept the lead, and if so, when does dummy go down? Tony From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 13:00:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:00:41 +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 NAA29411 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:00:33 +1000 Received: from modem12.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.12] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0z7t5v-0001Tf-00; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 04:02:59 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 03:57:19 +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 "We've trod the maze of error round, Long wandering in the winding glade; And now the torch of truth is found It only shows us where we strayed..." (George Crabbe) ---------- > From: David Stevenson >Not only will someone > claim a better wording with the same intent, someone else will >think you have the intent wrong and want to change the >wording for that reason. ++ .... and someone else will tell you that he got it from a third party that anyway what you have said is not a true report of what happened when you were there .....++ ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 13:00:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA29422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:00:41 +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 NAA29412 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 13:00:34 +1000 Received: from modem12.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.12] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0z7t5w-0001Tf-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 04:03:00 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 03:58:52 +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 "We've trod the maze of error round, Long wandering in the winding glade; And now the torch of truth is found It only shows us where we strayed..." (George Crabbe) ---------- > From: Anton Witzen > > > PLEASE, lest keep our senses.> > > ++ What an interesting thought! It leads me to ask : given the vision of a team appealing a Director's decision, one of its pairs making the appeal and the team Captain writing on the appeal form "I do not consider this ruling should be appealed", Question: whose deposit is it that the AC will be spending? ~Grattan~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 16 17:46:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 17:46:23 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA29863 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 17:46:17 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-153.uunet.be [194.7.14.153]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA12857 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:48:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35D685F5.497E0D10@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:10:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Careless or Irrational X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <341DB00F.8F878488@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > I'm sure the the difference between careless and irrational lines has > been discussed many times before but the following two incidents in > yesterday's tournament caused me to think carefully (or perhaps > irrationally) about what is meant by those terms. > I have read the replies by Buzz and Christian and they don't get the point. In adjusting a claim, careless play must be considered, irrational not. Therefor we must make absolutely sure what is meant by careless and irrational. Wayne gives some excellent examples of real play, but he fails to apply them to claims situations. > In session one, late in the play, my partner lead a plain suit in which > I was void around to declarer. Before I got to play declarer claimed > the rest tabling her trump seven and saying I am going to ruff that and > then separately tabling her remaining higher trumps (she held no other > suits). After a short wait in which I did not acquiesce her claim she > repeated her claim stating "I am going to ruff this trick with the seven > and then draw the rest of the trumps". I said you may regret saying > that because I am going to ruff with the ten (and therefore the seven > would be a careless or irrational under-ruff). > Although underruffing in normal play would certainly be deemed careless, in the claim, play has ceased and all subsequent plays are made rationally. There will be no more revokes, underruffing, dropping of Kings under Aces and so on. All these things are deemed irrational. > Later in the day when we were trying our best to squander our 11% lead > in the final session I was in charge of the dummy and received an > opening low trump lead through dummy's 10xxxx around to my AQxx. The > King was played by my RHO and I carelessly or irrationally contributed > the Queen. > > This demonstrated that even if others never would I certainly could > carelessly play a lower card than I intended to lose an unnecessary > trick. > Again a careless play in actual play, but an irrational one when one takes the time to play carefully. I believe the world has a good idea of what careless means in the claims area. Underruffing is not careless, but irrational. Ruffing too low, and getting overruffed, that's being careless. > > D > A S > E A > > C {"} C My skite: Flashed seven 28/7/98 > \_Y__/ Eight throws and catches 9/8/98 > (:) > /^\ > I I > @ @ Wayne, if you can do that, why do you drop queens under kings ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 02:11:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 02:11:32 +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 CAA03641 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 02:11:26 +1000 Received: from ip69.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.69]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980816161451.CTMA19507.fep4@ip69.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 18:14:51 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 18:13:51 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d7eba4.910869@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 Sun, 16 Aug 1998 03:58:52 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++ What an interesting thought! It leads me to ask : >given the vision of a team appealing a Director's decision, one >of its pairs making the appeal and the team Captain writing >on the appeal form "I do not consider this ruling should be >appealed", Question: whose deposit is it that the AC will >be spending? ~Grattan~ ++ Surely that is the team's own problem, not the TD's or the AC's: I don't care whose money it is, I only care whether I've received it or not. If not, there is no appeal. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 02:15:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 02:15:33 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03657 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 02:15:27 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA01274 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808161617.JAA01274@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:13:55 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was just glancing through the Constitution of the World Bridge Federation, and came upon these words within the section on the WBF Laws Commission: ### The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. ### Does this mean the ACBL must accept the interpretations that are likely to emanate from the WBF LC after Lille? Is Ralph Cohen, co-chairman of the ACBL LC and vice-chairman of the WBF LC, violating the WBF Constitution when he writes: "In ACBL sponsored events, interpretations of law as promulgated by the ACBL Laws Commission prevail. No other body of people in the world can override it." Any lawyers out there? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 03:06:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 03:06:12 +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 DAA03798 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 03:06:04 +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 MAA16769 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:08:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0H0NL00U Sun, 16 Aug 98 12:06:50 Message-ID: <9808161206.0H0NL00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 16 Aug 98 12:06:50 Subject: CARELESS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is a distinct difference between claiming that 'I will win the current trick by ruffing with the 7' and 'I will win the current trick', When adjudicating contested claims, doubtful points- those that are contested and those not covered specifically by the claim are adjudicated in favor of the non claimer. In our case, declarer's premature play [they might have waited for RHO to play in turn] of the trump 7 is not a doubtful point, claiming that it would win the trick is, and rightly so. Playing a card prematurely is a careless thing to do and not very smart. Had declarer merely said, 'The rest are mine.' Then the correct adjudication would be yes they are, because it would be irrational to not win the current trick. The fact is that the declaring side has numerous advantages and unfair ones at that over the defenders- [a] they chose the trump suit [b] declarer can see how to coordinate the play of the hand and [c] declarer can better see how to disrupt the defenders by deceiving them- seems to suggest that it would be unjust to heap another unfair advantage upon them. Declarer is entitled to these advantages because he outbid the defenders. But is declarer entitled to be indemnified from his own poor play as well? You have suggested that it is the director's duty to alter the claim statement if it is not rational. I think this is very dangerous and it is not in keeping with the law. I have already seen such things done in the application of L25 and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. O>Wayne Burrows wrote: O>> O>> I'm sure the the difference between careless and irrational lines has O>> been discussed many times before but the following two incidents in O>> yesterday's tournament caused me to think carefully (or perhaps O>> irrationally) about what is meant by those terms. Herman wrote: O>I have read the replies by Buzz and Christian and they don't get the O>point. O>In adjusting a claim, careless play must be considered, irrational not. O>Therefor we must make absolutely sure what is meant by careless and O>irrational. O>Wayne gives some excellent examples of real play, but he fails to apply O>them to claims situations. O>> In session one, late in the play, my partner lead a plain suit in which O>> I was void around to declarer. Before I got to play declarer claimed O>> the rest tabling her trump seven and saying I am going to ruff that and O>> then separately tabling her remaining higher trumps (she held no other O>> suits). After a short wait in which I did not acquiesce her claim she O>> repeated her claim stating "I am going to ruff this trick with the seven O>> and then draw the rest of the trumps". I said you may regret saying O>> that because I am going to ruff with the ten (and therefore the seven O>> would be a careless or irrational under-ruff). O>> O>Although underruffing in normal play would certainly be deemed careless, O>in the claim, play has ceased and all subsequent plays are made O>rationally. There will be no more revokes, underruffing, dropping of O>Kings under Aces and so on. O>All these things are deemed irrational. I believe that there are situations where underruffing, kings under aces, and such may have a bridge reason, but quite unlikely. Neverthe less, it does not seem prudent to counter act claimer's expressed wishes. O>> Later in the day when we were trying our best to squander our 11% lead O>> in the final session I was in charge of the dummy and received an O>> opening low trump lead through dummy's 10xxxx around to my AQxx. The O>> King was played by my RHO and I carelessly or irrationally contributed O>> the Queen. O>> O>> This demonstrated that even if others never would I certainly could O>> carelessly play a lower card than I intended to lose an unnecessary O>> trick. O>> O>Again a careless play in actual play, but an irrational one when one O>takes the time to play carefully. O>I believe the world has a good idea of what careless means in the claims O>area. Underruffing is not careless, but irrational. Ruffing too low, O>and getting overruffed, that's being careless. O>Wayne, if you can do that, why do you drop queens under kings ? O>-- O>Herman DE WAEL O>Antwerpen Belgium O>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Roger Pewick R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 05:07:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 05:07:04 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04014 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 05:06:58 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA20600 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808161908.MAA20600@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw from RGB: A tale of two sentences Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 12:07:01 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge > Subject: Re: A tale of two sentences > Date: Sunday, August 16, 1998 12:04 PM > > AuntieSpm2 wrote > > > > >1997 Laws > > >---------> > > > >Convention > > > > > >1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other > than > > >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last > > >denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards > or > > >more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not > make > > >a call a convention. > > > > > > Bill Spight wrote: > > > > By this definition almost every bid is conventional. The reason is > that it > > conveys information (meaning) by virtue of bids which are *not* > made. > > > I was other than happy (which means unhappy, not happy plus something > else) when I read this sophistic interpretation, which keeps coming > up (barf), of the 1997 definition. > > Not that the definition is okay. I believe members of the WBF Laws > Commission have conceded that the words within the first pair of > parentheses should be ("or, if no denomination was named, in the last > denomination named)". However, that still leaves the fact that a bid > that shows the suit named plus another suit is not a convention if > one goes by the definition (without sophistry), because it conveys > "willingness to play in the denomination named." > > I preferred the old definition, although it also needed to clarify > its application to doubles and redoubles: > > 1. A call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning > not necessarily related to the denomination named. > > This definition says that opening the bidding in your shortest suit, > or responding to a takeout double in your shortest suit, is not a > convention. I suppose that is one reason it was changed. Although it > is counterintuitive, I like the simple idea that when a bid says > something, anything, about the denomination named, and nothing > specific (as opposed to inferential) about another denomination, then > it is not a convention. If someone can say a 1S bid promises at least > five cards in the suit, why can't I say that a 1D bid promises at > least two diamonds? There is no requirement that a bid has to be > "natural" to escape the label of convention. > > The purpose of the word "convention" is only to define which calls > may be controlled by an SO, not what is "natural," a word not > appearing in the Laws other than in an obscure footnote. If a bid > applies only to the denomination named, the simplest approach is to > not let an SO control its length or strength requirements. Otherwise > you get into complicated language ("high-card strength," "three cards > or more") to pin down the exact requirements. Such language is too > easily misinterpreted and often leaves undesired loopholes and > inconsistencies. For instance, the current definition says that an > opening bid that shows a short suit with a high card is not a > convention. I doubt that this was the intent. > > It would be well if the definition also made clear to sophists (and > to the ACBL, for whom the last sentence in the current definition was > added) that bids which inferentially or stylistically convey some > information about another denomination are not conventions solely on > that basis. If 1S-P-1NT-P; 2H implies that hearts are not longer than > spades, or that spades are not longer than hearts (canape), those are > inferences arising from partnership style. Such inferences do not > make 2H a convention. Also: 1H-P-1S-P; 2D, as a canape bid that > implies longer diamonds than hearts, is not a convention, even if the > heart suit could be a three-carder (see the current definition). The > agreement cannot be legally barred, even though the ACBL has seen fit > to do so. > -- > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 07:35:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:35:48 +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 HAA04384 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:35:40 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h1.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id BAA02518; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:38:05 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35D7EBF0.6ACF@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:38:09 -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: Careless or Irrational References: <341DB00F.8F878488@xtra.co.nz> <35D685F5.497E0D10@village.uunet.be> <35D7EB23.68B3@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Herman wrote: "Although underruffing in normal play would certainly be deemed careless, in the claim, play has ceased and all subsequent plays are made rationally. There will be no more revokes, underruffing, dropping of Kings under Aces and so on. All these things are deemed irrational. Again a careless play in actual play, but an irrational one when one takes the time to play carefully." And I disagree once more: playing in current trick was discribed by Declarer. And there are several points why his statement should stand: - L45C4a is in force, and L45C4b isn't in firce (Declarer did not change it without thiught, moreover - he repeated statement - L57C - prematured play, no rights to change it - and even if one would treat the current trick as part of claim (though for my opinion it is not such a part) - Declarer made clear his plan, and nobody has right to change this plan, even in case this plan is wrong: Declarer just should continue in accordance with his plan...; who has enough power to forgive Declarer's bridge mistake?:) "Called - played" - the Legend says.. And renaming procedure from "playing" to "claim" cannot influence on the result of current trick (the trick that is in progress) Best wishes Vitold > > I believe the world has a good idea of what careless means in the claims > area. Underruffing is not careless, but irrational. Ruffing too low, > and getting overruffed, that's being careless. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 07:50:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:50:29 +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 HAA04412 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 07:50:22 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20695 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808162152.OAA20695@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Preview of Chicago NABC Appeals Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 14:51:31 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Appeals from Chicago NABC are shown in the Reno Daily Bulletins published on the ACBL web site, www.acbl.org. Bulletin dates and cases are: July 28 Case 1 July 29 Cases 2, 3 July 30 Case 4 August 2 Cases 6, 7, 8, and 9 Case 5 seems to be missing; Case 8 was actually published in the Daily Bulletin of July 31, but the web site has it under August 8. Although the Federation Suisse de Bridge publishes all appeals shown in the ACBL website Daily Bulletins, they don't have Chicago's yet. Chicago appears on the menu of that site: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html but the item is not activated yet. That website presents the appeals in a very attractive easy-to-read format, so it's the preferred place for reading the cases. You have to dig through the Daily Bulletins to view them on the ACBL's site. Rumor is that the ACBL will soon start publishing all NABC appeals on the internet. That will be welcome. So far the only appeals published have been those that could be squeezed into the Daily Bulletins. The majority don't get published there, for several good reasons, and buying the NABC casebooks has been the only way to see them all. The numbering system used for the Daily Bulletin's appeals cases is different from that of the casebooks (so far, at least). The Chicago casebook won't be ready for quite a while, as it takes a long time to gather and compile the comments from the expert panelists who comment on each appeal. Accordingly, I'll use the above numbers when referring to them. I usually like to wait for the casebooks before commenting on appeals cases, so I can see what the panelists say first. The Chicago appeals won't wait, however. I can't hold my tongue, uh, pen, uh, keyboard. Case No. 1 is not interesting. Well, maybe it is. A UI slam was bid and made (with luck). The AC agreed with the TD's assigned score of a game, making six. In other Chicago appeals, e.g., Case #7, but not this one, the OS was assessed a procedural penalty for the illegal use of UI. If that is a proper use of PPs (I say no, ACBL and others say yes), why isn't the policy applied consistently to every such infraction? Apparently the policy is: "If the Laws punish, we won't; if the Laws do not punish, we will." How can that be justified? Case No. 2 has been discussed on RGB, as I remember, so I won't go into it. The AC made the error of treating a hesitation as if it had been the infraction when applying L12C2, when of course it was the illegal use of the UI that constituted the infraction. The effect was a correct adjusted score for the OS (after dubious reasoning), but an incorrect one for the NOS. Case No. 3 involved a slow 5H bid made after each partner had raised the other's major. Was it a forcing cue bid? TD said yes, opponents said no, and that cost them their $50 deposit and a 1/4 board PP for a "ludicrous" appeal. That's pretty heavy punishment for holding an opinion shared by pro Danny Kleinman, writer for the *Bridge World* and a recognized authority on modern American bidding. Can expert witnesses by called during an AC meeting? No? Then get someone like Danny as an advocate, and sneak his opinion in that way. Case No. 4 involved minor MI in a weak KO bracket, with both the TD and AC ruling (correctly, IMO) that the table result should stand. The inexperienced E/W players "were told that they needed to completely fill out two convention cards identically and completely and have them available for the opponents." One wonders why pros such as Bobby Goldman and Roger Bates aren't so instructed. (To be continued) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 09:18:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:18:01 +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 JAA04868 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:17:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA29646 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808162319.QAA29646@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago Appeals Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:17:28 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was wrong about the Chicago Appeals not being available on the Federation Suisse de Bridge website. Yvan Calame assures me that they are, giving me the direct address to them: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/98chiapp.html For some reason that page could not be accessed (by me, anyway) from the general menu. So, go directly, not through the menu. As usual, the appeals cases are nicely formatted, and include Case #5, which I had been unable to locate. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 10:42:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:42:51 +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 KAA04985 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:42:43 +1000 Received: from modem89.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.89] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0z8DQ6-0007sS-00; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:45:10 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:44:05 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "We've trod the maze of error round, Long wandering in the winding glade; And now the torch of truth is found It only shows us where we strayed..." (George Crabbe) ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > Subject: Interpretation of the Laws > Date: 16 August 1998 17:13 > > I was just glancing through the Constitution of the World Bridge > Federation, and came upon these words within the section on the WBF > Laws Commission: > > ### > The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the > laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study > and updating of the entire laws structure. > ### > ++ But this comes as no surprise. That fellow Endicott has been saying for weeks that it is a responsibility given to the WBFLC in its terms of reference. Only those that don't want to hear are deaf. ++ ~ G ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 10:42:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:42:50 +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 KAA04984 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:42:42 +1000 Received: from modem89.superman.pol.co.uk ([195.92.2.89] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0z8DQ2-0007sS-00; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:45:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Who can bring an appeal? Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:27:01 +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 "We've trod the maze of error round, Long wandering in the winding glade; And now the torch of truth is found It only shows us where we strayed..." (George Crabbe) ---------- From: Jesper Dybdal On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 03:58:52 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++ What an interesting thought! It leads me to ask : >given the vision of a team appealing a Director's decision, one >of its pairs making the appeal and the team Captain writing >on the appeal form "I do not consider this ruling should be >appealed", Question: whose deposit is it that the AC will >be spending? ~Grattan~ ++ Surely that is the team's own problem, not the TD's or the AC's: I don't care whose money it is, I only care whether I've received it or not. If not, there is no appeal. -- ++Yes, Sir! Exactly so! I'm betting you will not be receiving many paid-up appeals in such cases. ~ G ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 11:12:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:12:47 +1000 Received: from hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05042 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:12:35 +1000 Received: from ramrod.hal-pc.org (206.180.128.5.dial-ip.hal-pc.org [206.180.128.5]) by hal-pc.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA14270; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:14:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <35D784B2.253C@hal-pc.org> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:17:38 -0500 From: Georgiana Gates X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago Appeals References: <199808162319.QAA29646@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > I was wrong about the Chicago Appeals not being available on the > Federation Suisse de Bridge website. Yvan Calame assures me that they > are, giving me the direct address to them: > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/98chiapp.html > > For some reason that page could not be accessed (by me, anyway) from > the general menu. So, go directly, not through the menu. As usual, > the appeals cases are nicely formatted, and include Case #5, which I > had been unable to locate. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) I got an URL 404 - page not found when I tried to access it. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 18:33:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:33:55 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA05745 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:33:48 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01713 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:35:45 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA09728; Mon, 17 Aug 98 08:35:43 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980817083542.007d6e30@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:35:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Entries for Lille In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 19:10 15/08/98 +0200, Rusty Court wrote: >Can anyone assist me with an e-mail address >where I can check for entries of certain South >African player in Lille > You can check on the French Federation web: www.ffbridge.asso.fr at "Lille 98", then "Liste des inscrits" e-mail address of the site: ffb.lille@wanadoo.fr JP Rocafort >Thanks > >Rusty Court. > > ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 20:25:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA05909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:25:24 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA05904 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:25:17 +1000 Received: from client08f3.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.8.243] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z8MVq-0000Ws-00; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:27:42 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:29:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc9c9$ec080540$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 Grattan EndicottGrattan wrote: > >>++++ Ton and I will be discussing in Lille how to respond >> more decisively to BLML. The WBFLC can hardly >> concede decision making to BLML. > David S: > There is quite a presumption behind this assumption! No convincing >[to me] argument has ever been given for this idea that the law-makers >should also be the sole law-interpreters> +++ It is not an "assumption" - the terms of reference of the Committee are given to it and it is not the Committee's function to comment on what they "should" be. And whilst we respect your right to an opinion, that cannot turn us aside from carrying out the tasks we are set. +++ > I heard an unofficial view that the reason for the word > "demonstrably" in the current Laws was that the NAmericans >were interpreting the Laws in a way that the WBFLC did not >approve of +++ Wild rumour? There was an opinion that ACBL appeals committees had gone over the top in the interpretation of the previous wording of this area of the law. That opinion was given voice in the drafting committee by its N. American members and Edgar led the drafting committee in its search for a word or words which would bring the practice closer to the meaning of the law (as defined by the WBFLC). The lead part was taken by the N. American members on this subject; other members of WBFLC concurred in the correct interpretation and application of this section of the laws (and in the intention to get away from almost automatic rulings in favour of the NOS). +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 21:48:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:48:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA06092 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:48:28 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z8NoO-0001ab-00; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:50:56 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:35:02 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Declarer OLOOT Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:35:01 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony wrote: > This is not made up. > > Declarer makes an opening lead, face up. Can either defender accept > the > lead, and if so, when does dummy go down? > > Tony > > > ############ The play period does not begin until the opening lead is > faced and, therefore, I would like to argue that Declarer has exposed > a card during the auction period which is dealt with under Law 24. In > this case, there would then be no penalty under Law 24 for declarer > and so the card would be retracted and the correct defender would make > their lead. Unfortunately Law 17E is carelessly worded as it does not > specify that the faced opening lead must one from a defender. > However, IMO, we can use Laws 41A and 41C to infer that *only* a > defender's faced opening lead causes the play period to commence. > ############# From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 17 22:41:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 22:41:52 +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 WAA06249 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 22:41:45 +1000 Received: from client855c.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.85.92] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z8OdN-0002qE-00; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:43:38 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , , Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:46:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdc9dd$1aeae900$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 Grattan EndicottJesper wrote: > >> I agree with David S that the WBFLC is and should be a law-making >> body, not a law-interpreting body. The laws seem to say fairly >> clearly that the ultimate law interpretation belongs to the >> national authority, and there is therefore in general no such >> thing as a globally correct interpretation of a law that is not >> completely clear and unambiguous. +++ The laws do *not* say that ultimate law interpretations belong to the national authority. They give the ultimate resolution of appeals to national authorities, applying the defined laws; the ultimate responsibility for interpreting the law rests with WBFLC under its terms of reference. (See quoted extract from the Constitution of the WBF.) +++ and mlfrench: > >It seems to me that it is a very bad policy for national authorities, >who didn't even author the Laws, to interpret the same words in a >different manner than the WBFLC>>>(snip) +++ This should not happen, but the evidence is that WBFLC minutes and clarifications have not always and everywhere gone 'down the line'. The Committee will be making efforts to change this state of affairs, and it is my duty as Secretary of the Committee to put decisions and information into the public domain. As I have already said elsewhere, there is a proper sequence in doing this which ensures that ZOs and NBOs are the first recipients and I am setting up the means for doing it. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 03:46:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:46:44 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09579 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:46:36 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA00941; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:48:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-40.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.104) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000875; Mon Aug 17 12:48:09 1998 Received: by har-pa3-40.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDC9E4.73FF9CA0@har-pa3-40.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:39:27 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDC9E4.73FF9CA0@har-pa3-40.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Eric Landau'" Subject: RE: Assistance with a revoke please! Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:43:06 -0400 Encoding: 116 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If indeed an 82C adjustment applies, what effect does this being a knockout match make upon the manner of the adjustment? When both sides are treated as non-offending, how does one compare with the "other room"? Let us assume that absent the penalty card situation, the clear 3N contract goes down one and that is the result at the other table. If defender gets the "most favourable" result, their comparison shows the board as a push. With the penalty card but without the director's error the "most favourable" result for declarer is 3N just making which, dependent on vulnerabilty gives a swing of some 9 to 11 IMPS in their team's favour. So which comparison counts if you use a split score? Giving both sides the ArtAdj of +3 IMPS would seem to have the declaring side plus 5-6 IMPS btweeen the two tables and the defending side plus one IMP or even. Again, which result goes to the match total? Isn't this a case where an assigned adjusted score of 3N just making, (which is the probable result with the penalty card but in the absence of the director's error) makes a lot more sense? Once the penalty card is on the table and declarer correctly understands his options that seems to really be the "most favourable" result either side can reasonably expect, and there is no problem with score comparison now. Those of you more accustomed to resolving these matters in KO's have certainly dealt with this conundrum. How is it usually handled? I admit to never having run into it in a club where I have directed. All of this assumes that the "experienced player" declaring really and truly has been misled by the director's poorly stated comment. In practice, I would need a LOT of convincing to be persuaded that there really is a DE situation here and not just after the fact BL'ing. If the "experienced player" is flight A, high flight B, or a certified director I would rule that he "could have" known that the director's ruling might not be fully correct, and could have politely questioned it or asked to see the relevant Law. I would expect my ruling to stand since it is on a point of law, and would require some considerable persuasion by an impartial AC to change it. There was one director's "error" here of course. He tried to paraphrase the Law from memory rather than carefully reading it out of TFLB...which, had he done so, would have prevented this whole mess in the first place. That's not an 82C situation of course...just a recommendation to the TD involved to use the book for book rulings if there is any chance that not doing so might confuse the players or awaken their latent BL tendencies. ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 9:36 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! At 02:30 PM 8/14/98 +1000, Markus wrote: >>From Adam Wildavsky, bounced to bridge-laws-owner (me). > >>We have a small mess here in NYC and I'm hoping the BLML members can help >>me deal with it. I'm going to simplify the facts by posing a hypothetical >>situation. This may or may not be exactly what occurred at the table, but >>even if the facts are different your answers will help me resolve a >>sensitive issue. >> >>In a knockout match, in a notrump contract, a defender revokes, finds the >>proper card to play before anyone else plays a card, and plays it. >> >>The director is called. >> >>The director explains that the exposed card is a penalty card. >> >>The director explains that the penalty card must be played at the first >>legal opportunity. >> >>The director explains, incorrectly, that if the revoker's partner gains the >>lead then the declarer may require or forbid the lead of the revoke suit. >>The correct explanation would have mentioned that this holds only until >>penalty card is played. >> >>The declarer, an experienced player, can now make his contract by ducking a >>side suit which he needs to split three-two. A shift to the suit of the >>penalty card cannot hurt him. Instead he plays three rounds of the side >>suit, and the revoker discards the penalty card, perforce, on the third >>round of the suit. >> >>Declarer now attempts to require the lead of the revoke suit but is told >>that he cannot. A shift to a side suit scuttles his contract. He complains >>that he was misled by the director's innacurate or incomplete ruling. >> >>How would you rule? >> >>Any and all answers, opinions, comments, and reasoning will be greatly >>appreciated! I hope I've provided enough context, but if not please let me >>know. You must talk to the declarer and decide whether he was genuinely misled or whether, as "an experienced player", he "should have known" (PC code phrase for "knew") better and was "bridge lawyering" after the fact. If you believe that he was indeed misled, and believe that he would have made the contract had he not been, apply L82C. A while back I opined, in a wholly different context, that split AssASs should be given only when justified by L12C2. But on reading L82C, I now believe that its language ("award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending") also permits splitting the assigned result. Here it seems right to rule contract making for declarer and down for defenders. 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 Aug 18 03:58:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:58:48 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09624 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:58:42 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA27663 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808171800.LAA27663@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 10:59:18 -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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com id LAA27663 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Event: Spingold, 28 July, Round of 64=20 Board 5 N/S vul. Dealer North S- xx H- AKQx D- AQxxxx C- J S- KQx S- JTxxx H- xx H- xxx D- JTxx D- x C- AQxx C- xxxx S- Axx H- Jxxx D- Kx C- KTxx West North East South (usual directions) -- 1D P 1H P 4D(1) P 4H P(2) P 4S 5D Dbl All pass (1) Alerted; showed four hearts and six diamonds=20 (2) 2 - 3 second pause=20 The Facts: 5D doubled went down one, plus 200 for E/W. The Director was called after the double of 5D and was told that West had broken tempo before he passed 4H. The Director found that there had been a break in tempo that suggested action (Laws 73F1 and 16A2). East bid 4S, successfully pushing his opponents to the five level and into an unmakable contract. The Director determined that a pass by East was a logical alternative to 4S and changed the contract to 4H made five, plus 650 for N/S (Law 12C2).=20 The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director=92s ruling. They acknowledged that West took 2-3 seconds to pass over 4H. However, they contended that this was not a break in West=92s tempo. East said that he noticed no break in tempo and West said he thought a moment about what was happening, but tried to do that all the time. East noted that there was nothing in West=92s hand to suggest a reason for him to hesitate. Both East and West said that they had discussed as a partnership the importance of even tempos and had agreed to never bid fast.=20 East referred to his hand as a "classic," a pure sacrifice. He said that he expected to "buy" 10-12 HCP in his partner=92s hand with at most two hearts, three or four spades, and three or four clubs. He said that if West=92s values were well placed there might be a very good sacrifice at favorable vulnerability. East said that his team finished the first quarter about two boards after the rest of the field and that this was largely because of the deliberate tempo that he and his partner employed, even in pass-out seat when they had no intention of bidding. E/W also submitted that this kind of bid is not out of character for East. East noted that he had gone down 1100 earlier in the match in a solo dive he took against a game. E/W presented a witness (a friend and former teammate from their part of the country) who attested to their high ethical standards and the fairly consistent and slow tempos used by the pair. He also noted East=92s proclivity for taking flyers (he makes highly unusual bids). N/S asserted that the reason for the slowness in the earlier quarter was that East took a very long time to play a couple of hands. N/S said that the E/W tempos were erratic. They presented the testimony of a teammate who had played against E/W in this match who concurred with that evaluation. N/S said that West took 2-3 seconds to bid over South=92s 4H bid. They asserted that this was a small but decided break in tempo.=20 N/S presented another witness (a friend from the home area of one of them) who was kibitzing this table when this incident occurred. They asked him whether he noticed an erratic tempo by E/W. He said that he did not, but he was not paying much attention to the opponents. They asked him whether he noticed a break in tempo over 4H. He said that he did not, that he quit paying attention when 4H was bid and "the next thing I knew, the Director was called." N/S contended that there was a break in tempo and that it suggested action to East, which he took by bidding 4S. N/S said that East made no other bids when they played against him which were notably unusual. Since the action was successful (pushing them to the five-level) and pass was a logical alternative, they said that the contract should be rolled back to 4H, which would make five. Finally, N/S also said that the double of 5D was noticeably faster than the pass over 4H.=20 The Committee Decision: Both sides agreed that about 2-3 seconds had elapsed between South=92s 4H bid and West=92s pass. N/S contended that this constituted a break in tempo and E/W contended that it did not. The Committee considered West=92s hand and found nothing in it to suggest that West paused to consider bidding or doubling. This lent credence to E/W=92s claims. On the other hand, the bizarreness of East=92s 4S call lent credence to N/S=92s claims. The Committee carefully considered the testimony of the kibitzer at the table, who was a witness provided by N/S. He was unable to confirm N/S=92s claim that E/W were erratic in their tempos in general and also unable to confirm that there was a break in tempo on this hand. His qualification that he was not paying much attention to the E/W tempos certainly affected the weight which the Committee attached to his observation, but did not render the observation worthless.=20 Law 16A says, (snip of L16A) After considering all the evidence, the Committee found that there was no unmistakable hesitation. Therefore, East was free to bid 4S or whatever he wished. The Committee changed the contract to 5D doubled down one, plus 200 for E/W.=20 Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Lowell Andrews, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Ellen Siebert=20 My comments: A double of 4H by West would perhaps have been takeout for spades and clubs. Maybe he did have something to think about. It's a little surprising that an AC would overrule a TD's opinion as to the existence of a break in tempo. I see that character witnesses and kibitzing friends are permitted to testify in AC proceedings. Learn something every day.=20 Both pairs must have thought they were playing matchpoints. While N/S could have had a probable +800 score (depending on the club spots) by doubling 4S, surely right at IMPs, that was not so egregiously bad as to lose their right to redress if the case had gone against E-W. This is also true of North's failure to bid a cold 5H, which is almost as bad as East's 4S bid and West's double of 5D. E/W's team won by 9 IMPs, so this case decided the match. They lost the next match by 97 IMPs.=20 (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 04:35:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:35:09 +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 EAA09784 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:35:02 +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 LAA12195 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA04437; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:39:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:39:48 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199808171839.LAA04437@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 | |Event: Spingold, 28 July, Round of 64=20 |Board 5 |N/S vul. |Dealer North | | S- xx | H- AKQx | D- AQxxxx | C- J | |S- KQx S- JTxxx |H- xx H- xxx |D- JTxx D- x |C- AQxx C- xxxx | | S- Axx | H- Jxxx | D- Kx | C- KTxx | |West North East South (usual directions) | -- 1D P 1H | P 4D(1) P 4H | P(2) P 4S 5D | Dbl All pass | |(1) Alerted; showed four hearts and six diamonds=20 |(2) 2 - 3 second pause=20 | |The Facts: 5D doubled went down one, plus 200 for E/W. The Director |was called after the double of 5D and was told that West had broken |tempo before he passed 4H. The Director found that there had been a |break in tempo that suggested action (Laws 73F1 and 16A2). East bid |4S, successfully pushing his opponents to the five level and into an |unmakable contract. The Director determined that a pass by East was a |logical alternative to 4S and changed the contract to 4H made five, |plus 650 for N/S (Law 12C2).=20 | |The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. They acknowledged |that West took 2-3 seconds to pass over 4H. However, they contended |that this was not a break in West's tempo. ... | |The Committee Decision: Both sides agreed that about 2-3 seconds had |elapsed between South's 4H bid and West's pass. N/S contended that |this constituted a break in tempo and E/W contended that it did not. |The Committee considered West's hand and found nothing in it to |suggest that West paused to consider bidding or doubling. This lent |credence to E/W's claims. On the other hand, the bizarreness of |East's 4S call lent credence to N/S's claims. The Committee |carefully considered the testimony of the kibitzer at the table, who was a |witness provided by N/S. He was unable to confirm N/S's claim that |E/W were erratic in their tempos in general and also unable to |confirm that there was a break in tempo on this hand. His |qualification that he was not paying much attention to the E/W tempos |certainly affected the weight which the Committee attached to his |observation, but did not render the observation worthless. | |My comments: A double of 4H by West would perhaps have been takeout |for spades and clubs. Maybe he did have something to think about. No, a double of 4H would have been business. If West had a hand that wanted to double for takeout in the blacks, he would have done it at the one-level. If West really was thinking, it was about doubling 4H for penalties. I think, therefore, that if there had been a hesitation, then it would have suggested passing over other logical alternatives. I'm not at all sure 4S is a logical alternative at IMPs, so even if East were to pass and a committee arose, even in theory, I'd not force him to bid. |It's a little surprising that an AC would overrule a TD's opinion |as to the existence of a break in tempo. I see that character |witnesses and kibitzing friends are permitted to testify in AC |proceedings. Learn something every day. That's not all that suprising. The director ruled at the table with the evidence he had. The committee got different evidence. If a committee isn't sure about their fact-finding, they generally believe the director's results, but here, evidentally, they were convinced that there was no hesitation, thus no infraction. In fact, a member of the committee told me that the AC was quite convinced that there had been no significant hesitation. |Both pairs must have thought they were playing matchpoints. While |N/S could have had a probable +800 score (depending on the club |spots) by doubling 4S, surely right at IMPs, that was not so |egregiously bad as to lose their right to redress if the case had It's pretty bad. South has a close call; he probably should double 4S, but he might pass if that's forcing. Most play it as such, but not everyone. (Since E/W are obviously saving, it should be...but have you never met an East who bid this way with ten solid spades? I have met enough that with some partners I expressly play a pass here as nonforcing, knowing that about 1/3 of the time, East was kidding with the pass, not the 4S bid.) Doubling 4S and leading a trump would be very bloody, 800 at least. The 5D bid was flat-out bad and deserved the bad result it got, I think. It's not a "wild, swinging action," but at this level it is a clear blunder. It's not an "egregious error," so I don't think it legally breaks the chain of causality between the alleged infraction and the non-offending side's bad result, but if I were South, I'd not be proud of my action. |gone against E-W. This is also true of North's failure to bid a |cold 5H, which is almost as bad as East's 4S bid and West's double |of 5D. Failing to bid 5H is much less clear. Give partner x xxxx KJxx KQxx, and 5D is frigid, but 5H might go down. Sometimes, players (particularly if they are using a weak NT) even bid 1H over 1D on three. No, North should not bid 5H. He might strongly, however, consider redoubling 5D. I wonder if East would stand for that? I'd be worried :) The bridge decisions are interesting, but the ruling was simple. The committee judged that West's pass was not out of tempo. The director didn't tell them that that he was certain that it was from the information he had at the table (this inside information, sorry), so they felt that their finding was clear enough to overrule the director's. Even if they had not found this to be the case, I don't think the alleged infraction suggests bidding over passing (I think the opposite---in fact, East's hand suggests that West is considering doubling on a diamond stack). This was the most "controversial" ruling in Chicago. I quote it simply because lots of folks were talking about it. Most were saying how bad the ruling was without any knowledge whatsoever of the facts. The favorites lost the match and would have won if the director's ruling had been maintained. "Obviously," therefore, the committee erred, right? At least if the speaker is a friend of one of the favorites. The committee couldn't win this one :) --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 Aug 18 06:57:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 06:57:06 +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 GAA10312 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 06:57:00 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA19811 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808172058.NAA19811@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:57:03 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote in another thread : > > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > > But that is not how it works : the sentence "had the irregularity not > > > occured" in L12 can (and IMO must) be interpreted as the whole > > > irregularity, the giving AND receiving of UI. > > > > It is the _use_ of UI that is the irregularity, I think, but I could > > be convinced I am wrong. > > > If I can butt in, I don't see how the creation of UI can be considered to be part of an irregularity unless it is done for illegal reasons (e.g., 73B1), or in violation of a prescribed procedure or regulation (e.g., Alerting a non-Alertable call). > What do you think ? > > The question is : > > There is UI. > > The UI suggests one action, but there is another LA. > > The Os take that action anyway. > > The LA results in a better score (for Os) than the suggested alternative > (SA). > > An ArtAss is at order. Don't want to be a smArtAss, but isn't that an "AssScore"? > > For the Os, the most unfavourable result that was probable, is of course > the result that arises from the LA that they did not take. > That should be "at all probable," as the extra words are there for a reason. > For the NOs, we need the most favourable result that is likely. > > First question : could it be that a LA is not considered a likely > outcome of a bridge hand ? > > I believe the ACBL uses things like : 1 in six for a LA, 1 in three for > a likely result. > That's apples and oranges. An LA is not an outcome, it is a call. The ACBL LC in 1992 revised the then-current guideline for an LA to "an action that some number of your peers would take in a vacuum." As far as I know, this guideline has not been changed. I do not know of any specific fraction that has been suggested by the LC for "some number." If we agree that 10% qualifies as "some number," then it could well be that a mandated LA (one not suggested by the UI) is a rather unlikely outcome in the absence of the irregularity. However, that doesn't matter. The OS *must* take that action or risk a score adjustment. If the TD adjusts, he figures the most unfavorable result that is at all probable after an acceptable LA is taken. That might involve further bidding that might occur, as well as considerations of what might happen in the play of one or more potential contracts. It is the OS's "most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred" for which the one chance in six guideline was suggested by the ACBL LC, and the NOs' "most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" for which one chance in three was suggested. These are guidelines only, not rigid mathematical requirements. As David Stevenson noted, they must be modified when more than one LA must be considered in place of a forbidden one. Steve Willner has suggested a way around that, but that's another thread. > So it seems that a certain action can be a LA, and thus lead to the > ArtAss for Os, but not a likely action, and thus not lead to the ArtAss > for NOs. > Don't mix up the likelihood of an LA with the likelihood of a result. The likelihood of an LA does not lead directly to the determination of adjusted scores. First it must be determined that an action taken was demonstably suggested over another by the UI or other infraction. If such action was taken, *and* it caused damage (consequent or subsequent!), it must not be allowed if there is an LA that was not suggested. As I said above, a mandated LA might well represent a call that was either not likely or even not at all probable. After one or more LAs have been cleared as permissible actions, then L12C2 comes into play. At that time, if there are two eligible LAs, and one is extremely unlikely, *then* it might not pass the L12C2 criteria and the other LA would be assumed for the purpose of assigning a score. If there is only one acceptable LA, then it has to be assumed. It's been defined as "logical," remember. > Second question : If the first question is answered YES, then is it not > logical to assume that the SA (if this is a likely action) be the basis > for the ArtAss for NOs, thus resulting in "no change" for NOs ? > > To apply to the example : Os get 4S-1, because 4S is considered a LA and > 4H was suggested, but NOs stay at 4H, because 4S is not a likely outcome > after all ? The irregularity in this case was using the UI to avoid a spade contract. There's no law against hesitating in the auction. Since the UI suggested some bid other than 4S, and 4S was evidently an LA for this player (he took partner to surely have four spades, something an expert would not do), the assigned score should be 4S-1 on the scoresheet of both pairs. > > Agreed that this can be the case ? I guess the question is, "Can the NOS ever keep its result, even though it was damaged?" Only if the damage was not a direct consequence of the infraction. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 07:28:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:28:58 +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 HAA10582 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:28:52 +1000 Received: from ppp62.bir.tele.dk ([194.239.136.66]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980817213217.FBLZ19507.fep4@ppp62.bir.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:32:17 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:31:19 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35d994d4.750619@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 Mon, 17 Aug 1998 01:44:05 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >> From: Marvin L. French >> ### >> The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the >> laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study >> and updating of the entire laws structure.=20 >> ### >>=20 >++ But this comes as no surprise. That fellow Endicott has been saying >for weeks that it is a responsibility given to the WBFLC in its terms of >reference. Only those that don't want to hear are deaf. ++ ~ G ~ No, that fellow Endicott has been saying for weeks that it was his opinion that it is so. And since he did not quote or refer to any authoritative document in support of that view, it seemed a reasonable assumption that no such document existed, and that the matter was therefore a question of opinions and views rather than of fact. Now we learn that such a document does exist: you were right, Grattan. So we'll have to accept that the WBFLC does give authoritative interpretations. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 13:40:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA11753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:40:21 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA11748 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:40:14 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-14.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.211]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA19047 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35D8F976.C5BEA787@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:48:06 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Unauthorized information??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following happened at the local club... At the table the bidding was: 1 club, double, pass, 1 spade 3clubs, "well, I guess its yours while picking up her bid cards", pass, "wait a minute, do I have a chance to speak?," Director.......... at this point is the person who bid one spade in possession of unauthorized information? Is her partner telling her to pass or is this person making the assumption that the bidding will end with the jump bid? Is she now forced to bid? If she makes any kind of bid, is her partner allowed to bid? Her feeling was that she was forced to bid, so she said 3 spades with a six card spade suit and 4 points. (UI -her partner was telling her to pass(?) and bidding 3 spades was a logical alternative while knowing that her partner would go to 4 which she felt would not make.) and the bidding proceeded pass, 4 spades, pass, pass, pass. The director allowed play to continue and took the traveler away with her and studied it while they played the hand. . By misplay of the defense, the contract of 4 was made. After the play was over, the director came back to the table and rolled the score back to 3 clubs, making, as that is what happened at most of the other players. It is common here for people to start picking up their bids before all have legally passed making the assumption that the last bid will end the auction. Ugh!!!. I can supply the hand if it is necessary to see it. How do you rule???? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 15:21:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:21:30 +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 PAA11941 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:21:22 +1000 Received: from (coruncanius.demon.co.uk) [194.222.115.176] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z8eFH-0002PT-00; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 05:23:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:02:33 +0100 To: mlfrench@writeme.com Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws In-Reply-To: <199808161617.JAA01274@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199808161617.JAA01274@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes .........................cut................................ > >Does this mean the ACBL must accept the interpretations that are >likely to emanate from the WBF LC after Lille? > >Is Ralph Cohen, co-chairman of the ACBL LC and vice-chairman of the >WBF LC, violating the WBF Constitution when he writes: "In ACBL >sponsored events, interpretations of law as promulgated by the ACBL >Laws Commission prevail. No other body of people in the world can >override it." > >Any lawyers out there? Labeo: Maybe we should avoid attacks upon personalities. And it is possible that we have enough BLs without inviting in the gen-u-ine article. At times it has seemed all too easy for writs to fly, and I doubt we wish to open up a fresh area of possible contention. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 15:45:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:45:47 +1000 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA12004 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:45:40 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3VUZa13456 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 01:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <77cc4665.35d9156a@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 01:47:20 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/17/98 11:03:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Marvin Fren= ch=0Awrites: [s] > N/S presented another witness (a friend from the home area of one > of > them) who was kibitzing this table when this incident occurred. > They > asked him whether he noticed an erratic tempo by E/W. He said that > he > did not, I believe this is being corrected to say that he had noticed an uneven te= mpo=0Aon other hands. N-S are insistent that this was the testimony of t= he witness.=0AThe Chairman had no problem with this correction. I actual= ly believe it makes=0Athe N-S case weaker. > but he was not paying much attention to the opponents. > They > asked him whether he noticed a break in tempo over 4H. He said that > he did not, that he quit paying attention when 4H was bid and "the > next thing I knew, the Director was called." N/S contended that > there > was a break in tempo and that it suggested action to East, which he > took by bidding 4S. N/S said that East made no other bids when they > played against him which were notably unusual. Since the action was > successful (pushing them to the five-level) and pass was a logical > alternative, they said that the contract should be rolled back to > 4H, > which would make five. Finally, N/S also said that the double of 5D > was noticeably faster than the pass over 4H. > > The Committee Decision: Both sides agreed that about 2-3 seconds > had > elapsed between South=92s 4H bid and West=92s pass. N/S contended that > this constituted a break in tempo and E/W contended that it did > not. > The Committee considered West=92s hand and found nothing in it to > suggest that West paused to consider bidding or doubling. This lent > credence to E/W=92s claims. On the other hand, the bizarreness of > East=92s 4S call lent credence to N/S=92s claims. The Committee > carefully > considered the testimony of the kibitzer at the table, who was a > witness provided by N/S. He was unable to confirm N/S=92s claim that > E/W were erratic in their tempos in general and also unable to > confirm that there was a break in tempo on this hand. His > qualification that he was not paying much attention to the E/W > tempos > certainly affected the weight which the Committee attached to his > observation, but did not render the observation worthless. > > Law 16A says, (snip of L16A) > > After considering all the evidence, the Committee found that there > was no unmistakable hesitation. Therefore, East was free to bid 4S > or whatever he wished. The Committee changed the contract to 5D > doubled down one, plus 200 for E/W. > My comments: A double of 4H by West would perhaps have been takeout > for spades and clubs. And I'm sure this is an action that everyone would be considering at this= =0Alevel. Would it have meant the same thing over 1H? > Maybe he did have something to think about. > It's a little surprising that an AC would overrule a TD's opinion > as to the existence of a break in tempo. There is no evidence in this write-up that this committee did any such th= ing,=0AMarvin. Everyone agreed that there was a 2-3 second hesitation (i= t is unusual=0Ato get such an agreement) over 4H. The TD ruled that ther= e was a "BREAK IN=0ATEMPO" and the AC found that it was a break in tempo = which was not an=0Aunmistakeable hesitation. I thought this write-up mad= e this very clear. This=0Ameans that the AC found a different set of fac= ts than did the TD. It in no=0Away suggests that the TD made an error. = I would always want the TD to rule in=0Athis fashion in a case of this na= ture. > I see that character > witnesses and kibitzing friends are permitted to testify in AC > proceedings. Learn something every day. And it's good to know that you're not to old to learn something, Marvin. = A=0Acommittee's job is to do everything they can to determine the facts.= They=0Ashould always be willing to listen to any testimony from any ava= ilable=0Awitnesses. They may give any weight they wish to that testimony= . They could=0Aalways decide that it was totally irrelevant. In this ca= se it proved to be=0Ahelpful in "determining the facts". Why would anyon= e think that an AC should=0Abe unwilling to at least listen to kibbitzers= ? Try to remember, Marvin - one=0Aof the toughest jobs of an AC is to ke= ep an open mind to every possible fact=0Aas to it's possible validity. > Both pairs must have thought they were playing matchpoints. While > N/S could have had a probable +800 score (depending on the club > spots) by doubling 4S, surely right at IMPs, that was not so > egregiously bad as to lose their right to redress if the case had > gone against E-W. This is also true of North's failure to bid a > cold 5H, which is almost as bad as East's 4S bid and West's double > of 5D. When was the last time you were competing at this level? My judgement is= =0Afairly accurate when I'm looking at all four hands also. But this was= in the=0Aheat of battle. They erred in their judgement. Yes, they had = 800 available.=0AAnd perhaps they should have run to the cold 5H after th= e double. As Jeff G.=0Apointed out, sometimes you double this auction on= ly to discover you were being=0Abaited the entire time. We've all either= done it or had it done to us. But=0Atheir error was certainly not egreg= ious or "wild and gambling". They were=0Asimply errors in judgement. No= thing they could be convicted of... > E/W's team won by 9 IMPs, so this case decided the match. Many would take the view that this match was decided at the table. > They lost > the next match by 97 IMPs. And this is certainly a very important fact in evaluating this committee= =0Adecision. There was one facet of this case that I found most interesting. And that= was=0Athe fact that so many of the "good" players were so certain that t= his was a=0Ahorrible decision. After all, the team that lost was a clear= favorite in the=0Amatch. After the write-up came out, some were now wil= ling to admit that they=0Ahad not had all the facts (surprise!) and that = the decision really did sound=0Areasonable. And yet there was a corps of= top players that are still convinced=0Athat this player must have had so= me UI available because the nature of the 4S=0Abid is so foreign to their= way of thinking. They can't even imagine someone=0Aconsidering the poss= ibility. As I was told at least twice, he must have=0A"known" something = or he couldn't possibly make the bid. I was told that you=0Ajust can't m= ake a bid like this and be "right". They couldn't seem to accept=0Athe f= act that this player was so "right" he had just offered up 800. There=0A= are many different concepts of bridge that are difficult for the better= =0Aplayers to accept. And we laugh about some of the results when they a= ren't=0Aeffective, but we must accept the fact that every once in a while= , a player=0Athat perceives he is outclassed, may resort to desperation. = And we all know=0Athat will sometimes reap rich rewards... Alan LeBendig=0A From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 16:02:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:02:53 +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 QAA12074 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:02:45 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA29065 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808180604.XAA29065@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:02:11 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: "Marvin L. French" writes > > .........................cut................................ > > > >Does this mean the ACBL must accept the interpretations that are > >likely to emanate from the WBF LC after Lille? > > > >Is Ralph Cohen, co-chairman of the ACBL LC and vice-chairman of the > >WBF LC, violating the WBF Constitution when he writes: "In ACBL > >sponsored events, interpretations of law as promulgated by the ACBL > >Laws Commission prevail. No other body of people in the world can > >override it." > > > >Any lawyers out there? > > Labeo: Maybe we should avoid attacks upon personalities. And > it is possible that we have enough BLs without inviting > in the gen-u-ine article. At times it has seemed all too > easy for writs to fly, and I doubt we wish to open up a > fresh area of possible contention. Marv: How on earth does this constitute an attack upon a personality? Cohen's opinion is widely held here, it's quite public, and I'm only asking whether this stand violates the WBF Constitution. I mention his name not to attack him, but to show that this opinion is held in the highest ranks of the ACBL, including the Laws Commission. He wrote those words to me not as person-to-person, but as co-chairman of the ACBL LC answering a technical question about the interpretation of the Laws. Am I not allowed to pass his answer on to others? Should I say it comes from an anonymous source? Not trained in legal matters (aerospace engineer, no degree), and unfamiliar with the WBF and its subsidiaries, or how they relate to one another in matters like this, I was only asking those who have the legal training and familiarity with worldwide bridge to educate me on the matter. Grattan has provided the information I sought, so that's the end of it. For now. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 16:46:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:46:25 +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 QAA12195 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:46:19 +1000 Received: from modem110.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.238] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0z8fZX-0000hh-00; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:48:48 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:40:38 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "We've trod the maze of error round, Long wandering in the winding glade; And now the torch of truth is found It only shows us where we strayed..." (George Crabbe) ---------- > From: Marvin L. French > > > If I can butt in, I don't see how the creation of UI can be > considered to be part of an irregularity unless it is done for > illegal reasons (e.g., 73B1), or in violation of a prescribed > procedure or regulation ++ UI may result, as often as not, from a perfectly legal action authorized by the laws - e.g. asking question. The action prohibited in the laws is making use of UI when in possession of it. Of the creation of UI the laws simply recognize that it happens. The qualification that to make it available deliberately is a breach of law is right. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 16:46:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:46:30 +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 QAA12202 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:46:24 +1000 Received: from modem110.bat-man.pol.co.uk ([195.92.5.238] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-03.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 0z8fZc-0000hh-00; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:48:53 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:47:27 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan "We've trod the maze of error round, Long wandering in the winding glade; And now the torch of truth is found It only shows us where we strayed..." (George Crabbe) From: Jesper Dybdal No, that fellow Endicott has been saying for weeks that it was his opinion that it is so. And since he did not quote or refer to any authoritative document in support of that view, it seemed a reasonable assumption that no such document existed, and that the matter was therefore a question of opinions and views rather than of fact. Now we learn that such a document does exist: you were right, Grattan. So we'll have to accept that the WBFLC does give authoritative interpretations. ++++"Oh thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" (St. Matthew Chap 14 verse 31) It might perhaps have occurred to you that, as Edgar's Vice-Chairman of the WBFLC for nine or ten years and having written nearly all of the minutes of the WBFLC since 1985, I might possibly know about this - it did not occur to me that I was merely expressing an opinion nor that I needed to quote chapter and verse to be believed. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 21:16:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA12724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:16:21 +1000 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA12719 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 21:16:14 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-141.uunet.be [194.7.14.141]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05716 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:18:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <35D95FD5.A2310C03@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:04:53 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199808172058.NAA19811@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > For the NOs, we need the most favourable result that is likely. > > > > First question : could it be that a LA is not considered a likely > > outcome of a bridge hand ? > > > > I believe the ACBL uses things like : 1 in six for a LA, 1 in > three for > > a likely result. > > > That's apples and oranges. An LA is not an outcome, it is a call. I know, but I'm using shorthand. The "normal" result of a LA is certainly a score that must be called "at all probable". But is the normal result of a LA also a score that is "likely" ? By using the ACBL guidelines, it would seem that the outcome of a LA need not be a likely outcome. Then if we interpret the "if the irregularity had not occured", as being only the using of UI, we might well end up with no single "likely" result left, so how can we determine a score for the non-offenders ? > The ACBL LC in 1992 revised the then-current guideline for an LA to > "an action that some number of your peers would take in a vacuum." > As far as I know, this guideline has not been changed. I do not > know of any specific fraction that has been suggested by the LC for > "some number." If we agree that 10% qualifies as "some number," > then it could well be that a mandated LA (one not suggested by the > UI) is a rather unlikely outcome in the absence of the > irregularity. However, that doesn't matter. The OS *must* take that > action or risk a score adjustment. If the TD adjusts, he figures > the most unfavorable result that is at all probable after an > acceptable LA is taken. That might involve further bidding that > might occur, as well as considerations of what might happen in the > play of one or more potential contracts. > > It is the OS's "most unfavorable result that was at all probable > had the irregularity not occurred" for which the one chance in six > guideline was suggested by the ACBL LC, and the NOs' "most > favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" > for which one chance in three was suggested. These are guidelines > only, not rigid mathematical requirements. As David Stevenson > noted, they must be modified when more than one LA must be > considered in place of a forbidden one. Steve Willner has suggested > a way around that, but that's another thread. > So it is your opinion that if there is only one LA not suggested by the UI, then the resulting contract automatically becomes a likely contract, and any normal result a "likely result had the irregularity not occured". Is that the generally held opinion ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 18 22:10:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:10:11 +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 WAA12874 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:10:04 +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 IAA09961 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980818081312.006e66f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:13:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Careless or Irrational In-Reply-To: <341DB00F.8F878488@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:00 AM 9/16/97 +1200, wayne wrote: >I'm sure the the difference between careless and irrational lines has >been discussed many times before but the following two incidents in >yesterday's tournament caused me to think carefully (or perhaps >irrationally) about what is meant by those terms. > >In session one, late in the play, my partner lead a plain suit in which >I was void around to declarer. Before I got to play declarer claimed >the rest tabling her trump seven and saying I am going to ruff that and >then separately tabling her remaining higher trumps (she held no other >suits). After a short wait in which I did not acquiesce her claim she >repeated her claim stating "I am going to ruff this trick with the seven >and then draw the rest of the trumps". I said you may regret saying >that because I am going to ruff with the ten (and therefore the seven >would be a careless or irrational under-ruff). > >Later in the day when we were trying our best to squander our 11% lead >in the final session I was in charge of the dummy and received an >opening low trump lead through dummy's 10xxxx around to my AQxx. The >King was played by my RHO and I carelessly or irrationally contributed >the Queen. > >This demonstrated that even if others never would I certainly could >carelessly play a lower card than I intended to lose an unnecessary >trick. > >If it matters I can assure you that the play of the Queen was a >mechanical error. I had in mind clearly seen the King played and >accidently pulled the wrong card. > >Oh by the way in the first example I insisted that declarer won all of >the remaining tricks. I judge both plays to be irrational. Of course, whether a play is merely "careless or inferior" rather than irrational only matters when L70 is being applied after a claim. You are protected from having an irrational play imposed presumptively after a claim. There is nothing in the laws that protects you from an irrational play you may actually make at the table. In the first case, I allow the claim, although I might rule differently if the original statement of claim had included the words "ruff... with the seven", rather than this coming after the original statement, i.e. after play has ceased per L68D, which says that the post-statement "play" of the trump seven "shall be voided". In the second case, the queen stands. There was no claim, play hadn't ceased, and nothing in the laws cares whether the queen was an irrational play or not. 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 Aug 18 22:37:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:37:13 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA12965 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:37:07 +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 IAA10464 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980818084018.006d9704@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:40:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 In-Reply-To: <199808171800.LAA27663@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by stmpy.cais.net id IAA10464 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:59 AM 8/17/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Event: Spingold, 28 July, Round of 64=20 >Board 5 >N/S vul. >Dealer North > > S- xx > H- AKQx > D- AQxxxx > C- J > >S- KQx S- JTxxx >H- xx H- xxx >D- JTxx D- x >C- AQxx C- xxxx > > S- Axx > H- Jxxx > D- Kx > C- KTxx > >West North East South (usual directions) > -- 1D P 1H > P 4D(1) P 4H > P(2) P 4S 5D > Dbl All pass > >(1) Alerted; showed four hearts and six diamonds=20 >(2) 2 - 3 second pause=20 > >The Facts: 5D doubled went down one, plus 200 for E/W. The Director >was called after the double of 5D and was told that West had broken >tempo before he passed 4H. The Director found that there had been a >break in tempo that suggested action (Laws 73F1 and 16A2). East bid >4S, successfully pushing his opponents to the five level and into >an >unmakable contract. The Director determined that a pass by East was >a >logical alternative to 4S and changed the contract to 4H made five, >plus 650 for N/S (Law 12C2).=20 > >The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director=92s ruling. They acknowledged >that West took 2-3 seconds to pass over 4H. However, they contended >that this was not a break in West=92s tempo. East said that he >noticed >no break in tempo and West said he thought a moment about what was >happening, but tried to do that all the time. East noted that there >was nothing in West=92s hand to suggest a reason for him to hesitate. >Both East and West said that they had discussed as a partnership >the >importance of even tempos and had agreed to never bid fast.=20 [...remaining details snipped...] All perfectly reasonable. The TD found that there had been a tempo break= , and made the correct ruling based on that presumptive fact. The AC, afte= r hearing far more evidence than it would have been practical for the TD to gather on the spot, subsequently overruled the TD on a point of fact, whi= ch is their prerogative, and correctly changed the adjudicated result accordingly. Sounds to me like the system worked just as it's supposed to. 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 Aug 18 22:49:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:49:57 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA13007 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:49:48 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA10770 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980818085259.006eff0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:52:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: <35D8F976.C5BEA787@pinehurst.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 PM 8/17/98 -0400, Nancy wrote: >The following happened at the local club... At the table the bidding >was: >1 club, double, pass, 1 spade >3clubs, "well, I guess its yours while picking up her bid cards", pass, >"wait a minute, do I have a chance to speak?," Director.......... >at this point is the person who bid one spade in possession of >unauthorized information? Is her partner telling her to pass or is this >person making the assumption that the bidding will end with the jump >bid? Is she now forced to bid? If she makes any kind of bid, is her >partner allowed to bid? >Her feeling was that she was forced to bid, so she said 3 spades with a >six card spade suit and 4 points. (UI -her partner was telling her to >pass(?) and bidding 3 spades was a logical alternative while knowing >that her partner would go to 4 which she felt would not make.) and the >bidding proceeded pass, 4 spades, pass, pass, pass. The director allowed >play to continue and took the traveler away with her and studied it >while they played the hand. . By misplay of the defense, the contract of >4 was made. After the play was over, the director came back to the >table and rolled the score back to 3 clubs, making, as that is what >happened at most of the other players. It is common here for people to >start picking up their bids before all have legally passed making the >assumption that the last bid will end the auction. Ugh!!!. I can >supply the hand if it is necessary to see it. How do you rule???? Result stands. This was a terrible ruling, in the finest "if it hesitates shoot it" tradition. What the TD ruled, in effect, was that the defender's picking up her cards as though the auction were over when two more players had bids coming "demonstably suggested" that her partner would be better off bidding than passing, which is ludicrous. The 3S bidder came closer to deserving an active ethics citation than to deserving an unfavorable adjustment. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 00:06:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:06:47 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA13308 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:06:40 +1000 Received: from christian (c020.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.20]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA26422 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:08:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:06:51 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDCAC2.361A6E90.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: Bridge Laws Subject: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:06:50 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the ongoing discussion I read the sentence "the OS gets the most unfavourable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred." But as I read the code, the clause "had the irregularity not occurred" is only applicable for the NO side. The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam missing a quick and a slow trick after an irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right suit and the NOs miss their chance. Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be game bid making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid that the NOs get two chances to play the same hand). /Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 00:49:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:49:32 +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 AAA15811 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:49:25 +1000 Received: from client8554.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.85.84] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z8n6s-0006I1-00; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:51:42 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:48:50 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdcab7$4ffc4280$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 Grattan Endicott >When the question is "is a 1Cl opening on 4-4-3-2 a convention?", this >is a case for interpretation, and it can even be that different >countries have different ideas about it, and such is not bad.> ++ perhaps the question is not whether it is a convention but whether, being a convention, it is one that a country wishes to control by regulation. (My immediate reaction is "probably not" ~ Grattan ~ ++ > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 01:24:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:24:32 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16099 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:24:25 +1000 Received: from mike (user-38lcmg9.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.90.9]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02284 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980818112546.0122a284@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:25:46 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: <35D8F976.C5BEA787@pinehurst.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 PM 8/17/98 -0400, Nancy wrote: >The following happened at the local club... At the table the bidding >was: >1 club, double, pass, 1 spade >3clubs, "well, I guess its yours while picking up her bid cards", pass, >"wait a minute, do I have a chance to speak?," Director.......... >at this point is the person who bid one spade in possession of >unauthorized information? Is her partner telling her to pass or is this >person making the assumption that the bidding will end with the jump >bid? Is she now forced to bid? If she makes any kind of bid, is her >partner allowed to bid? >Her feeling was that she was forced to bid, so she said 3 spades with a >six card spade suit and 4 points. (UI -her partner was telling her to >pass(?) and bidding 3 spades was a logical alternative while knowing >that her partner would go to 4 which she felt would not make.) and the >bidding proceeded pass, 4 spades, pass, pass, pass. The director allowed >play to continue and took the traveler away with her and studied it >while they played the hand. . By misplay of the defense, the contract of >4 was made. After the play was over, the director came back to the >table and rolled the score back to 3 clubs, making, as that is what >happened at most of the other players. It is common here for people to >start picking up their bids before all have legally passed making the >assumption that the last bid will end the auction. Ugh!!!. I can >supply the hand if it is necessary to see it. How do you rule???? >Nancy > > I let 4S making 4 stand, although a PP of some sort for the highly inappropriate comment would not be out of line. It is difficult to imagine how the comment would make 3S more attractive if P is a LA, so 3S seems like a legal, perhaps extra-ethical, choice. The loud-mouth is not constrained by his/her own UI, so 4S is also legal. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 01:26:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:26:26 +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 BAA16117 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 01:26:20 +1000 Received: from ip209.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.209]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980818152946.DBP2522.fep4@ip209.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:29:46 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:28:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35db9d7a.3925023@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 Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:47:27 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++++"Oh thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" > (St. Matthew Chap 14 verse 31) >It might perhaps have occurred to you that, as Edgar's >Vice-Chairman of the WBFLC for nine or ten years and >having written nearly all of the minutes of the WBFLC=20 >since 1985, I might possibly know about this - it did not=20 >occur to me that I was merely expressing an opinion nor=20 >that I needed to quote chapter and verse to be believed. Since the general question of what authority to attach to contributions from you is relevant for BLML, I've decided to answer this in public. This is not a question of believing you or not, Grattan. You did not tell us that "chapter and verse" even existed. If you had written something like "I remember that there is a formal WBF statement of this somewhere, but I don't remember where", then of course I would not have doubted it for a second. What you wrote was: >>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.] ++ and >[ I am >of the opinion that the rules for the playing of duplicate bridge=20 >promulgated by the WBF Executive, by ratification of the=20 >decisions of WBFLC, are comprised not in the words of the=20 >'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' but in the meanings attached to those=20 >words by the promulgating body.] "I think" and "I am of the opinion" sounded to me as if you were stating opinions, not formally documented facts. And as long as you are stating opinions (your own or Kaplan's), I do not feel any obligation to agree - BLML is a place where we discuss our opinions, even when they differ from yours or Kaplan's. Since Marvin found the passage from the WBF By-Laws (it is actually in the By-Laws, not the Constitution, whatever the difference may be), I will of course accept that the formally expressed "opinion" of the WBFLC on law interpretation is authoritative. The WBF Constitution and By-Laws can be found on the WBF web-site: http://www.bridge.gr --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 04:44:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:44:24 +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 EAA17014 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:44:15 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h32.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id WAA15356; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:46:36 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35DA66BD.3F0E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:46:38 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nancy T Dressing CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? References: <35D8F976.C5BEA787@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I am not sure that we are able to rule this case without recognizing of habbits and customs of that very local club:) I guess that there may be very free (and even more - frivolious) habbits - as it happens in social games. Nancy quotations such as: "well, I guess its yours" and "wait a minute, do I have a chance to speak?, - might prove it. Habbit of premature picking-up bidding cards (as it was also said by Nancy) rather proves the same. That's why I (without more information about that club's reality) would not like to rule strictly under the Laws... Probably - result stands, nothing happens. But I'd like to underline once more that right decision strongly depends on club's habbits and customs. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 06:29:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 06:29:19 +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 GAA17685 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 06:29:11 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA11051; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808182031.NAA11051@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:29:35 -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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com id NAA11051 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > > =20 > > The Committee Decision: Both sides agreed that about 2-3 seconds > > had > > elapsed between South=92s 4H bid and West=92s pass. N/S contended that > > this constituted a break in tempo and E/W contended that it did > > not. > > The Committee considered West=92s hand and found nothing in it to > > suggest that West paused to consider bidding or doubling. This lent > > credence to E/W=92s claims. On the other hand, the bizarreness of > > East=92s 4S call lent credence to N/S=92s claims. The Committee > > carefully > > considered the testimony of the kibitzer at the table, who was a > > witness provided by N/S. He was unable to confirm N/S=92s claim that > > E/W were erratic in their tempos in general and also unable to > > confirm that there was a break in tempo on this hand. His > > qualification that he was not paying much attention to the E/W > > tempos > > certainly affected the weight which the Committee attached to his > > observation, but did not render the observation worthless.=20 > > =20 > > Law 16A says, (snip of L16A) > > =20 > > After considering all the evidence, the Committee found that there > > was no unmistakable hesitation. Therefore, East was free to bid 4S > > or whatever he wished. The Committee changed the contract to 5D > > doubled down one, plus 200 for E/W.=20 > =20 > > My comments: A double of 4H by West would perhaps have been takeout > > for spades and clubs. >=20 > And I'm sure this is an action that everyone would be considering at this > level. Would it have meant the same thing over 1H? I guess this is sarcasm, can't tell for sure. I said "perhaps." There are so many doubles for takeout that sound like penalty these days, one can't be sure of anything. For an aggressive pair like this, a double of 4H could mean, "I don't have four spades, and therefore chose not to make a light double of 1H. Now that they are bidding game, I'll take the chance." >=20 > > Maybe he did have something to think about. > > It's a little surprising that an AC would overrule a TD's opinion > > as to the existence of a break in tempo. >=20 > There is no evidence in this write-up that this committee did any such thing, > Marvin. Everyone agreed that there was a 2-3 second hesitation (it is unusual > to get such an agreement) over 4H. The TD ruled that there was a "BREAK IN > TEMPO" and the AC found that it was a break in tempo which was not an > unmistakeable hesitation. I thought this write-up made this very clear. Please stop first-naming me, Alan; it sounds patronizing and gives the impression that we are acquainted. Many of us are not so sensitive to the nuances of the English language as to realize that a "break in tempo" of the slow sort is not necessarily an "unmistakeable hesitation." The TD ruled "break in tempo," the AC ruled "no unmistakeable hesitation." I don't think it's a big gaff to interpret the ACs choice of words as a tactful way to disagree with the TD. > This means that the AC found a different set of facts than did the > TD. It in no way suggests that the TD made an error. I would always > want the TD to rule in this fashion in a case of this nature. Sorry, I was under the impression that it was traditional to give more weight to a TD's opinion than was shown in this case. Note that I am not saying the AC decision was wrong. I believe AC decisions concerning matters of fact should be accepted unless really outrageous, which is not true in this case. That doesn't mean the issues involved ought not to be discussed. >=20 > > I see that character > > witnesses and kibitzing friends are permitted to testify in AC > > proceedings. Learn something every day.=20 >=20 > And it's good to know that you're not to old to learn something, Marvin.=20 Senior bashing? Tsk, tsk, not politically correct. I know that "to" is spelled "too" when it's a modifier. > A committee's job is to do everything they can to determine the facts. They > should always be willing to listen to any testimony from any available > witnesses. They may give any weight they wish to that testimony. They could > always decide that it was totally irrelevant. In this case it proved to be > helpful in "determining the facts". Why would anyone think that an AC should > be unwilling to at least listen to kibbitzers? Try to remember, Marvin - one > of the toughest jobs of an AC is to keep an open mind to every possible fact > as to it's possible validity.=20 Perhaps you could get the ACBL NABC Appeals Form (AF) revised to inform players that they have the right to call character witnesses, kibitzer witnesses, technical consultants, and other partners to support their case. While you're at it, include a statement that either pair has the right to have an advocate state their case for them. I don't think many players, especially those most in need of them, are aware of these rights. Maybe the TD could inform players about them when an AF is submitted. I must remember to post a message about this on RGB. > =20 > > Both pairs must have thought they were playing matchpoints. While > > N/S could have had a probable +800 score (depending on the club > > spots) by doubling 4S, surely right at IMPs, that was not so > > egregiously bad as to lose their right to redress if the case had > > gone against E-W. This is also true of North's failure to bid a > > cold 5H, which is almost as bad as East's 4S bid and West's double > > of 5D. >=20 > When was the last time you were competing at this level? My judgement is > fairly accurate when I'm looking at all four hands also. But this was in the > heat of battle. They erred in their judgement. Yes, they had 800 available. > And perhaps they should have run to the cold 5H after the double. As Jeff G. > pointed out, sometimes you double this auction only to discover you were being > baited the entire time. We've all either done it or had it done to us. But > their error was certainly not egregious or "wild and gambling".=20 They were > simply errors in judgement. Nothing they could be convicted of... Which is what I said: "not so egregiously bad as to lose their right to redress..." Glad we agree. I really brought this up because ACBL ACs have the unwarranted (IMO) reputation of requiring too much skill on the part of the non-offenders in order for them to obtain redress for illegal use of UI. I wanted to point out that even fairly bad calls are not a basis for denying redress; they have to be much worse than these, and I haven't seen much evidence that NABC ACs disagree with this concept. Maybe years ago, but not currently.=20 > =20 > > E/W's team won by 9 IMPs, so this case decided the match. >=20 > Many would take the view that this match was decided at the table. Let's see. The TD scored +650 for N/S, the AC changed it to -200, and this appeals case did not decide the match? Okay, if that's the way you want to look at it. >=20 > > They lost the next match by 97 IMPs.=20 >=20 > And this is certainly a very important fact in evaluating this committee > decision. Fully agreed. My comment about their next match was made for this very reason. >=20 > There was one facet of this case that I found most interesting.=20 And that was > the fact that so many of the "good" players were so certain that this was a > horrible decision. After all, the team that lost was a clear favorite in the > match. After the write-up came out, some were now willing to admit that they > had not had all the facts (surprise!) and that the decision really did sound > reasonable. And yet there was a corps of top players that are still convinced > that this player must have had some UI available because the nature of the 4S > bid is so foreign to their way of thinking. They can't even imagine someone > considering the possibility. As I was told at least twice, he must have > "known" something or he couldn't possibly make the bid. I was told that you > just can't make a bid like this and be "right". They couldn't seem to accept > the fact that this player was so "right" he had just offered up 800. There > are many different concepts of bridge that are difficult for the better > players to accept. And we laugh about some of the results when they aren't > effective, but we must accept the fact that every once in a while, a player > that perceives he is outclassed, may resort to desperation. And we all know > that will sometimes reap rich rewards... >=20 O tempora! O mores! Times change, customs change. In the old days (at least in California) even the most wild bidder would not dream of bidding 4S if partner so much as twitched, out of concern for his reputation. That doesn't seem to be much of a factor these days. I think what concerned a lot of people was the tempo of other calls in this auction, and generally in the match. Players "at this level" are supposed to have fairly even tempo, as E/W claimed to have: "Both East and West said that they had discussed as a partnership the importance of even tempos and had agreed to never bid fast." If the double of 5D was rather quick, as N/S claimed, it would not support that statement. N/S also claimed that E/W had erratic tempos, and their teammates substantiated this opinion. Some would like to know about East's speed of call over the skip bid, which might be pertinent. I agree that we should accept the AC's judgment concerning all these matters, but discussing them is not inappropriate. Many would like to talk to the TD about the case, but for some reason TDs' names are not included in the writeups. I know, I know, it's sometimes a "peer group" consensus, but someone has to sign off on the AF. Whoops! There's no place for the TD's signature! I was glad to see that the ACBL's notorious "Rule of Coincidence" was not dragged into this case. We don't know if anyone wrote a Player Memo in relation to East's 4S bid, as PMs are confidential. Since PMs do not attribute wrongdoing, only documenting verifiable facts concerning unusual actions for the Recorder's consideration, there is no need for an AC to look for anything evil when strange bids are made. Leave that sort of thing up to the Recorder, who is supposed to be an expert on such matters. There is a box on the AF for noting that the case was "Referred to Recorder," but that may be only for frivolous appeals.=20 Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 08:01:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:01:26 +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 IAA18107 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:01:16 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA22124 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808182203.PAA22124@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:01:53 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > > So it is your opinion that if there is only one LA not suggested by the > UI, then the resulting contract automatically becomes a likely contract, > and any normal result a "likely result had the irregularity not > occured". No, it does not automatically become a likely contract, it becomes a mandated contract, the only one available that accords with L16A. I see better now what you are getting at, which is that this mandated contract might not represent the 1 in 3 and 1 in 6 guidelines for assigning scores to NOs and Os. However, those guidelines are only guidelines, not laws, and are not applicable when there are lots of LAs to choose from (no one of which is at all likely), or when there is only one permissible LA. After all, an LA is by definition "logical," so there is nothing extreme about applying L12C2 in this manner. I suppose it could be argued that an artficial score adjustment is appropriate when the only permissible LA does not meet one or both criteria in L12C2, but I would hate to resort to avg+/avg- for this purpose. David, help! Socorro! M'Aidez! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 08:02:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:02:30 +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 IAA18123 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:02:22 +1000 Received: from client8450.globalnet.co.uk ([194.126.84.80] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0z8tru-0006BP-00; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:04:43 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:07:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdcaf4$8f2a7fc0$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 Grattan Endicott>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.] ++ and >[ I am >of the opinion that the rules for the playing of duplicate bridge >promulgated by the WBF Executive, by ratification of the >decisions of WBFLC, are comprised not in the words of the >'Laws of Duplicate Bridge' but in the meanings attached to those >words by the promulgating body.] "I think" and "I am of the opinion" sounded to me as if you were stating opinions, not formally documented facts. . ++ As previously stated what is [in square brackets] is offered as personal opinion - albeit with experience of the Committee behind it. In the foregoing the report of the assertion by Kaplan and the Committee's acceptance of it is factual. I add in brackets a personal view that in essence supports the position of the Committee. I knew the requirement laid on the Committee was there to be found and I had marked my card to go look for it when I had the time; my thanks to Marv for spotting it. On the other hand I do not consider it necessary to support my every statement of the Committee's position with written evidence; it is up to me to be sure of my ground and I answer to the Committee for it. I am grateful to you for the correction of the source. We have Constitution, and By-laws, and reference is also made to 'Statutes'. No shortage of instruments. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 08:18:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:18:50 +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 IAA18258 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:18:37 +1000 Received: from client1535.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.15.53] helo=default) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0z8u7h-0008FL-00; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:21:01 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Composition of Committee Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:24:27 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdcaf6$f5fce880$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 Grattan Endicott; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:33 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z97qD-0004lo-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:59:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:34:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: <35D8F976.C5BEA787@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >The following happened at the local club... At the table the bidding >was: >1 club, double, pass, 1 spade >3clubs, "well, I guess its yours while picking up her bid cards", pass, >"wait a minute, do I have a chance to speak?," Director.......... >at this point is the person who bid one spade in possession of >unauthorized information? Is her partner telling her to pass or is this >person making the assumption that the bidding will end with the jump >bid? Is she now forced to bid? If she makes any kind of bid, is her >partner allowed to bid? >Her feeling was that she was forced to bid, so she said 3 spades with a >six card spade suit and 4 points. (UI -her partner was telling her to >pass(?) and bidding 3 spades was a logical alternative while knowing >that her partner would go to 4 which she felt would not make.) and the >bidding proceeded pass, 4 spades, pass, pass, pass. The director allowed >play to continue and took the traveler away with her and studied it >while they played the hand. . By misplay of the defense, the contract of >4 was made. After the play was over, the director came back to the >table and rolled the score back to 3 clubs, making, as that is what >happened at most of the other players. It is common here for people to >start picking up their bids before all have legally passed making the >assumption that the last bid will end the auction. Ugh!!!. I can >supply the hand if it is necessary to see it. How do you rule???? Well, the ruling is obviously absurd. 3S was not suggested by the UI and the TD should be taught to rule without looking at the score-sheet. He also should RTFLB which would make it clear in L16A that his ruling was wrong. What worries me is the statement that >It is common here for people to >start picking up their bids before all have legally passed making the >assumption that the last bid will end the auction. I believe that in this particular circumstance action is required, so against everything I keep saying, I would have fined the player even at club level - and made sure that got talked about! -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 22:57:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA20673 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:29 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z97qC-0004lq-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:59:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:29:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 In-Reply-To: <77cc4665.35d9156a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Al wrote: >The TD ruled that there was a "BREAK IN >TEMPO" and the AC found that it was a break in tempo which was not an >unmistakeable hesitation. Perhaps you would like to explain the difference to me? I would have equated the two. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 22:57:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA20659 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:22 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z97q9-0004lr-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:59:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 03:15:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CARELESS In-Reply-To: <9808161206.0H0NL00@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger P wrote: >The fact is that the declaring side has numerous advantages and unfair >ones at that over the defenders- [a] they chose the trump suit [b] >declarer can see how to coordinate the play of the hand and [c] declarer >can better see how to disrupt the defenders by deceiving them- seems to >suggest that it would be unjust to heap another unfair advantage upon >them. Declarer is entitled to these advantages because he outbid the >defenders. But is declarer entitled to be indemnified from his own poor >play as well? You have suggested that it is the director's duty to >alter the claim statement if it is not rational. I think this is very >dangerous and it is not in keeping with the law. The Law makes it clear that irrational play is not considered when adjudging claims. > I have already seen >such things done in the application of L25 and it leaves a bad taste in >my mouth. There is really no comparison. Claims are the portion of the Law where the TD/AC are given the most flexibility and the most judgement. They are basically there to decide what would have happened if the claim had been played out, not 100% of the time because irrational plays do occur, but with a very high probability. Now if declarer holds KQJ7 of trumps, even if he was intending to ruff with the 7, you *know* that in practice, if he had played the hand out, he would have changed his mind about ruffing with the 7 when RHO ruffed with the 10. Thus the Law requires the TD to give declarer all the tricks in such a case. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 22:57:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:43 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA20679 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:33 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z97qI-0004lr-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:00:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:37:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <01BDCAC2.361A6E90.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian Bernscherer wrote: >In the ongoing discussion I read the sentence "the OS gets the most >unfavourable result that was at all >probable had the irregularity not occurred." > >But as I read the code, the clause "had the irregularity not occurred" is >only applicable for the NO side. > >The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam missing a quick >and a slow trick after an >irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right suit and >the NOs miss their chance. >Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable >is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be game bid >making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid that the >NOs get two chances to play the same hand). I believe this to be correct. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 22:57:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA20657 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:22 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z97q9-0004lq-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:59:50 +0000 Message-ID: <2d7sGdAoOj21EwqG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 03:08:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <199808182203.PAA22124@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: >I suppose it could be argued that an artficial score adjustment is >appropriate when the only permissible LA does not meet one or both >criteria in L12C2, but I would hate to resort to avg+/avg- for this >purpose. I understand this to be the ACBL solution. To consider the worst case scenario, if your opponents bid pull a slow double of 4H to 4S, and the TD/AC disallow it, you should get an adjustment in 4H*. If 4H* will make 8 tricks 40% of the time, getting you an 80% board, and 9 tricks 10% of the time, getting you a 95% board, then your adjustment will be to 4H*-2, ie 80%. If 4H* will make 8 tricks 20% of the time, getting you an 80% board, and 9 tricks 20% of the time, getting you a 95% board, then your adjustment will be to Ave+, ie 60%. >David, help! Socorro! M'Aidez! I think we need to convince the ACBL that their approach is wrong to applying L12C2. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 22:57:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:49 +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 WAA20692 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:57:39 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z97qL-0004lp-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:00:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:40:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980814164319.006d5ef8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >But it does seem like if you're non-offending, you should not be able to >receive an *unfavorable* score adjustment, i.e. if you haven't committed >any infraction, you shouldn't get a *worse* result than your actual score >at the table. (In the case at hand, the hand was played out, and the >contract went down.) It sounds good, Eric, but I am afraid this is not correct. Suppose that you play a hand, and opponents revoke, and the TD rules from memory, and gives you two tricks incorrectly. Later he goes to his DIC [TDic] and discovers he has made an error. According to L82C, both sides are treated as non-offending. True, but the correct ruling is one trick transferred not two, so you will lose your second trick because you really did not deserve it. Similarly in the given scenario, if the correct ruling even if you are non-offending is that the contract makes then even under L82C you are going to have it adjusted to making. L82C provides split scores when the effect of both sides being NOs means that a correct ruling leads to different scores, not otherwise. Thanks to Max Bavin who put me right on this about three years ago. - * - * - Anton Witzen wrote: >This looks rather sdiple, if there can be esthabished that the TD made an >error. >Both get then 60+ or in IMP +3 ,82C. Since a result was obtained at the table, and L82C merely says award an adjusted score which directs you in effect to L12C, then L12C2 applies not L12C1. Thus an ArtAS is inappropriate here. - * - * - Craig Senior wrote: >If indeed an 82C adjustment applies, what effect does this being a knockout >match make upon the manner of the adjustment? When both sides are treated >as non-offending, how does one compare with the "other room"? Let us assume >that absent the penalty card situation, the clear 3N contract goes down one >and that is the result at the other table. If defender gets the "most >favourable" result, their comparison shows the board as a push. With the >penalty card but without the director's error the "most favourable" result >for declarer is 3N just making which, dependent on vulnerabilty gives a >swing of some 9 to 11 IMPS in their team's favour. So which comparison >counts if you use a split score? L86B covers this: each contestant's score is calculated separately [say 0 imps and 10 imps based on your figures]. Then the average is assigned to both contestants [5 imps]. > Giving both sides the ArtAdj of +3 IMPS >would seem to have the declaring side plus 5-6 IMPS btweeen the two tables >and the defending side plus one IMP or even. Again, which result goes to >the match total? L82C very rarely results in an ArtAS. Generally an ArtAS is the same for both sides. I would personally average them the same way, but regrettably the Law does not support this. IMO L86B ought to start "When the Director awards ..." rather than what it does say, namely "When the Director assigns ...". [s] > All of this assumes that the "experienced player" declaring really and >truly has been misled by the director's poorly stated comment. In practice, >I would need a LOT of convincing to be persuaded that there really is a DE >situation here and not just after the fact BL'ing. If the "experienced >player" is flight A, high flight B, or a certified director I would rule >that he "could have" known that the director's ruling might not be fully >correct, and could have politely questioned it or asked to see the relevant >Law. I would expect my ruling to stand since it is on a point of law, and >would require some considerable persuasion by an impartial AC to change it. Definitely not. When you judge a players ability you are using judgement, and that is a *very* suitable matter for an AC, and is not a pure point of Law. > There was one director's "error" here of course. He tried to >paraphrase the Law from memory rather than carefully reading it out of >TFLB...which, had he done so, would have prevented this whole mess in the >first place. That's not an 82C situation of course...just a recommendation >to the TD involved to use the book for book rulings if there is any chance >that not doing so might confuse the players or awaken their latent BL >tendencies. .... or if there isn't. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 19 23:34:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:34:14 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA20945 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:34:07 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z98Ph-0002v9-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:36:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:35:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Name a TD! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In one of the countries that I often talk about, the top rank of TD ia National, and the next rank is Senior Congress. There is a suggestion of a new rank in-between, specifically for people whose abilities are technical. Probably for people who are excellent at the rulings side, but not quite top rank for organisation. Any suggestions for a name for such a rank? -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 00:16:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:16:00 +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 AAA23296 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:15:55 +1000 Received: from ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.98]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980819141824.BTKO2522.fep4@ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:18:24 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:18:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35e3dde2.10832245@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 Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:37:00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Christian Bernscherer wrote: >>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam missing a = quick=20 >>and a slow trick after an >>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right suit = and=20 >>the NOs miss their chance. >>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all = probable=20 >>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be game bid=20 >>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid that the >>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). > > I believe this to be correct. That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the slam should go down? Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations where playing them is impossible (because the players have already played the hand under different circumstances). But here, the slam has actually been played by those players after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense - they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. However, in theory the most unfavourable result that was at all probable could be a grand slam going down! [I am going to be away from my Internet connection from Thursday until Sunday or Monday.] --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 00:15:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:15:52 +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 AAA23289 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:15:46 +1000 Received: from ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.98]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980819141815.BTKJ2522.fep4@ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:18:15 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:18:14 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35e2dd4b.10680437@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 Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:40:47 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > It sounds good, Eric, but I am afraid this is not correct. Suppose >that you play a hand, and opponents revoke, and the TD rules from >memory, and gives you two tricks incorrectly. > > Later he goes to his DIC [TDic] and discovers he has made an error. >According to L82C, both sides are treated as non-offending. True, but >the correct ruling is one trick transferred not two, so you will lose >your second trick because you really did not deserve it. But in this case the TD does not need to give an adjusted score at all. L82C tells us to adjust the score only if "no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally". Restoring the correct revoke penalty is such a rectification - "scored normally" in this case meaning with the correct penalty. [I am going to be away from my Internet connection from Thursday until Sunday or Monday.] --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 02:56:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 02:56:17 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA24342 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 02:56:11 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09928; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808191658.JAA09928@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Name a TD! Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:57:38 -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: > > In one of the countries that I often talk about, the top rank of TD ia > National, and the next rank is Senior Congress. There is a suggestion > of a new rank in-between, specifically for people whose abilities are > technical. Probably for people who are excellent at the rulings side, > but not quite top rank for organisation. > > Any suggestions for a name for such a rank? A title used in the American aerospace industry for a fairly high-level engineer who has a specific technical expertise: Specialist Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 03:02:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 03:02:17 +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 DAA24383 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 03:02:09 +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 MAA28310 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:04:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GX4M00A Wed, 19 Aug 98 12:02:39 Message-ID: <9808191202.0GX4M00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 98 12:02:39 Subject: CARELESS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, You seem to be in want of an example of the TD negating a careless action of a perpetrator wrt L25. >From actual play: P 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S P P 4H 5S* W.. *= long huddle, facial gesters, false starts at bidding W= skip bid pause, opener's gaze at LHO, looking at RHO's bid after 10 sec, statement about supposing it was too late to change their call, TD summoned Over 4H opener went into the library and emerged more than a minute later. After several facial gestures and false starts at selecting a bidding card he carefully selected 5S [looking at the card]. Opener starts gazing intently at their LHO [as if wondering why LHO has not yet bid] because partner has paused 10 sec. Then, upon looking at my 4H bid they say, "I suppose it is too late to change my call?". I summoned the director for which the above was recounted. The TD looked at opener's hand and declared that 5S was 'irrational' [not the actual phrase] and therefore inadvertent and he could change his call without penalty. To me, this looks like a clear cut change of mind and yet the TD indemnified the perpetrator. Roger Pewick DWS wrote: Roger P wrote: >The fact is that the declaring side has numerous advantages and unfair >ones at that over the defenders- [a] they chose the trump suit [b] >declarer can see how to coordinate the play of the hand and [c] declarer >can better see how to disrupt the defenders by deceiving them- seems to >suggest that it would be unjust to heap another unfair advantage upon >them. Declarer is entitled to these advantages because he outbid the >defenders. But is declarer entitled to be indemnified from his own poor >play as well? You have suggested that it is the director's duty to >alter the claim statement if it is not rational. I think this is very >dangerous and it is not in keeping with the law. The Law makes it clear that irrational play is not considered when adjudging claims. > I have already seen >such things done in the application of L25 and it leaves a bad taste in >my mouth. There is really no comparison. Claims are the portion of the Law where the TD/AC are given the most flexibility and the most judgement. They are basically there to decide what would have happened if the claim had been played out, not 100% of the time because irrational plays do occur, but with a very high probability. Now if declarer holds KQJ7 of trumps, even if he was intending to ruff with the 7, you *know* that in practice, if he had played the hand out, he would have changed his mind about ruffing with the 7 when RHO ruffed with the 10. Thus the Law requires the TD to give declarer all the tricks in such a case. end DWS Break- Actually, the trump seven has been played to the trick prior to the claimed tricks, so obviously, the claimed tricks can not be lost because all the remaining trumps are high. Declarer also made a claim to the current trick by declaring which card they were to play to the current trick. It was careless to make such an announcement prior to RHO playing. The trump 7 is a played card and can not be retracted as declarer is void in the suit lead and the opponents have not committed an irregularity which would affect declarer's play. Had declarer faced their hand without statement, the adjudication is clear, the rest of the tricks are won because it would be irrational to not take the rest and there was no statement to the contrary. In this case I can not agree that declarer should be indemnified since they are not permitted to alter their claimed play and because I can see no way of permitting the CHANGE to an overruff without violating the claim statement that they are playing the 7 to the current trick. R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 03:18:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 03:18:36 +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 DAA24493 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 03:18:16 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h32.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.50) id VAA20024; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:20:35 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <35DBA415.FCF@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:20:38 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CARELESS References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Stevenson wrote: "The Law makes it clear that irrational play is not considered when adjudging claims. There is really no comparison. Claims are the portion of the Law where the TD/AC are given the most flexibility and the most judgement. They are basically there to decide what would have happened if the claim had been played out, not 100% of the time because irrational plays do occur, but with a very high probability. Now if declarer holds KQJ7 of trumps, even if he was intending to ruff with the 7, you *know* that in practice, if he had played the hand out, he would have changed his mind about ruffing with the 7 when RHO ruffed with the 10. Thus the Law requires the TD to give declarer all the tricks in such a case." Nice - but Wayne Burrows made it clear about the case - there were prematury play in current trick and separately made claims about following tricks: let us reread his post:) That's why (on my opinion) the Declarer lost current trick and won all following tricks. Vitold > -- > David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk > World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August > to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and > acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 03:31:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 03:31:06 +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 DAA24550 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 03:31:00 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA14656 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808191733.KAA14656@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:32:31 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > >Christian Bernscherer wrote: > > >>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam missing a quick > >>and a slow trick after an > >>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right suit and > >>the NOs miss their chance. > >>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable > >>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be game bid > >>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid that the > >>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). > > > > I believe this to be correct. > > That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered > the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the > slam should go down? > > Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is > something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations > where playing them is impossible (because the players have > already played the hand under different circumstances). > > But here, the slam has actually been played by those players > after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me > that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense > - they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. > > However, in theory the most unfavourable result that was at all > probable could be a grand slam going down! > Everybody seems to be out of town, but I'll ask the question anyway. L12C2: ...the score is, for the non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. Am I wacky in believing that "had the irregularity not occurred" is an understood part of the second clause? English uses the "understood" convention all the time, to avoid tiresome repetition: "I'll drive the red car to the fair tomorrow if it doesn't rain or, if the red car is not available, I'll drive the green one." This does not mean I'll drive the green car whether it rains or not. "If it doesn't rain" is understood in the second clause. Yes, it's bad syntax and/or bad punctuation, but the intent is clear enough. A wordsmith would add clarifying words to L12C2, to avoid any misinterpretation: "...had it not occurred." If I am wrong, then the wordsmith would add: "...in any event." Which is right? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 06:11:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:11:10 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA25546 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:11:03 +1000 Received: from mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.8]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA15517 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:13:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA06654 ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:13:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:13:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This case resembles one I had a few weeks ago -- completely improper actions resulting in UI. And these are typical of what a TD encounters at the club level, where we don't have to worry about the UI consequences of a 3-second hesitation. Matchpoints K94 KJ63 3 KQJ64 Board 17 Q J865 Dealer N AT852 74 Vul None 9652 AKJT84 AT8 7 AT732 Q9 Q7 9532 Bidding boxes were in use. The auction started 1C-2D-P by N-E-S. At this point, no one asked any questions, but ... West said "That shows 5 hearts and 4 spades", then East said "But he bid 1 club", then NS said "Director!" Now it's your turn to say something :-) Well, the first step is to give a short lecture to EW about how to alert, when to give explanations, and when to keep quiet. These LOLs definitely know better -- both E and W became Life Masters 15 or 20 years ago, back when it actually meant something. The next step is to give a ruling. EW play Flannery 2D opening and weak jump overcalls, and W said later what was obvious to everyone at the table, namely that she didn't see the 1C bid. I am sending this to BLML because Nancy's case reminded me of it, and because some past discussion on BLML helped me with this ruling. However, I await your comments. -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 09:37:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:37:31 +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 JAA26412 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:37:23 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z9HpW-0000Vo-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:39:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 20:55:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CARELESS In-Reply-To: <9808191202.0GX4M00@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: > >David, > >You seem to be in want of an example of the TD negating a careless action >of a perpetrator wrt L25. > >From actual play: > >P 1S 2H 2S >3H 3S P P >4H 5S* W.. > >*= long huddle, facial gesters, false starts at bidding > >W= skip bid pause, opener's gaze at LHO, looking at RHO's bid after 10 sec, >statement about supposing it was too late to change their call, TD summoned > >Over 4H opener went into the library and emerged more than a minute later. >After several facial gestures and false starts at selecting a bidding card >he carefully selected 5S [looking at the card]. Opener starts gazing >intently at their LHO [as if wondering why LHO has not yet bid] because >partner has paused 10 sec. Then, upon looking at my 4H bid they say, "I >suppose it is too late to change my call?". I summoned the director for >which the above was recounted. The TD looked at opener's hand and declared >that 5S was 'irrational' [not the actual phrase] and therefore inadvertent >and he could change his call without penalty. > >To me, this looks like a clear cut change of mind and yet the TD >indemnified the perpetrator. This is just a TD who does not understand. Irrationality is nothing to do with it. It is clear either [1] he meant to bid 5S and has changed his mind, or [2] he meant to bid 4S and pulled the wrong card out For example, if he had thought the bid before his was 5H not 4H then [1] is more likely. His failure to use a Stop card, and his surprise at the pause might be argued to support [2]. It is a matter of judgement for the TD as to whether [2] applied, in which case the call may be changed under L25A, or whether [1] applied in which case it may not [though it might be changed under L25B]. The TD should never look at the hand while making a judgement, though the ACBL encourages the TD to take the player away from the table to ask questions. Furthermore, the ACBL does seem to suggest that L25A be permitted if there is doubt. However, players do make irrational calls, and the TD might easily decide that [2] is the case: as I said, this is different from a claim. Furthermore, unless the call seemed completely impossible, the TD does not know whether the call is irrational. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 09:37:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:37:40 +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 JAA26419 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:37:33 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z9Hpe-0000W3-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:40:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 19:00:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <35e3dde2.10832245@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>Christian Bernscherer wrote: >>>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam missing a quick >>>and a slow trick after an >>>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right suit and >>>the NOs miss their chance. >>>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable >>>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be game bid >>>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid that the >>>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). >> I believe this to be correct. >That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered >the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the >slam should go down? > >Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is >something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations >where playing them is impossible (because the players have >already played the hand under different circumstances). > >But here, the slam has actually been played by those players >after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me >that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense >- they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. Hmmmm. Certainly the number of tricks obtained in a slam does not tell us how many tricks would be made in a different level contract in the same denomination. Players do not play 6S the same as they play 4S, nor do they defend the same. Furthermore the number of tricks obtained in a slam does not tell us how many tricks would be made in that slam in different circumstances. An example of this: suppose a defender leads dummy's shortest suit because that is the only suit he imagines could be discarded so if partner has ace plus king it is the only suit where they run away. Suppose also his logic is impeccable but he has been misinformed as to dummy's shape. Declarer makes 12 tricks but we would consider he would have made 11 if the defence has the correct information. However, if the contract is the same, and the situation is the same, or any change is not a relevant one, then the point that we know how many tricks are made is a good one. So, in the actual case quoted by Christian, we have insufficient information: did the irregularity affect the making of 12 tricks? -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 09:40:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:40:13 +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 JAA26448 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:40:07 +1000 Received: from ip45.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.45]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP id <19980819234237.CRMT2522.fep4@ip45.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 01:42:37 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 01:42:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <35db5d4e.556910@post12.tele.dk> References: <199808191733.KAA14656@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <199808191733.KAA14656@prefetch-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 Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:32:31 -0700, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Everybody seems to be out of town, but I'll ask the question >anyway. I'm still here, but not for long. >L12C2: ...the score is, for the non-offending side, the most >favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred >or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at >all probable. > >Am I wacky in believing that "had the irregularity not occurred" is >an understood part of the second clause? It is my understanding that those words were deliberately left out of the part concerning the offenders, and that they were not intended to be understood implicitly. I don't remember exactly where I got that understanding from (probably a TD course long ago), but I'm sure that when Grattan returns he will tell us whether it is correct. [I am going to be away from my Internet connection from Thursday until Sunday or Monday.] --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 12:53:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:53:24 +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 MAA26952 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:53:16 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-29.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.195]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA09704 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35DB916B.75691179@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:01:00 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing Reply-To: David Stevenson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We all agree that it is awful for players not to put the pass card on the table. We have started a quiet campaign talking about it using this event as an illustration. Slowly it will work. We finally have them not announcing 1 club ...could be short...... Lots of us are concerned about the silly ruling. What would you "fine" them? Nancy Nancy T Dressing wrote:> snipped... How do you rule???? David Stevenson wrote: Well, the ruling is obviously absurd. 3S was not suggested by the UI and the TD should be taught to rule without looking at the score-sheet. He also should RTFLB which would make it clear in L16A that his ruling was wrong. What worries me is the statement that "It is common here for people to start picking up their bids before all have legally passed making the assumption that the last bid will end the auction." I believe that in this particular circumstance action is required, so against everything I keep saying, I would have fined the player even at club level - and made sure that got talked about! -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 15:32:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:32:29 +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 PAA27287 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:32:22 +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 AAA27883 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:34:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 00QVC02T Thu, 20 Aug 98 00:31:52 Message-ID: <9808200031.00QVC02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 00:31:52 Subject: CARELESS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A player has a sound 4S call, yet why does he ponder a minute before bidding 5S? Would he not be considering whether it is worth it to bid 5S over 'what he believes to be 5H'? A player watches the bid as he carefully removes it from the box, yet makes no exclamation that it is not the call intended. Would not the reason be that he intended to make that call, even if it was careless? Why would a player 'legitimately'[I know, a poor choice of words] watch another player? Would it be because they did not expect them to hesitate yet the fact is they are indeed hesitating? And would not the hesitation be unexpected if they believed that the previous call was 5H [not 4H]. And it is only when they look at the 4H call that they realize that 4S would have been adequate that they want to change their call. In addition, they make no statement that they made an inadvertent call, nor that they were going to change their call, but that they felt that it was too late to change their call. I am sorry, but I would have to stretch beyond reason to support the contention that 5S was inadvertent in this case since all of the evidence supports that the player had discovered their error and wanted to change their mind and none of the evidence fails to support change of mind. I believe that bridge ought to be a game played in real time, and that second chances at getting an earned score should be a rarity if at all. >From your post, you give reasons why L25A should be applied , the result being that the perpetrator gets not two but three shots at a good score. I strongly feel otherwise. With the rewrites and interpretations of the laws, it is clear that bridge has become a game of second chances. I think it is sad. I was not equating the application of L25 with claims. I was saying in this instance that a TD changing a stated play is contrary to the law. I was saying that interpreting the situation in the L25 episode as to apply L25A instead of L25B2b is contrary to proper application of the law. I think that these are examples of TDs indemnifying those who have self inflicted lapses. I feel that such rulings are bad for the game. David Stevenson wrote: > > Roger wrote: > > > >David, > > > >You seem to be in want of an example of the TD negating a careless action > >of a perpetrator wrt L25. > > > >From actual play: > > > >P 1S 2H 2S > >3H 3S P P > >4H 5S* W.. > > > >*= long huddle, facial gestures, false starts at bidding > > > >W= skip bid pause, opener's gaze at LHO, looking at RHO's bid after 10 sec, > >statement about supposing it was too late to change their call, TD summoned > > > >Over 4H opener went into the library and emerged more than a minute later. > >After several facial gestures and false starts at selecting a bidding card > >he carefully selected 5S [looking at the card]. Opener starts gazing > >intently at their LHO [as if wondering why LHO has not yet bid] because > >partner has paused 10 sec. Then, upon looking at my 4H bid they say, "I > >suppose it is too late to change my call?". I summoned the director for > >which the above was recounted. The TD looked at opener's hand and declared > >that 5S was 'irrational' [not the actual phrase] and therefore inadvertent > >and he could change his call without penalty. > > > >To me, this looks like a clear cut change of mind and yet the TD > >indemnified the perpetrator. > > This is just a TD who does not understand. Irrationality is nothing > to do with it. It is clear either > [1] he meant to bid 5S and has changed his mind, or > [2] he meant to bid 4S and pulled the wrong card out btw, it was an ACBL National TD. He claimed that he understood completely. [I believe that the National has been dropped.] > For example, if he had thought the bid before his was 5H not 4H then > [1] is more likely. His failure to use a Stop card, and his surprise at > the pause might be argued to support [2]. > > It is a matter of judgement for the TD as to whether [2] applied, in > which case the call may be changed under L25A, or whether [1] applied in > which case it may not [though it might be changed under L25B]. The TD > should never look at the hand while making a judgement, though the ACBL > encourages the TD to take the player away from the table to ask > questions. Furthermore, the ACBL does seem to suggest that L25A be > permitted if there is doubt. > > However, players do make irrational calls, and the TD might easily > decide that [2] is the case: as I said, this is different from a claim. > Furthermore, unless the call seemed completely impossible, the TD does > not know whether the call is irrational. __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 17:53:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:53:06 +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 RAA27541 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:52:59 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id IAA06195 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:54:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 08:54 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation 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: <35e3dde2.10832245@post12.tele.dk> > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Aug 19 15:25:11 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 PAA00831 > for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:25:08 +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 AAA23301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:16:00 +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 AAA23296 for > ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:15:55 +1000 > Received: from ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.98]) > by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 217-106) with SMTP > id <19980819141824.BTKO2522.fep4@ip98.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> > for ; > Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:18:24 +0200 > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:18:24 +0200 > Organization: at home > Message-ID: <35e3dde2.10832245@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@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:37:00 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > > >Christian Bernscherer wrote: > > >>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam missing a > quick >>and a slow trick after an > >>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right suit > and >>the NOs miss their chance. > >>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all > probable >>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will > be game bid >>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to > avoid that the > >>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). > > > > I believe this to be correct. > > That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered > the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the > slam should go down? > > Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is > something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations > where playing them is impossible (because the players have > already played the hand under different circumstances). > > But here, the slam has actually been played by those players > after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me > that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense > - they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. Many times this will be reasonable but we should also allow for the fact that the leader will might make a more aggressive/passive lead because he "knows" that the offender cannot hold a particular hand. As always judgement is better than rules. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 17:53:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:53:45 +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 RAA27555 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:53:38 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id IAA06305 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:55:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 08:54 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Name a TD! 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: > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Aug 19 14:41:17 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 OAA23699 > for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:41:14 +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 XAA20950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:34:14 +1000 > Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net > [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id > XAA20945 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:34:07 > +1000 > Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] > by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) > id 0z98Ph-0002v9-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:36:34 +0000 > Message-ID: > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:35:08 +0100 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: David Stevenson > Reply-To: David Stevenson > Subject: Name a TD! > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > > In one of the countries that I often talk about, the top rank of TD ia > National, and the next rank is Senior Congress. There is a suggestion > of a new rank in-between, specifically for people whose abilities are > technical. Probably for people who are excellent at the rulings side, > but not quite top rank for organisation. > > Any suggestions for a name for such a rank? The term "consultant" is common for such management misfits so I suggest something like "Directorial Consultant" (perhaps with Senior tacked on the front if a clearer career path is desired). Tim West-Meads Management Consultant:-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 17:57:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:57:25 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA27570 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:57:14 +1000 Received: from christian (c021.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.21]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA28420 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:59:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:58:01 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDCC21.0437E140.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:56:51 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson [SMTP:david@blakjak.demon.co.uk] wrote: > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>Christian Bernscherer wrote: > > >>>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam > >>>missing a quick > >>>and a slow trick after an > >>>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right > >>>suit and > >>>the NOs miss their chance. > >>>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all > >>>probable > >>>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be > >>>game bid > >>>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid > >>>that the > >>>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). > > >> I believe this to be correct. > > >That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered > >the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the > >slam should go down? > > > >Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is > >something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations > >where playing them is impossible (because the players have > >already played the hand under different circumstances). > > > >But here, the slam has actually been played by those players > >after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me > >that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense > >- they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. > > Hmmmm. Certainly the number of tricks obtained in a slam does > not > tell us how many tricks would be made in a different level contract > in > the same denomination. Players do not play 6S the same as they play > 4S, > nor do they defend the same. > > Furthermore the number of tricks obtained in a slam does not tell > us > how many tricks would be made in that slam in different > circumstances. > An example of this: suppose a defender leads dummy's shortest suit > because that is the only suit he imagines could be discarded so if > partner has ace plus king it is the only suit where they run away. > Suppose also his logic is impeccable but he has been misinformed as > to > dummy's shape. Declarer makes 12 tricks but we would consider he > would > have made 11 if the defence has the correct information. > > However, if the contract is the same, and the situation is the > same, > or any change is not a relevant one, then the point that we know > how > many tricks are made is a good one. > > So, in the actual case quoted by Christian, we have insufficient > information: did the irregularity affect the making of 12 tricks? > > > -- > David Stevenson > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk > World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 > August > to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and > > acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. When I gave the example I had in mind an irregularity like a bidding .... 4NT (Blackwood) - 5 D (1 Ace) - 5 S (slow) - 6 S, so the opening lead is not influenced. I understand your point to accept the table result as base for the ruling. But consider as an example that the defenders allow the slam to make by a revoke. Does that still mean 'we know the slam makes ?'. Best regards Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 18:05:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:05:46 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA27588 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:05:36 +1000 Received: from christian (c003.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.3]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA29381 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:08:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:06:39 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDCC22.391C43F0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:06:38 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French [SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] wrote: > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Christian Bernscherer wrote: > > > > >>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam > missing a quick > > >>and a slow trick after an > > >>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the > right suit and > > >>the NOs miss their chance. > > >>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at > all probable > > >>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be > game bid > > >>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid > that the > > >>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). > > > > > > I believe this to be correct. > > > > That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered > > the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the > > slam should go down? > > > > Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is > > something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations > > where playing them is impossible (because the players have > > already played the hand under different circumstances). > > > > But here, the slam has actually been played by those players > > after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me > > that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense > > - they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. > > > > However, in theory the most unfavourable result that was at all > > probable could be a grand slam going down! > > > Everybody seems to be out of town, but I'll ask the question > anyway. > > L12C2: ...the score is, for the non-offending side, the most > favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred > or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at > all probable. > > Am I wacky in believing that "had the irregularity not occurred" is > an understood part of the second clause? > > English uses the "understood" convention all the time, to avoid > tiresome repetition: > > "I'll drive the red car to the fair tomorrow if it doesn't rain or, > if the red car is not available, I'll drive the green one." > > This does not mean I'll drive the green car whether it rains or > not. "If it doesn't rain" is understood in the second clause. Yes, > it's bad syntax and/or bad punctuation, but the intent is clear > enough. > > A wordsmith would add clarifying words to L12C2, to avoid any > misinterpretation: "...had it not occurred." > > If I am wrong, then the wordsmith would add: "...in any event." > > Which is right? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > In the German language (and probably in all the others, too) we try to avoid repetitions in the same way as you do in English. But people who publish laws or rules in German tend to use a lot of repetitions in sophisticated sentences. I do not know about these habits in the English language, so I think it is best to wait for Grattan to clarify. Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 18:51:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:51:17 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA27635 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:51:09 +1000 Received: from christian (c008.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.8]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA03501 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:53:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:51:45 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDCC28.8644DCE0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: CARELESS Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:51:44 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 19. August 1998 21:55 > An: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Betreff: Re: CARELESS > > Roger wrote: > > > >David, > > > >You seem to be in want of an example of the TD negating a careless > >action > >of a perpetrator wrt L25. > > > >From actual play: > > > >P 1S 2H 2S > >3H 3S P P > >4H 5S* W.. > > > >*= long huddle, facial gesters, false starts at bidding > > > >W= skip bid pause, opener's gaze at LHO, looking at RHO's bid after > >10 sec, > >statement about supposing it was too late to change their call, TD > >summoned > > > >Over 4H opener went into the library and emerged more than a minute > >later. > >After several facial gestures and false starts at selecting a > >bidding card > >he carefully selected 5S [looking at the card]. Opener starts > >gazing > >intently at their LHO [as if wondering why LHO has not yet bid] > > because > >partner has paused 10 sec. Then, upon looking at my 4H bid they > >say, "I > >suppose it is too late to change my call?". I summoned the > >director for > >which the above was recounted. The TD looked at opener's hand and > >declared > >that 5S was 'irrational' [not the actual phrase] and therefore > >inadvertent > >and he could change his call without penalty. > > > >To me, this looks like a clear cut change of mind and yet the TD > >indemnified the perpetrator. > > This is just a TD who does not understand. Irrationality is > nothing > to do with it. It is clear either > [1] he meant to bid 5S and has changed his mind, or > [2] he meant to bid 4S and pulled the wrong card out > > For example, if he had thought the bid before his was 5H not 4H > then > [1] is more likely. His failure to use a Stop card, and his > surprise at > the pause might be argued to support [2]. > > It is a matter of judgement for the TD as to whether [2] applied, > in > which case the call may be changed under L25A, or whether [1] > applied in > which case it may not [though it might be changed under L25B]. The > TD > should never look at the hand while making a judgement, though the > ACBL > encourages the TD to take the player away from the table to ask > questions. Furthermore, the ACBL does seem to suggest that L25A be > permitted if there is doubt. > > However, players do make irrational calls, and the TD might > easily > decide that [2] is the case: as I said, this is different from a > claim. > Furthermore, unless the call seemed completely impossible, the TD > does > not know whether the call is irrational. > > > > -- > David Stevenson > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk > World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 > August > to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and > > acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. I personally feel that the suggestion to use 25A in doubt is not a good one. If we follow that way, bridge will be played more and more in AC-rooms instead at the tables. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 21:03:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:03:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28007 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:03:51 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z9SXt-0007jg-00; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:06:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:44:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <199808191733.KAA14656@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: >Everybody seems to be out of town, but I'll ask the question >anyway. > >L12C2: ...the score is, for the non-offending side, the most >favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred >or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at >all probable. > >Am I wacky in believing that "had the irregularity not occurred" is >an understood part of the second clause? Not wacky, but generally accepted interpretation is that it is not part of it, and deliberately so. The current wording is IMO to be interpreted literally. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 20 21:03:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:03:58 +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 VAA28008 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:03:52 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z9SXo-0007iz-00; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:06:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 00:46:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote: >This case resembles one I had a few weeks ago -- completely >improper actions resulting in UI. And these are typical of >what a TD encounters at the club level, where we don't have >to worry about the UI consequences of a 3-second hesitation. > >Matchpoints K94 KJ63 3 KQJ64 >Board 17 Q J865 >Dealer N AT852 74 >Vul None 9652 AKJT84 > AT8 7 > AT732 Q9 Q7 9532 > >Bidding boxes were in use. The auction started 1C-2D-P by N-E-S. >At this point, no one asked any questions, but ... > West said "That shows 5 hearts and 4 spades", > then East said "But he bid 1 club", > then NS said "Director!" >Now it's your turn to say something :-) > >Well, the first step is to give a short lecture to EW about how to >alert, when to give explanations, and when to keep quiet. These LOLs >definitely know better -- both E and W became Life Masters 15 or 20 >years ago, back when it actually meant something. > >The next step is to give a ruling. No! The next step is for the hand to be played out. > EW play Flannery 2D opening and >weak jump overcalls, and W said later what was obvious to everyone >at the table, namely that she didn't see the 1C bid. > >I am sending this to BLML because Nancy's case reminded me of it, >and because some past discussion on BLML helped me with this ruling. >However, I await your comments. Now we need to know what happened. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 01:57:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:57:34 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA01451 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:57:28 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA27846; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808201559.IAA27846@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:58:35 -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 Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Christian Bernscherer wrote: > > > > >>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam missing a > > quick >>and a slow trick after an > > >>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the right suit > > and >>the NOs miss their chance. > > >>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at all > > probable >>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will > > be game bid >>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to > > avoid that the > > >>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). > > > > > > I believe this to be correct. > > > > That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered > > the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the > > slam should go down? > > > > Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is > > something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations > > where playing them is impossible (because the players have > > already played the hand under different circumstances). > > > > But here, the slam has actually been played by those players > > after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me > > that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense > > - they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. > > Many times this will be reasonable but we should also allow for the fact > that the leader will might make a more aggressive/passive lead because he > "knows" that the offender cannot hold a particular hand. As always > judgement is better than rules. > If anyone knows of an appeals case on International Appeals pages of Federation Suisse de Bridge (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html) in which a successful contract reached via UI was adjusted to the same contract with a different defense assumed, please let me know. I'd like to look at it. > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 03:06:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:06:48 +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 DAA01744 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:06:41 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA05605 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:08:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.33) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005570; Thu Aug 20 12:08:16 1998 Received: by har-pa1-01.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDCC3B.86444600@har-pa1-01.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:07:46 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDCC3B.86444600@har-pa1-01.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Assistance with a revoke please! Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:54:07 -0400 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > All of this assumes that the "experienced player" declaring really and >truly has been misled by the director's poorly stated comment. In practice, >I would need a LOT of convincing to be persuaded that there really is a DE >situation here and not just after the fact BL'ing. If the "experienced >player" is flight A, high flight B, or a certified director I would rule >that he "could have" known that the director's ruling might not be fully >correct, and could have politely questioned it or asked to see the relevant >Law. I would expect my ruling to stand since it is on a point of law, and >would require some considerable persuasion by an impartial AC to change it. Then DWS wrote: Definitely not. When you judge a players ability you are using judgement, and that is a *very* suitable matter for an AC, and is not a pure point of Law. I stand corrected. You have cogently pointed out where I was in error. Of course I could be overruled on my assessment of the players' strength. Thank you. This is a typical example of why this list would be good reading for any director...you keep learning more by discussing matters with people who know more and/or have more experience. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 03:46:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:46:46 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01864 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:46:40 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z9Ypg-0007AX-00; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:49:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:52:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CARELESS In-Reply-To: <01BDCC28.8644DCE0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian Bernscherer wrote: >I personally feel that the suggestion to use 25A in doubt is not a >good one. If we follow that way, bridge will be played more and more >in AC-rooms instead at the tables. Well, it is an ACBL recommendation, not necessarily mine! But I do not think it should lead to the AC-room: if I was on a Committee I would need very compelling evidence that it was right to examine an appeal against a TD's judgement as to whether it was a L25A case, or not, and would expect normally to keep the deposit or issue appeal points or whatever. Actually, the ACBL have provided a default position, while the rest of us treat each case entirely on its merits: while I feel our approach is fairer, theirs is easier for the TDs, so it should actually lead to fewer appeals, not more! >Christian Bernscherer Very nice to see you here, Christian, do you have any cats? If you would like to do everyone a favour we would appreciate it if you would snip down to size articles to which you are replying, especially short replies to long articles. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 03:46:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:46:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01865 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:46:41 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z9Ypk-0007Az-00; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:49:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:00:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CARELESS In-Reply-To: <9808200031.00QVC02@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: > >A player has a sound 4S call, yet why does he ponder a minute before >bidding 5S? Would he not be considering whether it is worth it to bid >5S over 'what he believes to be 5H'? > >A player watches the bid as he carefully removes it from the box, yet >makes no exclamation that it is not the call intended. Would not the >reason be that he intended to make that call, even if it was careless? > >Why would a player 'legitimately'[I know, a poor choice of words] watch >another player? Would it be because they did not expect them to >hesitate yet the fact is they are indeed hesitating? And would not the >hesitation be unexpected if they believed that the previous call was 5H >[not 4H]. > >And it is only when they look at the 4H call that they realize that 4S >would have been adequate that they want to change their call. In >addition, they make no statement that they made an inadvertent call, nor >that they were going to change their call, but that they felt that it >was too late to change their call. > >I am sorry, but I would have to stretch beyond reason to support the >contention that 5S was inadvertent in this case since all of the >evidence supports that the player had discovered their error and wanted >to change their mind and none of the evidence fails to support change >of mind. > >I believe that bridge ought to be a game played in real time, and that >second chances at getting an earned score should be a rarity if at all. >From your post, you give reasons why L25A should be applied , the result >being that the perpetrator gets not two but three shots at a good score. > I strongly feel otherwise. With the rewrites and interpretations of >the laws, it is clear that bridge has become a game of second chances. >I think it is sad. > >I was not equating the application of L25 with claims. I was saying in >this instance that a TD changing a stated play is contrary to the law. >I was saying that interpreting the situation in the L25 episode as to >apply L25A instead of L25B2b is contrary to proper application of the >law. I think that these are examples of TDs indemnifying those who have >self inflicted lapses. I feel that such rulings are bad for the game. What you are saying is that it was not a L25A case. OK, in which case it should not be ruled as such. But this is not the Law: this is a TD's judgement, and if a TD has made a mistake, so be it. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 03:46:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:46:58 +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 DAA01877 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:46:51 +1000 Received: from (blakjak.demon.co.uk) [194.222.6.72] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0z9Ypo-0007BU-00; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:49:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:56:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: <35DB916B.75691179@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: >We all agree that it is awful for players not to put the pass card on >the table. We have started a quiet campaign talking about it using this >event as an illustration. Slowly it will work. We finally have them not >announcing 1 club ...could be short...... Lots of us are concerned >about the silly ruling. What would you "fine" them? 10% of a top is the EBU/WBU standard for a fine. I used to believe that a quarter board [ie 25% of a top] was the ACBL standard until I read the details of the Reno appeals when they were all over the place! 10% is good: it is small enough that it rarely makes a difference, but it can. Incidentally, we believe 10% of a top equates to 3 imps at teams: what do other jurisdictions think? -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk World Championships in Lille. I shall be there from Fri 21 August to Wed 2 September. Love to meet any of my Internet friends and acquaintances who will be there. My hotel is the Holiday Inn. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 04:00:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:38 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01933 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:33 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA11862 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:02:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-18.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.82) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011787; Thu Aug 20 13:02:05 1998 Received: by har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDCC43.0CA5A7A0@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:01:38 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDCC43.0CA5A7A0@har-pa2-18.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Assistance with a revoke please! Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:54:07 -0400 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > All of this assumes that the "experienced player" declaring really and >truly has been misled by the director's poorly stated comment. In practice, >I would need a LOT of convincing to be persuaded that there really is a DE >situation here and not just after the fact BL'ing. If the "experienced >player" is flight A, high flight B, or a certified director I would rule >that he "could have" known that the director's ruling might not be fully >correct, and could have politely questioned it or asked to see the relevant >Law. I would expect my ruling to stand since it is on a point of law, and >would require some considerable persuasion by an impartial AC to change it. Then DWS wrote: Definitely not. When you judge a players ability you are using judgement, and that is a *very* suitable matter for an AC, and is not a pure point of Law. I stand corrected. You have cogently pointed out where I was in error. Of course I could be overruled on my assessment of the players' strength. Thank you. This is a typical example of why this list would be good reading for any director...you keep learning more by discussing matters with people who know more and/or have more experience. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 05:00:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 05:00:01 +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 EAA02225 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:59:55 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA20328; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808201901.MAA20328@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Barry Wolk" , Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:00:29 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk writes: > > This case resembles one I had a few weeks ago -- completely > improper actions resulting in UI. And these are typical of > what a TD encounters at the club level, where we don't have > to worry about the UI consequences of a 3-second hesitation. > > Matchpoints K94 KJ63 3 KQJ64 > Board 17 Q J865 > Dealer N AT852 74 > Vul None 9652 AKJT84 > AT8 7 > AT732 Q9 Q7 9532 > > Bidding boxes were in use. The auction started 1C-2D-P by N-E-S. > At this point, no one asked any questions, but ... > West said "That shows 5 hearts and 4 spades", > then East said "But he bid 1 club", > then NS said "Director!" > Now it's your turn to say something :-) > > Well, the first step is to give a short lecture to EW about how to > alert, when to give explanations, and when to keep quiet. These LOLs > definitely know better -- both E and W became Life Masters 15 or 20 > years ago, back when it actually meant something. > > The next step is to give a ruling. EW play Flannery 2D opening and > weak jump overcalls, and W said later what was obvious to everyone > at the table, namely that she didn't see the 1C bid. (I am not a TD, so what I write here is not at all authoritative.) TD to West, after the lecture: "East's comment is unauthorized information for you, and for the rest of the auction you may not make any call demonstrably suggested by it if there is another logical call." The TD should be looking in the Laws at L16 while saying this, even though it is not quite word for word. Players more readily accept rulings when they come directly from the book. TD to East: "West's explanation is unauthorized information for you, and for the rest of the auction you may not make any call demonstrably suggested by it if there is another logical call." In the likely event that East and/or West do not understand exactly what the TD is saying, he can paraphrase his instructions in some clearer manner, but should be careful not to give specifics about what to bid or not bid, not even to say to West, "You must bid as if 2D was Flannery," or to East, "You must bid as if West is advancing your overcall." While instructions such as these are commonly given, they are (1) suggestive of helping the offender(s) and (2) not quite accurate. An offender may choose an LA that s/he would not have chosen normally. For instance, bidding either 3H or 4H in response to Flannery 2D is "logical," but in this case West would surely choose 3H instead of the 4H bid she might normally have made. Not that it matters in this case, because East cannot logically pass 3H. TD to everyone: "Continue the auction." The reason that the TD can rule from L16A before the auction continues is that both EW statements constitute an irregularity. If the UI had arisen from two long hesitations, there would be no irregularity (yet) and the TD would not cite L16A "until he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." The auction continues, and West had better bid 4H, which East had better pass. If 4H gets doubled, as is likely if NS are awake, both East and West have to sit for the double. If the auction goes differently (and NS don't do anything really stupid), the TD will likely adjust the score to 4H doubled, down a bunch. Both EW comments are authorized information for NS, who can use it to their advantage, e.g., by doubling 4H. But wait! An interesting possibility is that West could logically bid 2NT (artificial inquiry) in response to the supposed Flannery 2D. Now East, with a minimum jump overcall (perhaps, in their partnership) passes the non-forcing 2NT bid. If the TD believes that bidding again is not an LA for East, then no one has taken illegal advantage of UI and EW get to keep their +120 score. Not a good score, since there are 11 tricks available in a diamond contract, but maybe better than the result of 4H doubled. Another interesting point is that most TDs in this part of the ACBL (southwest USA) would instruct everyone to put their hands back in the board and artificially adjust to avg+ for NS and avg- for EW. They don't have time for such nonsense as determining appropriate assigned scores. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 06:09:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 06:09:28 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA02552 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 06:09:22 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA29502; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808202011.NAA29502@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:10:23 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >We all agree that it is awful for players not to put the pass card on > >the table. We have started a quiet campaign talking about it using this > >event as an illustration. Slowly it will work. We finally have them not > >announcing 1 club ...could be short...... Lots of us are concerned > >about the silly ruling. What would you "fine" them? > > 10% of a top is the EBU/WBU standard for a fine. I used to believe > that a quarter board [ie 25% of a top] was the ACBL standard until I > read the details of the Reno appeals when they were all over the place! I don't know how David arrived at this conclusion, as I could find only two "fines" in the 16 Reno cases that have been published so far (Suisse Federation de Bridge ( http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/renoapp.html ). In case #15 there was a 1/8 board PP for a failure to Alert that did no damage. In case #16 there was a 3-IMP PP. Assessing a PP for a harmless failure to Alert will shortly become a separate thread, I promise. > 10% is good: it is small enough that it rarely makes a difference, but > it can. Incidentally, we believe 10% of a top equates to 3 imps at > teams: what do other jurisdictions think? > For Zero Tolerance violations, the ACBL's mandatory disciplinary penalty is 1/4 board or 3 IMPs, no variation permitted. Not a PP, it comes under L91B and cannot be revised by an AC. In the Chicago NABC appeals published so far (9), there were two PPs. In Case #3 the "fine" was 1/4 board, imposed in addition to the retention of appellant's $50. This was for an appeal deemed "ludicrous." In case #7, in which the AC determined that the opponents had not been damaged by an infraction associated with a break in tempo, as a PP the OS was fined the difference in matchpoints between a score of +680 (actual result) and +500. See separate thread on this one, soon. The ACBL and others would do well to standardize their PP policies, as the ACBL has done for ZT offenses. Overall, David S. is correct in saying they are "all over the place." I do not favor a policy of assessing the same PP for all violations of correct procedure, as some are much more serious than others. There should be a standardized scale of such "fines." The $50 deposit requirement is no longer in effect, replaced by a policy of keeping a dossier on those who seem to be abusing the appeals process, with potential C&E repercussions. I have no opinion on how to make pair PPs and team PPs equivalent, although it would be handy if IMP PPs had the same magnitude as matchpoint PPs with 12 top, as the ACBL ZT policy implies. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 08:45:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:45:05 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl (arcadia.a2000.nl [62.108.1.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA03242 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:44:56 +1000 Received: from witzy.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA21212 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:47:24 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980821004638.008e71d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:46:38 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: <199808202011.NAA29502@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:10 20-08-98 -0700, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Nancy T Dressing wrote: >> >We all agree that it is awful for players not to put the pass >card on >> >the table. We have started a quiet campaign talking about it >using this >> >event as an illustration. Slowly it will work. We finally have >them not >> >announcing 1 club ...could be short...... Lots of us are >concerned >> >about the silly ruling. What would you "fine" them? >> >> 10% of a top is the EBU/WBU standard for a fine. I used to >believe >> that a quarter board [ie 25% of a top] was the ACBL standard >until I >> read the details of the Reno appeals when they were all over the >place! > >I don't know how David arrived at this conclusion, as I could find >only two "fines" in the 16 Reno cases that have been published so >far (Suisse Federation de Bridge ( >http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/renoapp.html ). In case #15 there was >a 1/8 board PP for a failure to Alert that did no damage. In case >#16 there was a 3-IMP PP. Assessing a PP for a harmless failure to >Alert will shortly become a separate thread, I promise. > >> 10% is good: it is small enough that it rarely makes a >difference, but >> it can. Incidentally, we believe 10% of a top equates to 3 imps >at >> teams: what do other jurisdictions think? >> >For Zero Tolerance violations, the ACBL's mandatory disciplinary >penalty is 1/4 board or 3 IMPs, no variation permitted. Not a PP, >it comes under L91B and cannot be revised by an AC. > >In the Chicago NABC appeals published so far (9), there were two >PPs. In Case #3 the "fine" was 1/4 board, imposed in addition to >the retention of appellant's $50. This was for an appeal deemed >"ludicrous." In case #7, in which the AC determined that the >opponents had not been damaged by an infraction associated with a >break in tempo, as a PP the OS was fined the difference in >matchpoints between a score of +680 (actual result) and +500. See >separate thread on this one, soon. > >The ACBL and others would do well to standardize their PP policies, >as the ACBL has done for ZT offenses. Overall, David S. is correct >in saying they are "all over the place." I do not favor a policy of >assessing the same PP for all violations of correct procedure, as >some are much more serious than others. There should be a >standardized scale of such "fines." > >The $50 deposit requirement is no longer in effect, replaced by a >policy of keeping a dossier on those who seem to be abusing the >appeals process, with potential C&E repercussions. > >I have no opinion on how to make pair PPs and team PPs equivalent, >although it would be handy if IMP PPs had the same magnitude as >matchpoint PPs with 12 top, as the ACBL ZT policy implies. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > Perhaps i am allowed to make some comments about penalties in this thread. In the first place, i think that PP's should only be given if there is a need for it in either club or competition games. A PP for a forgotten alerts looks rather stupid, certainly if no harm is done. At least here in Holland we seldom or never give PP's for this offence, unless we know it was on purpose. In clubs we can use PP's to teach people to play the game according to the rules and use it as education tool (to let them write scores in the right place and in the right direction, to learn them to get their hands off cards that don't belong to their hand etc. etc.), but even then it is seldom used. Talking surely is a better way to educate them. Another point is that we don't punish people if they appeal, further than keeping the appeal money (for clubs/districts about 12$, for appeal at NA 25$) and restoring equity. Most certainly we don't keep (official) scores about silliness of appeals. Another point is that it is very difficult for TD's to get a background of people who are (to say it politely) very dubious in playing the game. No official records are held about these people, that's why they can do much as they like for a long time. But eventually even they can't get away with their acting. Perhaps we are too permissive in this matter. Perhaps if we discuss this matter here we can get a better understanding behind the reasons why other countries want to act otherwise in this matter. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 14:44:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:44:08 +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 OAA04005 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:43:59 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3PNBa20768 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1162b7f7.35dcfb7f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 00:45:50 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/19/98 8:02:51 AM EST, David writes: > Al wrote: > > >The TD ruled that there was a "BREAK IN > >TEMPO" and the AC found that it was a break in tempo which was not an > >unmistakeable hesitation. > > Perhaps you would like to explain the difference to me? I would have > equated the two. A break in tempo does not always equate to an unmistakeable hesitation, David (I hope you don't mind me referring to you by name). Sometimes it is just a pause which one side feels is noteworthy and the other side felt was still in tempo. Usually we get two stories - one side claims 10-15 seconds (or more) and the other side claims it was in tempo. In the given case, each side agreed on 2-3 seconds. When there are disputed facts as to whether there was a hesitation, a committee will frequently examine the hand in question. I have seen more than one example when you strongly suspect there was a clear break because of the problem the player was faced with. I have been told more than once that a player didn't break tempo at all and followed it up with a question as to what bids they were considering. It can then take a minute for them to finish the answer. It is not at all uncommon for them to condemn themselves. Despite what some have suggested, it is clear that the player in question certainly had nothing to think about over 4H. It would have been easier to accept that he had a problem over 1H but there was no evidence of that. I'm not suggesting that 2-3 seconds may not constitute a break in tempo which is noteworthy - the committee felt that in this case it did not qualify as UI. I have no reason to question their decision after having talked to each member of the committee. I hope this doesn't leave us too far apart... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 21 22:39:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:39:48 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05275 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:39:41 +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 IAA23810 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980821084318.006cb768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:43:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980814164319.006d5ef8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:40 PM 8/19/98 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>But it does seem like if you're non-offending, you should not be able to >>receive an *unfavorable* score adjustment, i.e. if you haven't committed >>any infraction, you shouldn't get a *worse* result than your actual score >>at the table. (In the case at hand, the hand was played out, and the >>contract went down.) > > It sounds good, Eric, but I am afraid this is not correct. Suppose >that you play a hand, and opponents revoke, and the TD rules from >memory, and gives you two tricks incorrectly. > > Later he goes to his DIC [TDic] and discovers he has made an error. >According to L82C, both sides are treated as non-offending. True, but >the correct ruling is one trick transferred not two, so you will lose >your second trick because you really did not deserve it. > > Similarly in the given scenario, if the correct ruling even if you are >non-offending is that the contract makes then even under L82C you are >going to have it adjusted to making. L82C provides split scores when >the effect of both sides being NOs means that a correct ruling leads to >different scores, not otherwise. > > Thanks to Max Bavin who put me right on this about three years ago. I don't see where this example contradicts the principle I attempted to state. Perhaps I should have written "actual result" instead of "actual score". Here I play a hand for, say, 8 tricks, and the director incorrectly adjusts the result to 10 tricks -- a revoke may carry an automatic penalty rather than being subject to a subjective adjudication, but that doesn't matter. On discovering the error, the adjustment is changed, and my result is now the score for taking 9 tricks. That's still better than 8 tricks, so I have not gotten "a worse result than [my] actual score at the table" prior to the (in this case automatic) adjustment. Perhaps my difference with David regarding the original case can be explained as follows: L82C says that the defenders are "consider[ed]... as non-offending", so by L12C2 they are entitled to "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". I am reading "the irregularity" to mean the irregularity about which the director gave the incorrect ruling. David seems to be reading "the irregularity" to mean the incorrect ruling itself. 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 Aug 22 01:29:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 01:29:40 +1000 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08195 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 01:29:35 +1000 Received: from xoigoynt (p32-max25.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.212.238.96]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA08847 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:32:09 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980822032542.007bebe0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:25:42 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: unusual UI Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An following situation arose at a major tournament and was subsequently appealed both at the tournament and subsequently to the National Appeals Committee. I am deliberately giving only the auction, not the actual hands, because this is not a debate over whether this particular decision was correct, but a query about something that occurred to me from discussing this case, although it was something that did not actually happen at the table. The Auction was: North East South West 1C 3D P P Dbl 3H P Dbl 4D All Pass The trouble was that EW could make 6D. NS were playing that 3D here was a transfer pre-empt showing hearts, but North had forgotten so it was not alerted,. West had a string of diamonds and was lurking in the bushes. By the time 4D was put in front of him it was obvious from his hand that South did not really have diamonds, but he elected to pass because he had short hearts and thought the penalty from 4D undoubled might well be much more than from 4H doubled. The appeal committee considered that because South had unauthorised information from his partner's failure to alert, his call of 3H was questionable. Because partner passing your transfer pre-empt is such an unusual action this was looked at carefully in terms of whether you might just assume there had been a ststemic foulup regardless of having UI or not. Firstly the committee imagined the situation where partner alerted the bid, gave the correct explanation, but still passed 3D. In this situation the committee were happy that on the South hand in question most people would pass, and indeed it would almost certainly be the best call. However it was then pointed out that seeing partner alert and explain correctly would be UI and that we should be looking at this situation as though it had occurred behind screens. In that situation you would be a lot more nervous about a possible bidding accident and 3H might well be considered a strong possibility. This was recognised, but it was felt that passing still had to rate at least a logical alternative. i.e. If sitting behind screenss then both pass and 3H would have been logical alternatives. Therefore the final ruling was that the score be changed to 3D doubled 8 light. Finally we get to the hypothetical situation: You overcall 3D as a transfer pre-empt. Partner alerts it and gives the correct explanation when asked, but the auction nevertheless proceeds pass...pass... double. So we now have a situation where: a) The information that partner has got the system right is UI b) Both 3H and pass are possible actions if you didn't have that UI Should you be expected to 'ethically' bid 3H because it is the logical alternative not suggested by the UI, or should you always be entitled to bid as though partner has correctly remembered the system anyway? Patrick Carter Director Auckland Bridge Club Chairman Laws & Ethics NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 02:02:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 02:02:40 +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 CAA08510 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 02:02:35 +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 JAA29703 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA08346; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:07:23 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:07:23 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199808211607.JAA08346@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unusual UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: unusual UI Patrick Carter wrote: | Finally we get to the hypothetical situation: | | You overcall 3D as a transfer pre-empt. Partner alerts it and gives the |correct explanation when asked, but the auction nevertheless proceeds |pass...pass... double. | |So we now have a situation where: | |a) The information that partner has got the system right is UI |b) Both 3H and pass are possible actions if you didn't have that UI | |Should you be expected 'ethically' to bid 3H because it is the logical |alternative not suggested by the UI, or should you always be entitled to |bid as though partner has correctly remembered the system anyway? I think the only workable solution is to assume that partnership agreements are actually known by the partnership until evidence to the contrary surfaces. Given that assumption, the above UI only repeats authorized information, and thus does not constrain the recipient. This may give the appearance of "rewarding" remembering system, but it really doesn't; that's just an illusion. When a misexplanation occurs (including a failure to alert), the constraints put on the recipient of UI are so severe that he will not gain unless he assumes that partner has remembered system and the choices so made work out favorably. What really happens in an alert situation is that a player must assume that partner has remembered system. To be told by the alert doesn't help him; he can't gain by correctly judging that partner forgot. One cannot compare this situation to ones in which there was no alert (including the screens case). In those cases, the player "pays off" when he misjudges whether partner has forgotten system. In the Alerted case, he pays off when partner actually forgets. These are different situations with different balances. It is not necessary to make them be identical, just to make each case work. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 02:24:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 02:24:23 +1000 Received: from worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [195.61.43.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08568 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 02:23:41 +1000 Received: from bidule2 (portge28.worldcom.ch [194.235.4.28]) by worldcom.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA10645 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:24:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980821162801.0075fde8@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:28:01 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: unusual UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The Auction was: North East South West > 1C 3D P > P Dbl 3H P > Dbl 4D All Pass North doubled south 3H ? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 03:26:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:26:38 +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 DAA09011 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:26:27 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.27]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 3662400 ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:27:27 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980821133331.007f23c0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:33:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980821162801.0075fde8@worldcom.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:28 PM 8/21/98 +0200, you wrote: >>The Auction was: North East South West >> 1C 3D P >> P Dbl 3H P >> Dbl 4D All Pass > >North doubled south 3H ? I seem to recall that doubles of partner's bids are alertable if fit-showing, but not if penalty. Was the double alerted? ;) Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 06:44:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 06:44:18 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA09912 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 06:44:11 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA20088; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:45:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.35) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020067; Fri Aug 21 15:45:27 1998 Received: by har-pa1-03.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDCD22.94ED3E40@har-pa1-03.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:41:44 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDCD22.94ED3E40@har-pa1-03.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Anton Witzen'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Unauthorized information??? Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:28:16 -0400 Encoding: 53 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Anton Witzen[SMTP:a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl] In the first place, i think that PP's should only be given if there is a need for it in either club or competition games. A PP for a forgotten alerts looks rather stupid, certainly if no harm is done. At least here in Holland we seldom or never give PP's for this offence, unless we know it was on purpose. ###That appears to be a most sensible approach.### In clubs we can use PP's to teach people to play the game according to the rules and use it as education tool (to let them write scores in the right place and in the right direction, to learn them to get their hands off cards that don't belong to their hand etc. etc.), but even then it is seldom used. Talking surely is a better way to educate them. ###We agree again. However that does not mean you are not using PP's...just that you are opting to educate through warning rather than by imposing a score penalty.### Another point is that we don't punish people if they appeal, further than keeping the appeal money (for clubs/districts about 12$, for appeal at NA 25$) and restoring equity. Most certainly we don't keep (official) scores about silliness of appeals. ###The problem with requiring and sometimes retaining cash deposits is that this may deter legitimate appeals from those who are not as wealthy as other players. Screening appeals is a useful process to cut down on frivilous waste of AC time. Keeping a record of those who repeatedly abuse the system by making appeals with a distinct lack of merit allows such misconduct to be evaluated on a C&E basis only when appropriate. Merely keeping the money from a relatively wealthy player would not be nearly the deterrent. That, I believe, is why the ACBL recently changed its policy. The abusers will still be punished, and may face stiffer penalties if they are found guilty of abuse. But the valid appeals from those who could not afford the deposit now can and will be heard. Another point is that it is very difficult for TD's to get a background of people who are (to say it politely) very dubious in playing the game. No official records are held about these people, that's why they can do much as they like for a long time. But eventually even they can't get away with their acting. Perhaps we are too permissive in this matter. Perhaps if we discuss this matter here we can get a better understanding behind the reasons why other countries want to act otherwise in this matter. ###And perhaps if we keep listening to what you and your countrymen have to say, we may learn some of the reasons for the great success our game is enjoying among Nederlanders.### Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 06:44:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 06:44:37 +1000 Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA09918 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 06:44:29 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3WWQa22588 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:46:21 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #5 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 8/18/98 1:33:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Marvin writes: [s] > > > My comments: A double of 4H by West would perhaps have been > takeout > > > for spades and clubs. > > > > And I'm sure this is an action that everyone would be considering > at this > > level. Would it have meant the same thing over 1H? > > I guess this is sarcasm, can't tell for sure. I said "perhaps." You caught it - it was sarcasm. I've never seen ANY agreement to make a takeout agreement at the four level when it would have meant the same thing at the one level. So why even discuss the possibility? > There are so many doubles for takeout that sound like penalty these > days, one can't be sure of anything. For an aggressive pair like > this, a double of 4H could mean, "I don't have four spades, and > therefore chose not to make a light double of 1H. Now that they are > bidding game, I'll take the chance." We had evidence that one player is aggressive - not the pair. But this does sound like a very playable method. > > > Maybe he did have something to think about. > > > It's a little surprising that an AC would overrule a TD's > opinion > > > as to the existence of a break in tempo. > > > > There is no evidence in this write-up that this committee did any > such thing, > > Marvin. Everyone agreed that there was a 2-3 second hesitation > (it is unusual > > to get such an agreement) over 4H. The TD ruled that there was > a "BREAK IN > > TEMPO" and the AC found that it was a break in tempo which was > not an > > unmistakeable hesitation. I thought this write-up made this > very clear. > > Please stop first-naming me, Alan; it sounds patronizing and gives > the impression that we are acquainted. My apologies, Marvin. I am used to addressing posters by their first name. For anyone interested, I am willing to stipulate that Marvin and I barely know each other - aquaintenances would be clear over statement. > Many of us are not so sensitive to the nuances of the English > language as to realize that a "break in tempo" of the slow sort is > not necessarily an "unmistakeable hesitation." The TD ruled "break > in tempo," the AC ruled "no unmistakeable hesitation." I don't > think it's a big gaff to interpret the ACs choice of words as a > tactful way to disagree with the TD. I hope by now you understand that this is a determination of fact, Marvin. This is clearly NOT disagreeing with the TD. We try to make it clear that Committees make their own rulings. We do not uphold or overturn the TD. > > This means that the AC found a different set of facts than did > the > > TD. It in no way suggests that the TD made an error. I would > always > > want the TD to rule in this fashion in a case of this nature. > > Sorry, I was under the impression that it was traditional to give > more weight to a TD's opinion than was shown in this case. Note > that I am not saying the AC decision was wrong. I believe AC > decisions concerning matters of fact should be accepted unless > really outrageous, which is not true in this case. That doesn't > mean the issues involved ought not to be discussed. > > > > > I see that character > > > witnesses and kibitzing friends are permitted to testify in AC > > > proceedings. Learn something every day. > > > > And it's good to know that you're not to old to learn something, > Marvin. > > Senior bashing? Tsk, tsk, not politically correct. I know that "to" > is spelled "too" when it's a modifier. You are correct. So sorry for that gaff. > > A committee's job is to do everything they can to determine the > facts. They > > should always be willing to listen to any testimony from any > available > > witnesses. They may give any weight they wish to that > testimony. They could > > always decide that it was totally irrelevant. In this case it > proved to be > > helpful in "determining the facts". Why would anyone think that > an AC should > > be unwilling to at least listen to kibbitzers? Try to remember, > Marvin - one > > of the toughest jobs of an AC is to keep an open mind to every > possible fact > > as to it's possible validity. > > Perhaps you could get the ACBL NABC Appeals Form (AF) revised to > inform players that they have the right to call character > witnesses, kibitzer witnesses, technical consultants, and other > partners to support their case. While you're at it, include a > statement that either pair has the right to have an advocate state > their case for them. I don't think many players, especially those > most in need of them, are aware of these rights. Maybe the TD could > inform players about them when an AF is submitted. I must remember > to post a message about this on RGB. Everytime we've been asked about bringing in a witness, we have always said yes. Why is this such a revelation to you? As I stated, a committee wants to gather the facts and if you feel you have a witness that can contribute to those facts, why wouldn't we want to hear from that witness. You always have a right to present your case as you feel best. As to character witnesses, my experience has been that in a bridge appeal such as this, the committee would guve no credence whatsoever to such witnesses. That would not be much different than someone saying "We never defend a doubled contract below the three level". That is generally considered a self-serving statement. And it is clear that noone would bring forth a character witness unless it was going to be a glowing report. Given all that, you still have the right to bring in the witness. [s - thank goodness] > > > E/W's team won by 9 IMPs, so this case decided the match. > > > > Many would take the view that this match was decided at the > table. > > Let's see. The TD scored +650 for N/S, the AC changed it to -200, > and this appeals case did not decide the match? Okay, if that's the > way you want to look at it. The AC restored the table result. To me that means the match was decided at the table. I see no other way of looking at it. > > > They lost the next match by 97 IMPs. > > > > And this is certainly a very important fact in evaluating this > committee > > decision. > > Fully agreed. My comment about their next match was made for this > very reason. OOOOPS! You missed that sarcasm, Marvin! What possible meaning could anyone read into the result of the next match? Could you please explain to all of us how that has any connection to a discussion of this case? > > There was one facet of this case that I found most interesting. > And that was > > the fact that so many of the "good" players were so certain that > this was a > > horrible decision. After all, the team that lost was a clear > favorite in the > > match. After the write-up came out, some were now willing to > admit that they > > had not had all the facts (surprise!) and that the decision > really did sound > > reasonable. And yet there was a corps of top players that are > still convinced > > that this player must have had some UI available because the > nature of the 4S > > bid is so foreign to their way of thinking. They can't even > imagine someone > > considering the possibility. As I was told at least twice, he > must have > > "known" something or he couldn't possibly make the bid. I was > told that you > > just can't make a bid like this and be "right". They couldn't > seem to accept > > the fact that this player was so "right" he had just offered up > 800. There > > are many different concepts of bridge that are difficult for the > better > > players to accept. And we laugh about some of the results when > they aren't > > effective, but we must accept the fact that every once in a > while, a player > > that perceives he is outclassed, may resort to desperation. And > we all know > > that will sometimes reap rich rewards... > > > O tempora! O mores! Times change, customs change. In the old days > (at least in California) even the most wild bidder would not dream > of bidding 4S if partner so much as twitched, out of concern for > his reputation. That doesn't seem to be much of a factor these > days. > > I think what concerned a lot of people was the tempo of other calls > in this auction, and generally in the match. Players "at this > level" are supposed to have fairly even tempo, as E/W claimed to > have: "Both East and West said that they had discussed as a > partnership the importance of even tempos and had agreed to never > bid fast." If the double of 5D was rather quick, as N/S claimed, it > would not support that statement. N/S also claimed that E/W had > erratic tempos, and their teammates substantiated this opinion. > Some would like to know about East's speed of call over the skip > bid, which might be pertinent. I agree that we should accept the > AC's judgment concerning all these matters, but discussing them is > not inappropriate. Many would like to talk to the TD about the > case, but for some reason TDs' names are not included in the > writeups. I know, I know, it's sometimes a "peer group" consensus, > but someone has to sign off on the AF. Whoops! There's no place for > the TD's signature! Not true! There is definitely a space for the TDs to put their name on the form. Including each that consulted in the decision. However, the TDs don't want their names included in these write-ups. We did it for one NABC (San Diego, '94 I believe) but that was stopped at the request of the TDs. > I was glad to see that the ACBL's notorious "Rule of Coincidence" > was not dragged into this case. It could have had no possible application to this case. > We don't know if anyone wrote a > Player Memo in relation to East's 4S bid, as PMs are confidential. > Since PMs do not attribute wrongdoing, only documenting verifiable > facts concerning unusual actions for the Recorder's consideration, > there is no need for an AC to look for anything evil when strange > bids are made. Leave that sort of thing up to the Recorder, who is > supposed to be an expert on such matters. There is a box on the AF > for noting that the case was "Referred to Recorder," but that may > be only for frivolous appeals. We don't use that term anymore. The phrase is "Appeal Lacking Merit". A committee will refer ANY issue to the recorder when they feel that some ethical infraction has ocurred. It is difficult to imagine them taking such an action when they feel that no infraction has taken place. If BAD bids were referred to the recorder, this clearly would have qualified. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 07:44:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:44:59 +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 HAA10195 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:44:55 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA05089; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:46:50 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:46:50 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: Yvan Calame cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980821162801.0075fde8@worldcom.ch> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Yvan Calame wrote: > >The Auction was: North East South West > > 1C 3D P > > P Dbl 3H P > > Dbl 4D All Pass > > North doubled south 3H ? > I believe the actual auction was: West North East South 1C 3D Pass Pass X 3H Pass 4D All Pass Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 07:53:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:53:28 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA10238 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:53:22 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07939; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:55:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808212155.OAA07939@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , , Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:54:35 -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 Marv wrote; ---------- > > Barry Wolk writes: > > > > This case resembles one I had a few weeks ago -- completely > > improper actions resulting in UI. And these are typical of > > what a TD encounters at the club level, where we don't have > > to worry about the UI consequences of a 3-second hesitation. > > > > Matchpoints K94 KJ63 3 KQJ64 > > Board 17 Q J865 > > Dealer N AT852 74 > > Vul None 9652 AKJT84 > > AT8 7 > > AT732 Q9 Q7 9532 > > > > Bidding boxes were in use. The auction started 1C-2D-P by N-E-S. > > > At this point, no one asked any questions, but ... > > West said "That shows 5 hearts and 4 spades", > > then East said "But he bid 1 club", > > then NS said "Director!" > > Now it's your turn to say something :-) > > > The auction continues, and West had better bid 4H, which East had > better pass. If 4H gets doubled, as is likely if NS are awake, both > East and West have to sit for the double. If the auction goes > differently (and NS don't do anything really stupid), the TD will > likely adjust the score to 4H doubled, down a bunch. Both EW > comments are authorized information for NS, who can use it to their > advantage, e.g., by doubling 4H. > Marv overlooks the fact that there is a 1C bid lying on the table, which West is entitled to see, and surely would see, after (but not before) advancing the supposed overcall of 2D. So, after West makes the assumed bid of 4H, North would certainly not double and East would not have a chance to correct her mistake. If North were to double, which would be pretty dumb, West (but not East) is free to bid 5D. That 1C bid still lying there is AI that permits a 5D bid. Thanks to Roger Pewick for waking me up in a private e-mail! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 10:14:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 10:14:22 +1000 Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10707 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 10:14:15 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 3TFa004142 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:16:14 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:16:14 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Error Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please forgive my misspelling of gaffe... Alan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 10:26:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 10:26:21 +1000 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10733 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 10:26:17 +1000 Received: from xoigoynt (p5-max40.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.79.137.197]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA03367 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:28:52 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980822122218.0079b4d0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:22:18 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: unusual UI Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmm, sorry West doubled the 3H, not North Patrick From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 22 16:12:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA11601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 16:12:12 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA11596 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 16:12:04 +1000 Received: from christian (c002.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.2]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA28196 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 08:14:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 08:12:45 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDCDA4.A4A4DB40.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 08:12:44 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Craig Senior wrote: >[...] > Merely > keeping the money from a relatively wealthy player would not be > nearly the > deterrent.[...] The results in bridge are calculated in matchpoints or victory points. Why not fining competitors for frivolous appeals by deducting points from their final scores? I think that helps to establish an euitate environment. Best regards Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 01:42:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:42:48 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14894 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:42:40 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA08507 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 08:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808221544.IAA08507@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #6 Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 08:30:15 -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 Event: Life Master Pairs, 25 July, second semi-final session Dealer: North Vulnerability: none S- 972 H- 72 D- 73 C- AQ8743 S- KJT83 S- Q654 H- AT6 H- Q943 D- KT D- J96 C- K95 C- 62 S- A H- KJ85 D- AQ8542 C- JT West North East South (usual directions) - P P 1D 1S P 3S(1) P (2) P 4C All pass (1) Alerted; preemptive (2) Break in tempo The Facts: 4C made four, plus 130 for N/S. North called the Director immediately after he bid 4C. The Director determined from all parties that South hesitated a minimum of 15 seconds, perhaps more than 30 seconds. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative and imposed it (Law 16A2) after determining that the break in tempo suggested further action and N/S improved their score by bidding 4C. The contract was changed to 3S down one, plus 50 for N/S (Law12C2). The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. N/S stated that:(1) a very high percentage of their peers would bid 4C in this position; (2) the hesitation did not suggest action; and (3) the auction militates in favor of bidding since South has at most one spade and very likely at least two clubs and if 4C fails, 3S may well make. E/W stated that: (1) they agreed that probably more than half the field would bid 4C, but thought the break in tempo made the bid easier; (2) the hesitation suggested extra values and extra safety; and (3) North hit his partner with 15 HCP and distribution. Through questioning, the Committee ascertained that N/S's methods did not include any descriptive method for North to bid directly over 1S. The Committee Decision: The Committee found that: (1) there had been a break in tempo by South; (2) The break in tempo suggested bidding; and (3) pass was not a logical alternative. According to Law 12C2, in the event of unauthorized information, the offending pair should receive the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. (MLF--There is no "offending pair" just because UI exists. To be an offense, the UI has to be used illegally in a way that causes damage. I presume that was meant here.) The Committee decided that North's peers would bid 4C in the semifinal of the Life Master Pairs sufficiently often to satisfy this criterion. The Committee acknowledged that there might be an occasional expert who would pass, but decided that there would not be a significant number who would do so. The 4C bid was allowed and the contract was changed to 4C made four, plus 130 for N/S. (MLF--The criterion for an LA, stated by the ACBL LC in 1992, is "an action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum." ACs should use this language instead of "occasional expert" or "significant number." The right question was, "Is passing 3S an action that some number of North's peers would seriously consider in a vacuum?" Yes, adjust. No, don't adjust. (It doesn't matter if only "an occasional expert" would pass, of if *no* expert would pass. The criterion is whether some number of North's peers would *seriously consider* passing. And by the way, North's "peers" are not the other pairs in this event. They are all the pairs of North's general ability and experience, as judged by the AC, and who play a similar system if that is pertinent. Just because North is playing in a mainly expert field does not mean that his peers are experts. Maybe yes, maybe no.) Chairman's Retrospective Note: This Committee (the Chairman included) may have erred in failing to pursue questions about the defense and play of the 4C contract. North must play the hand very well to make 4C against good defense. It is possible that E/W may have erred in the defense to permit the contract to make. If E/W had a chance at a better score on defense than they had playing 3S, then the Committee should have probed the quality of the defense to determine whether E/W forfeited their right to an adjustment. However, if the answer had been affirmative, the Committee decision would have still have been E/W minus 130. Then the Committee's principal finding would have supported the N/S plus 130. - (MLF--If there was no infraction, the point is moot. Why mention it? I was sorry to read this paragraph, because I lately defended ACBL ACs against the charge made on BLML that they are too demanding of the NOs when it comes to score adjustments. Guess I was wrong. "May have erred in the defense"? "Had a chance at a better score"? Does that sound like actions that are so egregiously bad that they would result in no redress? Hardly. (Suppose the defense had been extremely bad, maybe including a revoke. That would mean E/W keep the -130 score, but it certainly would not support the score of +130 for N/S. Any score adjustment for N/S based on a finding that North's 4C was an infraction should be independently determined. In that case the N/S adjusted score would evidently be +50, if the TD's judgment is accepted.) Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Nell Cahn, Jim Linhart Note: I am not questioning the decision made by the AC, which would be appropriate only if the decision was obviously incorrect, not the case here. I am questioning the writeup's wording of the criteria used for reaching that decision. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 03:04:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:04:08 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA15368 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 03:03:55 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-188.access.net.il [192.116.204.188]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA24303 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 20:06:25 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35DEFB49.3114247A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 20:09:29 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: resuraction Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I am sorry I was very busy and couldn't answer the most important items for Lille 98; but I believe Lille 98 isn't doomsday ........ Well I"ll try to send my remarks to all messages I believe they should be recorded for the endless universal glory ............ Just remember the most important laws that should be published : Law 0 = Bridge us a game for PLAYERS - Laws and TDs exist ONLY ........to help players enjoy and respect the aims of the game. Law 99 = The laws should be respected for 101% , but any TD will .........use his brains when in doubt implementing the Laws , .........according to Law 0. Dany A lot of e-mails will follow From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 07:55:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 07:55:16 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA16083 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 07:55:10 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA21174 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808222157.OAA21174@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:54:50 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Christian Bernscherer wrote: > > > > >>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam > missing a quick > > >>and a slow trick after an > > >>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the > right suit and > > >>the NOs miss their chance. > > >>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at > all probable > > >>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be > game bid > > >>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to avoid > that the > > >>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). > > > > > > I believe this to be correct. > > > > That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered > > the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that the > > slam should go down? > > > > Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is > > something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations > > where playing them is impossible (because the players have > > already played the hand under different circumstances). > > > > But here, the slam has actually been played by those players > > after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me > > that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no sense > > - they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. > > > > However, in theory the most unfavourable result that was at all > > probable could be a grand slam going down! > > > Everybody seems to be out of town, but I'll ask the question > anyway. > > L12C2: ...the score is, for the non-offending side, the most > favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred > or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at > all probable. > > Am I wacky in believing that "had the irregularity not occurred" is > an understood part of the second clause? > In a word, yes. > As I am learning something almost daily on BLML, (e.g., "gaff" is spelled "gaffe" when referring to a blunder), it is not surprising that I learn today that no words are to be "understood" in L12C2. I had tried and tried to find some appeal in the casebooks where the language would make a difference in the decision, but could not. However, I realized after some thought that "had the irregularity not occurred" is not applicable to the OS for reasons illustrated in the following example case: With nobody vulnerable, fourth seat opens the bidding with a very light hand after second seat hesitates quite a bit before passing. Had the hand been passed out, the pair would have received 6 matchpoints out of 12. Now they get to 2H, which won't make, and would score 3 matchpoints for going down one except that their opponents back into the bidding with 2S, get doubled, and with reasonable play go down one, which results in 9 matchpoints for the offending pair. The TD rules that passing the hand out was a logical alternative to bidding, which was suggested by the UI, so he decides to adjust the score. To what? Well, the NOS gets the score for a passed out hand, which yields 6 matchpoints, not the 9 matchpoints they would have received for beating 2H. Why? Because they get the most favorable result that was likely if the irregularity had not occurred, and the only such result is the score for a passed out deal. However, the OS gets the score for the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, which is obviously -50 for down one in 2H. Had their score assignment been based on the irregularity's not happening, they would have received the better passout score. This sort of thing is evidently what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote L12C2. HOWEVER, I don't believe that they intended to have the score adjusted by varying the card play that actually occurred in a played-out contract. If someone bids a 6NT slam on the basis of UI, then makes 12 tricks by guessing a queen's location, the score should be adjusted to a non-game contract, making 12 tricks, balanced for both sides, not to a slam going down for the OS because the queen might well have been misguessed. I believe this is the way NABC ACs have ruled all along (at least when adjusting both scores), and I believe it is the right way to rule. If that is wrong, then I'll learn another lesson. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 08:48:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:48:17 +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 IAA16170 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:48:03 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-158.access.net.il [192.116.204.158]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA17104; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:50:10 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35DF4BD4.B6D5FF7C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:53:08 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <000c01bdb7b2$82cee220$872b63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > John Prosbt wrote: ..................> . 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. This should be exactly the purpose of the Laws and their implementation Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 08:49:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:49:20 +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 IAA16177 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:49:12 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-158.access.net.il [192.116.204.158]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA17736; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:51:31 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35DF4C2B.2DD174CB@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:54:36 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <001301bdb836$63ed9020$102e63c3@david-burn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > > >Grattan wrote: > >>Grattan > >> > >> "Those who break the rules should be dismembered" > >> ( A delegate's opinion, EBU meeting, July 1998) > >> > >> > 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. Again - I agree with mr. Burn for 101% ........ Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 08:49:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:49:49 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16191 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:49:38 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-158.access.net.il [192.116.204.158]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA17832; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:52:00 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35DF4C44.233BAC3A@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:55:00 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <08rg4QBlK6u1Ew4K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <35BCCA12.30F3@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold I am happy you agree with my Law 0 ........... This is exactly what it says ........... Dany vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > 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. ......snip....... play. The life does be difficult and full of traps:) > > Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 08:52:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:52:30 +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 IAA16215 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:52:14 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-158.access.net.il [192.116.204.158]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA18368; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:54:34 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35DF4CE0.F0A0CCA8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:57:36 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <35BE6F00.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Again , a very long but deep analysis .... My remarks : vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > 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 ................snip...... > 2. Do not be so careful about AC: as it was underlined in several > posts - nowadays ACs are quite good for resolving the problems:) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't agree ... very strongly . , AC is for bridge judgment only !!! But the AC's members are players - usually very good/top / experts - and as human beings , it is very difficult , almost impossible to judge apart from their own style.......... As I told this forum some yearss ago I asked a pair to appeal and i gave the appeal to other 2 groups of world top players . I got 3 different answers !!!!!!!!!! All of them very clever and seriously explained ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .......snip.............. > 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... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For sure - it is not according to Law 0 !!!!! They will leave before second lesson , but ... As Laval Dubreuil pointed in a former thread , the new players should be tought very clear the basic manners and ethics of this game , during their first lessons . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ......snip........... > 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ hmmmmmmmmmmmm... I believe that in such situations there is what is called "... No sporting value for this particular contest (board).." and IMHO no reason to go on with the bidding .... There are many cases when whatever the NO side will do = it is 101% double shot !!!!!! Why to let the TD or AC or any other human being try to find the NO side subcouncious intentions ???.... This is the only case when I use Law 0 , NOT TO LET game continue , in order to let players enjoy the game , not to guess "nonadvertent dirty tricks"... I'll send again my old article about double shot ....... Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 08:54:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:54:01 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (Q.inter.net.il [205.164.141.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16229 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:53:52 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-158.access.net.il [192.116.204.158]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id BAA18716; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:56:16 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35DF4D45.53CB633B@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:59:17 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <199807301837.OAA04019@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve As i pointed out in a reply to Vitold , Steve Willner wrote: >......snip..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The idea of the sentence bellow is exactly what I HATE very much ... ````````````````````````````~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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. ~~~~~~" Mind reading "~~~~~~~is the end of the game ...... Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 23 08:58:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:58:06 +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 IAA16245 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 08:57:56 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-158.access.net.il [192.116.204.158]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA19515 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 1998 02:00:22 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35DF4E3C.51D72EAD@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 02:03:24 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Double shot (for : my proposal to WBFLC ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I resend an article I proposed 3 months ago , but didn't get any remarks ??!!!!! Eric Landau asked a good question : where is written that "double shot" isn't legal ?? Is any bridge law which forbids it ?? I must agree that in spite of the fact I consider double shot as a very non-ethical action I don't know where from this opinion comes . Thinking about Eric's remark I considered the general line of thinking to adjust (or assign) score when an irregularity was established (Kaplan's line...)(a. was any infraction ? assume yes to go on with this subject ) : b. was there a damage ?? c. is any "connection"/"relationship" between the irregularity and the damage . These statements (b&c) may be themselves a double shot ....???? : if the NO side wasn't damage , they can choose not to summon again the TD , but if they feel damaged then they"ll try to get the most and it is a legal and "by the Law" action ! And I remember one more phrase from the legendary sphinx: "A player is entitled to do everything legal to get the best score..." I think here is a good reason for it , but ...... what is the forum's opinion ??? Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 24 23:24:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:24:27 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22728 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:24:19 +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 JAA04758 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980824092735.006c6864@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:27:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <199808222157.OAA21174@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:54 PM 8/22/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Marv wrote: >> >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> > David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > >Christian Bernscherer wrote: >> > >> > >>The example I want to give is that the OS bids on to a slam >> missing a quick >> > >>and a slow trick after an >> > >>irregularity. To get both your tricks you have to lead the >> right suit and >> > >>the NOs miss their chance. >> > >>Now, in my opinion, the most unfavourable result that was at >> all probable >> > >>is the slam bid down one while the result for the NOs will be >> game bid >> > >>making 12 or 11 tricks (Personally I prefer 12 tricks to >avoid >> that the >> > >>NOs get two chances to play the same hand). >> > > >> > > I believe this to be correct. >> > >> > That was my initial reaction also. However, then I considered >> > the argument against it: is it really "at all probable" that >the >> > slam should go down? >> > >> > Estimating probabilities of contracts winning or failing is >> > something we do as a substitute for playing them, in situations >> > where playing them is impossible (because the players have >> > already played the hand under different circumstances). >> > >> > But here, the slam has actually been played by those players >> > after the auction in question, and it won. So it seems to me >> > that discussing probabilities of the slam failing makes no >sense >> > - they've actually played it out, so we _know_ that it wins. >> > >> > However, in theory the most unfavourable result that was at all >> > probable could be a grand slam going down! >> > >> Everybody seems to be out of town, but I'll ask the question >> anyway. >> >> L12C2: ...the score is, for the non-offending side, the most >> favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not >occurred >> or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was >at >> all probable. >> >> Am I wacky in believing that "had the irregularity not occurred" >is >> an understood part of the second clause? >> >In a word, yes. >> >As I am learning something almost daily on BLML, (e.g., "gaff" is >spelled "gaffe" when referring to a blunder), it is not surprising >that I learn today that no words are to be "understood" in L12C2. I >had tried and tried to find some appeal in the casebooks where the >language would make a difference in the decision, but could not. >However, I realized after some thought that "had the irregularity >not occurred" is not applicable to the OS for reasons illustrated >in the following example case: > >With nobody vulnerable, fourth seat opens the bidding with a very >light hand after second seat hesitates quite a bit before passing. >Had the hand been passed out, the pair would have received 6 >matchpoints out of 12. Now they get to 2H, which won't make, and >would score 3 matchpoints for going down one except that their >opponents back into the bidding with 2S, get doubled, and with >reasonable play go down one, which results in 9 matchpoints for the >offending pair. The TD rules that passing the hand out was a >logical alternative to bidding, which was suggested by the UI, so >he decides to adjust the score. To what? > >Well, the NOS gets the score for a passed out hand, which yields 6 >matchpoints, not the 9 matchpoints they would have received for >beating 2H. Why? Because they get the most favorable result that >was likely if the irregularity had not occurred, and the only such >result is the score for a passed out deal. However, the OS gets the >score for the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, >which is obviously -50 for down one in 2H. Had their score >assignment been based on the irregularity's not happening, they >would have received the better passout score. This sort of thing is >evidently what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote L12C2. > >HOWEVER, I don't believe that they intended to have the score >adjusted by varying the card play that actually occurred in a >played-out contract. If someone bids a 6NT slam on the basis of UI, >then makes 12 tricks by guessing a queen's location, the score >should be adjusted to a non-game contract, making 12 tricks, >balanced for both sides, not to a slam going down for the OS >because the queen might well have been misguessed. > >I believe this is the way NABC ACs have ruled all along (at least >when adjusting both scores), and I believe it is the right way to >rule. I agree with both Marv and Christian. In Marv's example, the TD/AC might believe a priori that 2H-1 was, theoretically, an "at all probable" result, but they are not ruling a priori; they are ruling on a result that was actually obtained. With the available hindsight, which is perfectly legitimate for them to consider, they *know* that these NOs would not allow 2H to play *because they didn't*. "At all probable" can only come into play in hypothetical situations that might have arisen in other circumstances, which means, in an adjudication of a result actually obtained as the result of an infraction, absent the infraction. And, of course, if 4th hand had passed, we know what the result would have been for sure, so "at all probable" doesn't figure into the ruling at all. Only two results are "at all probable", 2SX-1 and passed out. So the table result should be adjusted to passed out, which, as Marv says, it what we'd expect a real-life ACBL AC to do. Similarly, in Christian's example, we know that going down in slam wasn't "at all probable" for the OS, because they already bid the slam and made it. Unless the NOs can demonstrate that they might have taken more than one trick against a lower-level contract, the score should be adjusted to (presumably) game making 12 tricks. In other words, "at all probable" comes into play only when evaluating the results of alternative actions that might have been taken under other circumstances; it should not apply under circumstances whose outcome is already known. And the only "other circumstances" that the TD/AC need to consider are the circumstances that would have obtained had there been no irregularity. So while the question of whether "had the irregularity not occurred" {L12C2) applies "for the offending side" is of considerable theoretical interest to students of the English language, I don't see where it does (or should) make any difference in real-life adjudications. 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 Aug 24 23:27:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:27:33 +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 XAA22753 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:27:26 +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 JAA04874 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980824093047.006cbc34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:30:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC In-Reply-To: <35DF4BD4.B6D5FF7C@internet-zahav.net> References: <000c01bdb7b2$82cee220$872b63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:53 AM 8/23/98 +0300, Dany wrote: >David Burn wrote: >> >> John Prosbt wrote: > >..................> >. 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. > >This should be exactly the purpose of the Laws and their implementation The purpose of the Laws and their implementation should be to insure that when an irregularity occurs, everyone gets a bottom? I fear these correspondents would feel all too much at home in the ACBL. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 25 04:07:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 04:07:58 +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 EAA26060 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 04:07:50 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA24311 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808241809.LAA24311@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:08:11 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > >Marv wrote: > >> > > >As I am learning something almost daily on BLML, (e.g., "gaff" is > >spelled "gaffe" when referring to a blunder), it is not surprising > >that I learn today that no words are to be "understood" in L12C2. I > >had tried and tried to find some appeal in the casebooks where the > >language would make a difference in the decision, but could not. > >However, I realized after some thought that "had the irregularity > >not occurred" is not applicable to the OS for reasons illustrated > >in the following example case: > > > >With nobody vulnerable, fourth seat opens the bidding with a very > >light hand after second seat hesitates quite a bit before passing. > >Had the hand been passed out, the pair would have received 6 > >matchpoints out of 12. Now they get to 2H, which won't make, and > >would score 3 matchpoints for going down one except that their > >opponents back into the bidding with 2S, get doubled, and with > >reasonable play go down one, which results in 9 matchpoints for the > >offending pair. The TD rules that passing the hand out was a > >logical alternative to bidding, which was suggested by the UI, so > >he decides to adjust the score. To what? > > > >Well, the NOS gets the score for a passed out hand, which yields 6 > >matchpoints, not the 9 matchpoints they would have received for > >beating 2H. Why? Because they get the most favorable result that > >was likely if the irregularity had not occurred, and the only such > >result is the score for a passed out deal. However, the OS gets the > >score for the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, > >which is obviously -50 for down one in 2H. Had their score > >assignment been based on the irregularity's not happening, they > >would have received the better passout score. This sort of thing is > >evidently what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote L12C2. > > > >HOWEVER, I don't believe that they intended to have the score > >adjusted by varying the card play that actually occurred in a > >played-out contract. If someone bids a 6NT slam on the basis of UI, > >then makes 12 tricks by guessing a queen's location, the score > >should be adjusted to a non-game contract, making 12 tricks, > >balanced for both sides, not to a slam going down for the OS > >because the queen might well have been misguessed. > > > >I believe this is the way NABC ACs have ruled all along (at least > >when adjusting both scores), and I believe it is the right way to > >rule. > > I agree with both Marv and Christian. In Marv's example, the TD/AC might > believe a priori that 2H-1 was, theoretically, an "at all probable" result, > but they are not ruling a priori; they are ruling on a result that was > actually obtained. You are not agreeing with me, because I wrote that the OS gets a score of 2H-1. What I am saying is that if 2S doubled would have made with some logical line of defense other than the one that was successful, then the TD cannot consider that as the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. > With the available hindsight, which is perfectly > legitimate for them to consider, they *know* that these NOs would not allow > 2H to play *because they didn't*. Maybe they had a tough choice, imposed on them by the irregularity. If so, 2H-1 was "at all probable" and should be the assigned score for the OS. > "At all probable" can only come into > play in hypothetical situations that might have arisen in other > circumstances, which means, in an adjudication of a result actually > obtained as the result of an infraction, absent the infraction. But L12C2 does not say "absent the infraction" for the OS. > And, of > course, if 4th hand had passed, we know what the result would have been for > sure, so "at all probable" doesn't figure into the ruling at all. Only two > results are "at all probable", 2SX-1 and passed out. So the table result > should be adjusted to passed out, which, as Marv says, it what we'd expect > a real-life ACBL AC to do. Yes, they might make that error in assigning an OS score, but not the one of assigning a 2S doubled and making score. 2H-1 was surely the most unfavorable result that was at all probable after the infraction, so that is the proper assigned score for the OS (only). > > Similarly, in Christian's example, we know that going down in slam wasn't > "at all probable" for the OS, because they already bid the slam and made > it. Unless the NOs can demonstrate that they might have taken more than > one trick against a lower-level contract, the score should be adjusted to > (presumably) game making 12 tricks. Agreed. You don't vary the play of a deal that was actually played out unless the play was affected by the infraction (which possibly includes the level of the contract, e.g., slam vs game). > > In other words, "at all probable" comes into play only when evaluating the > results of alternative actions that might have been taken under other > circumstances; it should not apply under circumstances whose outcome is > already known. And the only "other circumstances" that the TD/AC need to > consider are the circumstances that would have obtained had there been no > irregularity. For the NOS only, if L12C2 is taken literally, as I have come to believe it should be taken. The words "at all probable" are not qualifed by any required condition. > > So while the question of whether "had the irregularity not occurred" > {L12C2) applies "for the offending side" is of considerable theoretical > interest to students of the English language, I don't see where it does (or > should) make any difference in real-life adjudications. > It would rarely make a difference. I had a hard time coming up with that example case, and can't remember ever seeing an NABC case where it would make a difference. In my example, the bidding was affected by the infraction, so it's legal to change the contract to 2H-1. The play against 2S doubled was not affected, so it would not be legal to assign a score of 2S doubled making, even if OS had a logical, but losing, alternative defense. That's the way I see it. Grattan, Ton, hurry back! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 25 05:54:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA26713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 05:54:48 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA26708 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 05:54:41 +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 QAA17044 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980824155745.006c6860@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:57:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <199808241809.LAA24311@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:08 AM 8/24/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >> I agree with both Marv and Christian. In Marv's example, the >TD/AC might >> believe a priori that 2H-1 was, theoretically, an "at all >probable" result, >> but they are not ruling a priori; they are ruling on a result >that was >> actually obtained. > >You are not agreeing with me, because I wrote that the OS gets a >score of 2H-1. What I am saying is that if 2S doubled would have >made with some logical line of defense other than the one that was >successful, then the TD cannot consider that as the most >unfavorable result that was at all probable. > >> With the available hindsight, which is perfectly >> legitimate for them to consider, they *know* that these NOs would >not allow >> 2H to play *because they didn't*. > >Maybe they had a tough choice, imposed on them by the irregularity. >If so, 2H-1 was "at all probable" and should be the assigned score >for the OS. > >> "At all probable" can only come into >> play in hypothetical situations that might have arisen in other >> circumstances, which means, in an adjudication of a result >actually >> obtained as the result of an infraction, absent the infraction. > >But L12C2 does not say "absent the infraction" for the OS. > >> And, of >> course, if 4th hand had passed, we know what the result would >have been for >> sure, so "at all probable" doesn't figure into the ruling at all. > Only two >> results are "at all probable", 2SX-1 and passed out. So the >table result >> should be adjusted to passed out, which, as Marv says, it what >we'd expect >> a real-life ACBL AC to do. > >Yes, they might make that error in assigning an OS score, but not >the one of assigning a 2S doubled and making score. 2H-1 was surely >the most unfavorable result that was at all probable after the >infraction, so that is the proper assigned score for the OS (only). >> >> Similarly, in Christian's example, we know that going down in >slam wasn't >> "at all probable" for the OS, because they already bid the slam >and made >> it. Unless the NOs can demonstrate that they might have taken >more than >> one trick against a lower-level contract, the score should be >adjusted to >> (presumably) game making 12 tricks. > >Agreed. You don't vary the play of a deal that was actually played >out unless the play was affected by the infraction (which possibly >includes the level of the contract, e.g., slam vs game). >> >> In other words, "at all probable" comes into play only when >evaluating the >> results of alternative actions that might have been taken under >other >> circumstances; it should not apply under circumstances whose >outcome is >> already known. And the only "other circumstances" that the TD/AC >need to >> consider are the circumstances that would have obtained had there >been no >> irregularity. > >For the NOS only, if L12C2 is taken literally, as I have come to >believe it should be taken. The words "at all probable" are not >qualifed by any required condition. >> >> So while the question of whether "had the irregularity not >occurred" >> {L12C2) applies "for the offending side" is of considerable >theoretical >> interest to students of the English language, I don't see where >it does (or >> should) make any difference in real-life adjudications. >> >It would rarely make a difference. I had a hard time coming up with >that example case, and can't remember ever seeing an NABC case >where it would make a difference. In my example, the bidding was >affected by the infraction, so it's legal to change the contract to >2H-1. The play against 2S doubled was not affected, so it would not >be legal to assign a score of 2S doubled making, even if OS had a >logical, but losing, alternative defense. It's just not that complicated. If "at all probable" refers to probabilities (which it certainly seems to), it all comes down to what I learned on my first day studying probability in college (on my way to a graduate degree in econometrics): Probabilities are, by definition, a priori. Once an event has actually occurred, its probability is, by definition, 1, and the probability of some alternative event occuring is 0, regardless of how unlikely the actual event was a priori. Thus neither the slam being set in Christian's example, nor the NOs allowing 2H to play in Marv's example, are "at all probable", because the slam *was* made, and the NOs *did* bid 2S. The probability that the slam, if bid, under identical circumstances to those which actually occurred, would make, is 1, and the probability that the NOs, confronted with the example auction to 2H, would bid 2S over it is 1. The alternative events (the slam being set, or 2H being allowed to play) have probability 0. Whether they are "at all probable" a priori is a red herring; once the events at the table have taken place, we are no longer adjusting a priori. 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 Aug 25 06:55:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 06:55:59 +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 GAA26945 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 06:55:53 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22078 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:53:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199808242053.PAA22078@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:53:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > It's just not that complicated. If "at all probable" refers to > probabilities (which it certainly seems to), it all comes down to what I > learned on my first day studying probability in college (on my way to a > graduate degree in econometrics): > > Probabilities are, by definition, a priori. Once an event has actually > occurred, its probability is, by definition, 1, and the probability of some > alternative event occuring is 0, regardless of how unlikely the actual > event was a priori. > > Thus neither the slam being set in Christian's example, nor the NOs > allowing 2H to play in Marv's example, are "at all probable", because the > slam *was* made, and the NOs *did* bid 2S. The probability that the slam, > if bid, under identical circumstances to those which actually occurred, > would make, is 1, and the probability that the NOs, confronted with the > example auction to 2H, would bid 2S over it is 1. The alternative events > (the slam being set, or 2H being allowed to play) have probability 0. There is a crucial distinction between what _is_ probable and what _was_ probable. > Whether they are "at all probable" a priori is a red herring; once the > events at the table have taken place, we are no longer adjusting a priori. Why on earth should we think that? If the actual events at the table define probabilities [of 1 and 0], then we cannot adjust _at all_. When we ask "what _was_ probable", then we are quite clearly asking for the probabilities as they were before the event took place. If someone at the craps table rolls double 6's and says "What was the probability of that?" he is certainly not going to take "100%, obviously, since that is what in fact happened" as an answer to his question. If I hold a borderline-opening hand and choose to open it, I may still say "It really wasn't likely that I would open that hand--I usually pass that kind". Or put it another way. You agree, apparently, that if we ask "what were the probable outcomes _had the irregularity not occurred_?" asks for the probabilities as they stood before the actual events took place, right? [Otherwise we must say "there were no probable outcomes had the irregularity not occurred, since the odds of the irregularity occurring are 100%".] So if you agree that we can find probabilities in that case, why should it be any more difficult to find them in the case where we ask "what were the probable outcomes of this hand [_sans phrase_]?". > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 25 07:36:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 07:36:05 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA27170 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 07:35:55 +1000 Received: from antares.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@antares.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.26]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA26209 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:38:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by antares.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA00497 ; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:38:26 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:38:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized information??? In-Reply-To: <01BDCDA4.A4A4DB40.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To cut down on the quoting level, this is from my first post: > Matchpoints K94 KJ63 3 KQJ64 > Board 17 Q J865 > Dealer N AT852 74 > Vul None 9652 AKJT84 > AT8 7 > AT732 Q9 Q7 9532 > > Bidding boxes were in use. The auction started 1C-2D-P by N-E-S. > > At this point, no one asked any questions, but ... > West said "That shows 5 hearts and 4 spades", > then East said "But he bid 1 club", > then NS said "Director!" > Now it's your turn to say something :-) Then Marvin French wrote: > Marv wrote; [snip] > > The auction continues, and West had better bid 4H, which East had > > better pass. If 4H gets doubled, as is likely if NS are awake, both > > East and West have to sit for the double. If the auction goes > > differently (and NS don't do anything really stupid), the TD will > > likely adjust the score to 4H doubled, down a bunch. Both EW > > comments are authorized information for NS, who can use it to their > > advantage, e.g., by doubling 4H. > > > Marv overlooks the fact that there is a 1C bid lying on the table, > which West is entitled to see, and surely would see, after (but not > before) advancing the supposed overcall of 2D. So, after West makes > the assumed bid of 4H, North would certainly not double and East > would not have a chance to correct her mistake. If North were to > double, which would be pretty dumb, West (but not East) is free to > bid 5D. That 1C bid still lying there is AI that permits a 5D bid. > Thanks to Roger Pewick for waking me up in a private e-mail! > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) I'm glad someone finally mentioned that 1C bid is AI to West. Previous replies were primarilly about what the AssAS should be. We have already discussed the situation where the same piece of info comes from two different sources, one source making it UI and the other making it AI. The clearest explanation of how this is to be handled was the following: (Can someone provide the exact quote? -- it was discussed more than a month ago.) The AI determines which calls are LAs. Then the UI restricts a player's choice from among those calls. So in this case the 1C bid is AI to W, without any conditions. It is an interesting ruling to say that the existence of the 1C bid is UI to W at her first turn to call, and AI thereafter. And it feels right, despite the dubious legality of this "temporary UI" ruling. If E did not make her improper comment, it is possible that W would see the 1C bid before she actually makes a call. We are just depriving W of this possibility, and this seems to be the right level of a penalty to apply to East's comment. However, I cannot see how the Laws justify this ruling. For the record, my ruling at the first TD call was first the short lecture I mentioned before, then a warning to E that she had UI from W's explanation, and then -- whoops! I was about to tell W that she also had UI from E's comment, when I realized that this may not be true. So I simply told the players to continue while I considered the problem. The full auction was (hands repeated for convenience) W N E S K94 KJ63 3 KQJ64 1C 2D p Q J865 p x p 2S AT852 74 3D p p x 9652 AKJT84 p 3S p p AT8 7 4D p p x AT732 Q9 Q7 9532 p p p NS -510 And my final ruling was: score stands, with a 25% PP to EW (using L90A instead of L12A1, since the EW action certainly "violates correct procedure"). I also gave them the following explanation: "I cannot rule that W is not allowed to see the 1C bid. The actual bidding itself is always legitimate information." None of the players said anything to me afterwards, so I assume everyone was satisfied with this ruling. However I am not trying to argue that it is correct, especially since all the suggestions here in BLML have been for other results. If I had thought of that "temporary UI" approach, I might have used it. This discussion has been interesting, and I expect it to continue. -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba' Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 01:48:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:48:42 +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 BAA03016 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:48:35 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA09981 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808251550.IAA09981@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #7 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 08:49:32 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Event: Life Master Pairs, 25 July, Second semi-final session Board 17 None vul. Dealer North S- K9 H- AQT754 D- C- Q5432 S- AQ74 S- JT62 H- K6 H- J D- K76 D- QJ8542 C- T976 C- J8 S- 853 H- 9832 D- AT93 C- AK West North East South (usual directions) 1C 1H Dbl 2C 2S 4H 4S Dbl (break in tempo) Pass 5H All pass The Facts: 5H made six, plus 680 for N/S. There was an agreed 30-second break in tempo before South doubled 4S. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative for North but that E/W were not damaged because the likely result in a 4S doubled contract was down three, minus 800. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. North, South and West attended the hearing. West stated that he believed that passing 4S doubled was a logical alternative for North. West also believed that the following defense was most likely and would lead to -500: heart ace lead, club to the ace, diamond ace cashed, diamond ruffed, club. When South could not overruff the third round of clubs, the position of the king would be exposed. North stated that he bid 5H because his defensive values were doubtful and he had great playing strength. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided the actual result that would occur without the break in tempo was so unclear that it was impossible to assess whether damage to E/W had actually occurred. Reasonable defense could lead to minus 800: Heart ace, club to the king, diamond ace, diamond ruff, club to the ace, diamond ruff. Imaginative defense could lead to minus 200 (underleading the heart ace to get partner in to lead diamonds). The Committee decided that E/W had not been damaged because it was most likely that the defense would lead to minus 800. Therefore, for E/W the table result was allowed to stand. N/S were assessed a procedural penalty (Law 90A) in matchpoints equal to the difference between the score for plus 680 and plus 500. Committee: Jerry Gaer (chair), Karen Allison, Phil Brady, Lou Reich, Mary Vickers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The first sentence of the AC decision is a copout. Here you see the mistaken notion that an AC must determine what would likely have happened in the absence of the infraction. That is not required by L12C2. You have an AC comprising supposedly knowledgeable players. They should be able to guesstimate the favorable/unfavorable probabilities in accordance with L12C2, taking the middle opinion if there is no agreement, and if there was damage, adjust accordingly. I won't comment on the committee's judgment about what would happen to 4S doubled, except to say that the criteria of "most favorable result that was likely" for E/W, and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for N/S should have been explicitly applied. First the AC says that "reasonable defense" *could* lead to -800. I guess "reasonable defense" means that there was not one chance in six that the penalty for 4S doubled would have been less than -800. But why the "could" in that sentence? In the next paragraph the AC says that it was "most likely" that the defense *would* lead to -800. Which is it, "reasonable-could" or "most likely-should"? If the former, then maybe a score for 4S doubled should have been assigned for both sides. What score? I don't know, perhaps -500 for E/W and +200 for N/S. The AC has to make that decision. If the "reasonable-should" is right, the AC decision looks okay. Let's assume that the "could" was meant to be "should." And then there's the PP. Evidently the AC *was* able to come up with a consensus about 4S doubled (+500), at least for N/S. So why not assign that score? The PP makes no sense. It implies that E/W were injured, but gives them no redress. Or is it in accordance with a policy of "If the Laws don't punish, we will"? L16A says that a TD may assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. There is no provision for penalizing a violation of L16A if it does not result in damage. If it's not deliberate, give a lecture or forget it. If it seems to be deliberate or habitual, write a Player Memo and turn it in to the Recorder. As the Scope of the Laws says, "The Laws are designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." PPs are not supposed to be used as a punishment for irregularities when a TD or AC decide that the Laws do not provide sufficient punishment. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 02:33:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 02:33:12 +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 CAA03429 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 02:33:06 +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 MAA02477 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00532; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:35:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:35:51 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808251635.MAA00532@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > So we'll have to accept that the WBFLC does give authoritative > interpretations. I'm back from vacation. While the above is evidently correct in a theoretical or ideal sense, in a purely practical sense the authoritative interpretation is the one adopted by the final appeals authority. The WBFLC can pronounce whatever it likes, but it cannot put its rulings into effect. (I can cite numerous analogies from real life. One our non-US readers may not have heard is a president's comment "The Supreme Court has made its ruling. Now let them enforce it." Whereupon he ignored the ruling and perpetrated one of the great evils of our history, at least if I am remembering the correct context of this quotation.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 03:33:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 03:33:18 +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 DAA03636 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 03:33:07 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-152.access.net.il [192.116.204.152]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA10093; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:34:58 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35E2F674.7AF22BFB@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:37:56 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: my proposal to the WBFLC References: <000c01bdb7b2$82cee220$872b63c3@david-burn> <3.0.1.32.19980824093047.006cbc34@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Eric I didn't understand exactly your remark bellow , but i believe you read "my most important rules" = 0 and 99 ..... I don't think anyone will get a bottom , just in order to get a bottom ,but anyone who "generated" an irregularity , which changed the ordinary way of bid and/or play will pay for it ; same way if anyone acts wild or strange/peculiar susequent to that irregularity , he can't get benefit of his action , if it fails ... Dany Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:53 AM 8/23/98 +0300, Dany wrote: > > >David Burn wrote: > >> > >> John Prosbt wrote: > > > >..................> > >. 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. > > > >This should be exactly the purpose of the Laws and their implementation > > The purpose of the Laws and their implementation should be to insure that > when an irregularity occurs, everyone gets a bottom? I fear these > correspondents would feel all too much at home in the ACBL. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 06:54:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 06:54:26 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04477 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 06:54:19 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA17944 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA00731; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:57:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:57:04 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808252057.QAA00731@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > L82C says that the defenders are "consider[ed]... as > non-offending", so by L12C2 they are entitled to "the most favorable result > that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". I am reading "the > irregularity" to mean the irregularity about which the director gave the > incorrect ruling. David seems to be reading "the irregularity" to mean the > incorrect ruling itself. This is an interesting anomaly in the Laws. I think David's reading makes more logical sense, even if it is not what the words seem to say at first glance. If EW revoke, and the TD rules wrong, we don't forgive the revoke. We just go back and assign the correct result as best we can determine it. If there is doubt about the correct result, we give the benefit of the doubt to both sides. Let's try another example. Suppose NS bid 4S, and there are exactly ten tricks on any rational line. South calls for a low trump from dummy and accidentally drops the deuce from his hand. The TD rules as fact that the deuce is accidentally dropped but (mistakenly) as law that it must be played anyway. (No doubt North could have seen its face!?) So now declarer makes only nine tricks. (There was a real case like this at the Albuquerque Olympiad several years ago. Declarer had a large bandage on his hand. I have no idea what the floor TD or the TDiC could have been thinking, and the case actually went to an AC!) On hearing the facts, the TDiC rules under L82C. Surely the correct ruling for both sides is 4S=, even though EW thereby lose a trick they "won" at the table. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 10:27:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:27:45 +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 KAA05131 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:27:38 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA09770; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:30:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 16:30:05 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L26 and 'specified suits' Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A good friend of mine, who is preparing to take the club director's test, stumped me with a series of questions relating to lead penalties after conventiaonal insufficient bids. Most of the problems stem from interpreting the phrase "related to a specific suit or suits" when the bid has multiple possible meanings. Here are the situations he proposed: What suits can West be required to lead, and what suits can he be forbidden to lead, after the following auctions: 1a. The auction begins North East 2NT 2C* *=either a diamond one-suiter, or a major two-suiter 2C is corrected to Pass, and neither East nor West makes a subsequent bid. 1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. 1c. Same auction, 2C-=lubs plus a higher-ranking suit, and 2C is corected to 3C, but NS become declaring side. 2. The auction begins South West North East 1H Pass 2H 2H* *=spades and a minor. a) East corrects to pass, and neither E nor W makes a subsequent bid. b) East corrects to spades, but NS become declaring side. c) East corrects to clubs, but NS become dclaring side. d) East corrects to notrump (bizarre but possible) but NS become declaring side. *** In each of these 7 situations we have a slightly different arrangement suits that East is known to have, or that East might possibly have. I have guesses as to what the legally correct answer is, and as towhat the answer I _want_ to be correct is; but I will wait until after I've heard a few other opinions first before sharing my own, so as to not bia the starting-point of the discussion. Gordon Bower PS - If my friend is interested enough in the laws to dream up this sort of question, and cared enough to track down the right answer to it, I think he will most likely turn out to be quite a good director. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 17:47:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA06175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:47:07 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA06170 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:46:57 +1000 Received: from christian (c027.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.27]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA23571 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:49:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:47:30 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDD0D6.8ADB5290.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:47:29 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower [SMTP:fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu] wrote: > > A good friend of mine, who is preparing to take the club director's > test, > stumped me with a series of questions relating to lead penalties > after > conventiaonal insufficient bids. Most of the problems stem from > interpreting the phrase "related to a specific suit or suits" when > the bid > has multiple possible meanings. Here are the situations he > proposed: > > What suits can West be required to lead, and what suits can he be > forbidden to lead, after the following auctions: > > 1a. The auction begins > > North East > 2NT 2C* > > *=either a diamond one-suiter, or a major two-suiter > > [...] > 2. The auction begins > > South West North East > 1H Pass 2H 2H* > > *=spades and a minor. > [...] > > In each of these 7 situations we have a slightly different > arrangement > suits that East is known to have, or that East might possibly have. > > I have guesses as to what the legally correct answer is, and as > towhat the > answer I _want_ to be correct is; but I will wait until after I've > heard a > few other opinions first before sharing my own, so as to not bia > the > starting-point of the discussion. > > Gordon Bower In my opinion 26A only applies if all suits are known (the header - though not deemed part of the code - supports that). Therefore L26B has to be used. But there is another interesting point in these cases: Do you know any partnership who has an agreement about eg. 2NT-2C? The situation that the TD "knows" about the meaning can only arise when the player states something like "Oh sorry, I thought it was 1NT". When the TD is called to the table, he should try to avoid that these comments are given. Maybe you discuss that with your friend, too. What are your tests for club directors like when your friend fears questions like this? Best regards Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 21:02:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:02:36 +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 VAA06536 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:02:30 +1000 Received: from client2579.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.25.121] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zBdNd-0008V3-00; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:04:46 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:06:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdd0e1$964d28a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with you that your friend is certainly thinking deeply about these problems and he will find that there are plenty to confuse him. Good Luck to him in his test. I'll have a go at this one. I think that the approach to this should be that where a call has been withdrawn, if that call could have been conventional, and I assume that your friend has ruled L27B2 and this is how he got to L26, then it may be in doubt to which suit/suits the call refers. If however a comment like " I thought it was 1NT" is made then we now know to which suits it refers and declarer can demand or prohibit the lead of one of those suits if neither have been subsequently mentioned(.L26A2) IMO L26B applies to both examples i.e. Declarer can forbid the lead of any one suit when the partner of the offender first achieves the lead. He can not require the lead of any particular suit. In practice, at the table I think we know what unauthorised information has been received, and know which Law to apply. ( I would not be over surprised if David, on his return from Lille writes to tell me I've got this one hopelessly wrong, but that is why your friend is asking the question. Nothing is as simple as it looks) In answer to Christian. The test for Club directors is taken after two, one day seminars. It is not a difficult test involving lots of value judgemnet rulings, but it is a test designed to ensure that Club directors can find their way around the Law book, are used to consulting with colleagues, and can make simple rulings involving interpretation of law. The examples given are typical of the simulations offered to a candidate, [insufficient (may be conventional) bid], and let's face it, these are the problems that do arise in the club very frequently. I am not privy to the thinking of the examiners, David will enlighten us, but I am pretty sure that you would not fail for getting it wrong, as long as you ruled sensibly, using the Law book to support your decision, and with authority made a ruling which allowed play to continue. Anne -----Original Message----- From: G. R. Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 1:59 AM Subject: L26 and 'specified suits' > >A good friend of mine, who is preparing to take the club director's test, >stumped me with a series of questions relating to lead penalties after >conventiaonal insufficient bids. Most of the problems stem from >interpreting the phrase "related to a specific suit or suits" when the bid >has multiple possible meanings. Here are the situations he proposed: > >What suits can West be required to lead, and what suits can he be >forbidden to lead, after the following auctions: > >1a. The auction begins > >North East >2NT 2C* > >*=either a diamond one-suiter, or a major two-suiter > >2C is corrected to Pass, and neither East nor West makes a subsequent >bid. > >1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. > >1c. Same auction, 2C-=lubs plus a higher-ranking suit, and 2C is corected >to 3C, but NS become declaring side. > >2. The auction begins > >South West North East > 1H Pass 2H 2H* > >*=spades and a minor. > >a) East corrects to pass, and neither E nor W makes a subsequent bid. > >b) East corrects to spades, but NS become declaring side. > >c) East corrects to clubs, but NS become dclaring side. > >d) East corrects to notrump (bizarre but possible) but NS become declaring >side. > >*** > >In each of these 7 situations we have a slightly different arrangement >suits that East is known to have, or that East might possibly have. > >I have guesses as to what the legally correct answer is, and as towhat the >answer I _want_ to be correct is; but I will wait until after I've heard a >few other opinions first before sharing my own, so as to not bia the >starting-point of the discussion. > >Gordon Bower > >PS - If my friend is interested enough in the laws to dream up this sort >of question, and cared enough to track down the right answer to it, I >think he will most likely turn out to be quite a good director. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 26 21:18:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:18:31 +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 VAA06583 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:18:25 +1000 Received: from client273b.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.27.59] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zBddI-0001bl-00; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:20:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:22:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdd0e3$d83a60a0$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 G. R. Bower Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 1:59AM Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In sending my previous posting I noticed that G.R.Bower posts from Alasca., and Christian from Austria. Insular as ever, I had assumed that the questions came from the UK, so my comments on the Club TD test were not relevant except to enlighten folk as to UK practice. Sorry! Anne -----Original Message----- From: G. R. Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 1:59 AM Subject: L26 and 'specified suits' From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 01:14:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 01:14:02 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09980 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 01:13:55 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA16981; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:15:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.34) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma016936; Wed Aug 26 10:15:20 1998 Received: by har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDD0E0.9F4E4340@har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:59:40 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDD0E0.9F4E4340@har-pa1-02.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Steve Willner'" Subject: RE: Interpretation of the Laws Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:27:35 -0400 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please elucidate ---------- From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 12:35 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation of the Laws > From: Jesper Dybdal > So we'll have to accept that the WBFLC does give authoritative > interpretations. I'm back from vacation. While the above is evidently correct in a theoretical or ideal sense, in a purely practical sense the authoritative interpretation is the one adopted by the final appeals authority. The WBFLC can pronounce whatever it likes, but it cannot put its rulings into effect. (I can cite numerous analogies from real life. One our non-US readers may not have heard is a president's comment "The Supreme Court has made its ruling. Now let them enforce it." Whereupon he ignored the ruling and perpetrated one of the great evils of our history, at least if I am remembering the correct context of this quotation.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 04:07:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 04:07:40 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA10890 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 04:07:28 +1000 Received: from christian (c025.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.25]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA21522 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:10:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:08:24 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDD12D.480CBDD0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: L25 with screens Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:08:23 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I was working as a TD at the European Youth Championships held in Vienna this July, the Rules and Regulations stated the following procedure for using bidding boxes and screens: ... A call is considered to have been made when a player releases it on the tray (but Law 25 may apply). The weekend after the end of the Championships I was invited to direct an international competition between the British, the Dutch, the German, and the Austrian Ladies teams. Having no better instructions available I used those from the youth competition. In the match between Great Britain and Austria the Austrian South player wanted to change her call before here screenmate bid. I explained her and her the West player L25 as it is written in the code. The Austrian player decided to change her call and to accept no score better then average minus (L25B2). After I came back I read the regulations used in Lille for that case. They say ~~~ 15.1 [...] If screens are in use [...] Any call selected and taken from the bidding box may be changed provided it has not been placed and released from the hand (but Law 73F2 may apply). 15.2 Changes to Bids Made A call placed and released may be changed if: (a) it is illegal or inadmissable (in which case the change is obligatory), if screens are in use, as soon as either screenmate is aware of this; or (b) it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected. See 16.3 for procedures when screens are in use. A call placed and transferred to the other side of the screen becomes subject to the normal provisions of the Laws. ~~~ In 16.3 you find nothing about L25. My questions to that case are: 1. Do you think that L25B1 has to be applied including that partner has to pass once? 2. Was my decision to tell the player that she cannot get more than average minus if she changes her call correct? 3. Is L25A also applicable when the call has been transferred to the other side (e.g. the players push the tray and because of an opponent's question the player recognises his error before his partner has bid)? Hoping for some good ideas Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 05:06:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 05:06:14 +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 FAA11359 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 05:06:08 +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 PAA01076 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 15:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 15:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808261908.PAA20847@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu) Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower writes: > A good friend of mine, who is preparing to take the club director's test, > stumped me with a series of questions relating to lead penalties after > conventiaonal insufficient bids. Most of the problems stem from > interpreting the phrase "related to a specific suit or suits" when the bid > has multiple possible meanings. When the 1987 Laws came out, the ACBL published a pamphlet explaining the changes for players. This was one case covered in the pamphlet. I don't have the pamphlet itself, but the principle was that a suit was considered "related" if explicitly specified, or if it could be determined from the situation. (Note that, at that time, information from the withdrawn call was authorized.) One ACBL example: LHO opened 1H, and partner bid 2H (spades and a minor), then made a late correction to 1S. Normally, there would be no lead penalty because neither minor was specified. However, if the opponents showed a huge fit in one of the minors later in the bidding, there would be a lead penalty in the other minor. Another example mentions that a takeout double is not related to any suit. (The pamphlet didn't give a specific example, but I would interpret this as saying that if RHO opens 3S, and partner doubles out of turn, opener may forbid any suit but may not require a heart lead.) Here are the situations he proposed: > What suits can West be required to lead, and what suits can he be > forbidden to lead, after the following auctions: > 1a. The auction begins > North East > 2NT 2C* > *=either a diamond one-suiter, or a major two-suiter > 2C is corrected to Pass, and neither East nor West makes a subsequent > bid. Forbid any suit. > 1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. Require or forbid clubs. > 1c. Same auction, 2C-=lubs plus a higher-ranking suit, and 2C is corected > to 3C, but NS become declaring side. No penalty if 3C is also clubs and a higher ranking suit, or if the higher-ranking suit is bid later by East, or if it doesn't become evident in the auction. If N-S find a heart fit, declarer may require or forbid spades. > 2. The auction begins > South West North East > 1H Pass 2H 2H* > *=spades and a minor. > a) East corrects to pass, and neither E nor W makes a subsequent bid. Require or forbid spades; the minor only if the N-S auction exposes it (not likely but possible). > b) East corrects to spades, but NS become declaring side. No penalty unless the N-S auction identifies the minor. > c) East corrects to clubs, but NS become dclaring side. Require or forbid spades; East's club bid removed any penalty in clubs, and East didn't show diamonds. > d) East corrects to notrump (bizarre but possible) but NS become declaring > side. Same as (a). -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 07:45:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:45:11 +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 HAA12273 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:45:04 +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 RAA16280 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:47:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02554; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:47:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:47:52 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808262147.RAA02554@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > First question : could it be that a LA is not considered a likely > outcome of a bridge hand ? Yes, the two are entirely separate. LA's (along with "suggested over another" and damage) tell you whether or not to adjust. "Likely" and "at all probable" tell you what the adjustment should be, once you have decided one is needed. > I believe the ACBL uses things like : 1 in six for a LA, 1 in three for > a likely result. The written definition for LA's is more like 1% ("some number would seriously consider"). In practice, North American AC's seem to me to be following a 5% or so rule most of the time. The definition is clearly much more stringent than the 25-30% rule followed in much of the rest of the world. As I noted elsewhere, the ACBL definition of "at all probable" is 1/6, and "likely" is 1/3. > So it seems that a certain action can be a LA, and thus lead to the > ArtAss for Os, but not a likely action, and thus not lead to the ArtAss > for NOs. Yes, except I think you mean just an AS (adjusted score). In most (all?) UI cases, it should be an AssAS (L12C2), not an ArtAS (L12C1). (ACBL practice is to use an ArtAS far too often, but we have discussed that.) > Second question : If the first question is answered YES, then is it not > logical to assume that the SA (if this is a likely action) be the basis > for the ArtAss for NOs, thus resulting in "no change" for NOs ? Adjusted scores for the NOS are based only on _legal_ actions. In most cases, that will be true for the OS as well, but there are exceptions as we have discussed. > To apply to the example : Os get 4S-1, because 4S is considered a LA and > 4H was suggested, but NOs stay at 4H, because 4S is not a likely outcome > after all ? It can happen, but it's not common. It would require a legal alternative that leads to the same final result. The case that started this thread was an example. Here's another: in a competitive auction, double, pass, and bid are LA's. There is UI suggesting double over the other options but not pass or bid over each other. The OS doubles, and doubler's partner pulls to a making contract. We adjust the score because double was illegal. However, if bid is much more likely than pass, and it leads to the same making contract, there will be no change in the result. Or if bid is only somewhat more likely than pass, we might assign a split score, changing the result only for the OS. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 07:53:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:53:37 +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 HAA12307 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:53:29 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA02753; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 13:56:07 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 13:56:07 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: <199808261908.PAA20847@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A couple of clarifications, and my own very non-authoritative views on the question. Christian asked about the director's test: the ACBL test, is, frankly, embarrassingly easy. Most of it is multiple-choice and oriented toward common mechanical problems. You matchpoint two fouled boards. There are a handful of judgment questions. You only need a 75% to pass. [I assume the test was revised after the 1997 laws came out, but I haven't seen the new version, if it exists. I can't recall any questions on the old test that would have been affected.] I also forgot to state in the problem that (somehow) the cirector had determined that the indicated meanings were intended by East and understood by West -- as, for instance, if 1NT-2C and 2NT-3C mean the same things. > > What suits can West be required to lead, and what suits can he be > > forbidden to lead, after the following auctions: > > > 1a. The auction begins > > > North East > > 2NT 2C* > > > *=either a diamond one-suiter, or a major two-suiter > > > 2C is corrected to Pass, and neither East nor West makes a subsequent > > bid. I originally liked "forbid D, H, or S" but am happy with "forbid any one suit" too. Please note, I am _not_ saying "I think the Law book says that we should forbid D, H, or S," but rather "this is what I think the proper penalty in the spirit of L26 is." See below for further commentary. > > 1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. My preference was "require or forbid clubs, or forbid D, H, or S." On reflection this seems a harsh penalty. But 2C conventional conveyed more UI than an insufficient natural 2C would have, so perhaps this is as it should be. > > 1c. Same auction, 2C-=lubs plus a higher-ranking suit, and 2C is corected > > to 3C, but NS become declaring side. Opinion: forbid D, H, or S, no penalties against clubs. Going strictly by the book I would rule forbid any one suit. I think the argument that "if 3C=clubs+higher, no penalty" is wrong -- IMO, since partner is barred, the correction is always a purely natural, though perhaps tactical, call. After all, no NCBO has ever licensed conventional corrections of insufficeint bids. :) > > 2. The auction begins > > > South West North East > > 1H Pass 2H 2H* > > > *=spades and a minor. > > > a) East corrects to pass, and neither E nor W makes a subsequent bid. Require or forbid spades, or forbid C or D, feels good. Apparently "require or forbid S" is an official ACBL interpretation. This isn't the only possible interpretation, and it may or may not be the best one, of course. > > b) East corrects to spades, but NS become declaring side. I *really* want the penalty to be 'forbid C or D', sort of a half-penalty for a half-corrected insufficient bid. Of course I don't have much in the way of explicit support from the law book for this. > > c) East corrects to clubs, but NS become dclaring side. Require or forbid spades, obviously. [And this raises the possibility of bidding 3C holding spades and diamonds, hoping for down 8 undoubled, and running to 3D if the opps whack 3C. This seems like a perfectly legal tactic, and it should be, too.] > > d) East corrects to notrump (bizarre but possible) but NS become declaring > > side. "Same as 2a" is obviously correct here. Now, if only it was obvious what the right answer to 2a was. *** As I pondered this, I came to realize that in my mind I have created a sort of 'hybrid law 26' encompassing 26A and 26B as its extreme cases. It reads something like this: "For any suit unequivocally related to the insufficient bid not named later in the auction, require or forbid that suit(s). For any suit that may be related to the insufficient bid, you may forbid that suit(s)." In the case of natural overcalls, known 2-suiters, known transfers, and such, the first sentence applies just as 26A does. In the case of NT bids, all suits 'may' be related, and we get 'forbid any suit' just as in L26B now. Disclaimer: I am _not_ claiming this is what the existing L26 says, though it might be one possible interpretation of the ambiguous cases of the existing law. I won't even go quite so far as to say "this is what I want L26 to say in the next revision." I _am_ claiming that it is a fair and practical way to handle lead penalties, and that it is free of much of the ambiguities in the current law. Comments welcome, as always. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 07:58:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:58:51 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12340 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:58:45 +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 SAA16078 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02587; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:01:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:01:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808262201.SAA02587@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unusual UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Patrick > Finally we get to the hypothetical situation: > > You overcall 3D as a transfer pre-empt. Partner alerts it and gives the > correct explanation when asked, but the auction nevertheless proceeds > pass...pass... double. > > So we now have a situation where: > > a) The information that partner has got the system right is UI > b) Both 3H and pass are possible actions if you didn't have that UI > > Should you be expected to 'ethically' bid 3H because it is the logical > alternative not suggested by the UI, or should you always be entitled to > bid as though partner has correctly remembered the system anyway? We have discussed this before but not recently, and I don't think the dilemma has been so clearly expressed. _In theory_, I believe the current laws require a 3H bid. Even the correct explanation is UI, and this UI imposes the same restrictions as UI from hesitations or improper remarks. _In practice_, I doubt the laws will be enforced in a position as clear as this one, even in North America with our strict definition of LA's. Many of us believe the laws should be changed to treat correct answers and alerts, properly given, less harshly than improper forms of UI. However, we will have to wait until at least 2007 for that to happen. The 1975 Laws contained such a distinction, but for some reason it was removed in 1987, and there was no change in 1997. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 08:00:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:00:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12354 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:00:13 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA16484 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02594; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:03:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:03:02 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808262203.SAA02594@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > If > ACBL TDs and ACs want to say that "likely" by itself means one chance > in three (and "probable" one chance in six), then I can only say that > they are using the English language in such a way as to render > themselves incomprehensible. I agree, but this is nevertheless the ACBL-LC interpretation. "Likely" means one chance in three. (I would have said one chance in two, but they didn't ask me.) "At all probable" means one in six. The effect of this is that split scores should be relatively rare in North America. When they do occur, it will usually be because "had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the NOS and not the OS, not because a result is between 1/6 and 1/3 chance. Maybe that's a desirable outcome. Of course all such probabilities are _guidelines_; nobody is expected to perform (or is capable of performing!) an accurate calculation. I doubt anybody can tell the difference between one in six and one in ten, but at least we know "at all probable" doesn't mean one in a hundred or one in a million. Likewise, the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 doesn't matter very often, but we know that "likely" is quite a lot bigger than 1/10. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 09:31:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:31:44 +1000 Received: from smtp.uky.edu (smtp.uky.edu [128.163.2.17]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12820 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:27:51 +1000 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (mmdf@t2.mscf.uky.edu [128.163.132.102]) by smtp.uky.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA11416; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa28723; 26 Aug 98 19:28 EDT Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA05181; Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:28:19 -0400 (EDT) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199808262328.TAA05181@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: ACBL exam To: "G. R. Bower" Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: from "G. R. Bower" at Aug 26, 98 01:56:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I decided to set up a side string on this one since it's not L26-oriented. Gordon Bower wrote: > Christian asked about the director's test: the ACBL test, is, frankly, > embarrassingly easy. Most of it is multiple-choice and oriented toward > common mechanical problems. You matchpoint two fouled boards. There are a > handful of judgment questions. You only need a 75% to pass. [I assume the > test was revised after the 1997 laws came out, but I haven't seen the new > version, if it exists. I can't recall any questions on the old test that > would have been affected.] I administered the exam to two individuals about three months ago. From looking at a few of the questions, I didn't note much of a change from the exam I took in early 1997. Not that the exam is that good--one or two of our directors are relying on personal experience rather than TFLB on making rulings. Ugh! Fortunately they have informed me that they will RTFLB next time. I'm beginning to wonder if writing the sentence "I will consult the law book whenever I am called to a table" 100 times would be better than the current exam for some people. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 09:58:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:58:15 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12911 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:58:07 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zBpUb-00038T-00; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:00:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:58:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: David Stevenson MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson asked me to post to rgb that he is alive and well and in Lille. His email address pro tem is bluejak666@hotmail.com. I have posted a similar message to blml ^^^^ Regards 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 Aug 27 09:58:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:58:14 +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 JAA12910 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:58:06 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zBpUa-00038S-00; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:00:45 +0000 Message-ID: <0To0mtA7+J51Ewym@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:52:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "G. R. Bower" writes snip the club director test bit (btw I have passed that one and even have a little card from ACBL to prove it. It says I'm certified :)) ) >*** > >As I pondered this, I came to realize that in my mind I have created a >sort of 'hybrid law 26' encompassing 26A and 26B as its extreme cases. It >reads something like this: "For any suit unequivocally related to the >insufficient bid not named later in the auction, require or forbid that >suit(s). For any suit that may be related to the insufficient bid, you may >forbid that suit(s)." In the case of natural overcalls, known 2-suiters, >known transfers, and such, the first sentence applies just as 26A does. In >the case of NT bids, all suits 'may' be related, and we get 'forbid any >suit' just as in L26B now. > >Disclaimer: I am _not_ claiming this is what the existing L26 says, though >it might be one possible interpretation of the ambiguous cases of the >existing law. I won't even go quite so far as to say "this is what I want >L26 to say in the next revision." I _am_ claiming that it is a fair and >practical way to handle lead penalties, and that it is free of much of the >ambiguities in the current law. Comments welcome, as always. > > >Gordon Bower > > Don't like it. If you unequivocally show a suit I can require or forbid it. (26A) If you show no suits I can forbid any one suit. IMO if you haven't SHOWN a suit then I can't require its lead, in which case the only thing I can do is forbid ANY suit (not just some of the suits) (26B) 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 Aug 27 09:58:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:58:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA12923 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:58:15 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zBpUa-0005TA-00; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:00:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:16:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Lille MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Hi John Please put a message on BLML and RGB that any emails for the next week should be sent to me at . Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -- 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 Aug 27 10:27:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:27:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12996 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:26:59 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zBpwU-0001FJ-00; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:29:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 01:28:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Insufficient bid MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not a difficult one but I thought it was interesting. N E S W 1NT P 1S Director! In this instance the bid was not accepted, but suppose it is and West passes? Axx playing 12-14 KJx xxx AJxx What should North do? IMO he can bid 2S which is the contract which he would have been in if South's bid is wto, and South can correct to 4S if he thought he was opening originally. Views? -- 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 Aug 27 11:49:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:49:55 +1000 Received: from arwen.otago.ac.nz (arwen.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA13241 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:49:34 +1000 Received: from salsa (salsa.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.112]) by arwen.otago.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA28005 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:52:02 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980827135230.009061e0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:52:30 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Michael Albert Subject: Careless or irrational (the lighter side.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer is playing 3nt and has lost four tricks. At trick 12 west, a defender is on lead in this position: -/-/2/A -/-/-/K7 32/-/-/- -/-/A7/- as west's club hits the table, declarer claims. A few seconds later (but after a perceptible pause), he remarks to north, "and you owe me a beer"** The director is bemused at being summoned to the table by dummy who is contesting a claim by his partner! Of course the question is: would the failure to unblock the dA at trick 12 be "careless" or "irrational"? [Ad hominem arguments encouraged.] ** The d7 is the "beer card". Winning trick 13 with it means declarer gets a beer from his partner (yes there are caveats, but they don't apply here.) --------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert Ph: (64)-03-479-7778 Senior Teaching Fellow Fax: (64)-03-479-8427 Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 15:58:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:58:10 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA13697 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:58:03 +1000 Received: from christian (c013.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.13]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA28073 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:00:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:58:33 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDD190.7CFD9010.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:58:32 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst [SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] wrote: > Not a difficult one but I thought it was interesting. > > N E S W > 1NT P 1S Director! > > In this instance the bid was not accepted, but suppose it is and > West > passes? > > Axx playing 12-14 > KJx > xxx > AJxx > > What should North do? IMO he can bid 2S which is the contract which > he > would have been in if South's bid is wto, and South can correct to > 4S if > he thought he was opening originally. Views? > -- I think that view to be correct. After accepting there are no further restrictions on the OS, so North is allowed to take full advantage and show his spade support. Thereafter the opening of 1NT is AI for South, so he can bid on on the information that N has a notrump opening with some spade support. The information exchanged between partners was only based on calls, so there is no infraction of L73A1. /Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 20:45:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:45:37 +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 UAA14110 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:45:31 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA07417 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:47:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 27 Aug 98 11:47 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Careless or irrational (the lighter side.) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980827135230.009061e0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> > Declarer is playing 3nt and has lost four tricks. At trick 12 west, a > defender is on lead in this position: > > -/-/2/A > -/-/-/K7 32/-/-/- > -/-/A7/- > > as west's club hits the table, declarer claims. A few seconds later (but > after a perceptible pause), he remarks to north, "and you owe me a > beer"** > > The director is bemused at being summoned to the table by dummy who is > contesting a claim by his partner! > > Of course the question is: would the failure to unblock the dA at trick > 12 > be "careless" or "irrational"? [Ad hominem arguments encouraged.] This seems fairly easy. Dummy has no right to contest a claim so I ignore L68 and make an "equity restoring" adjustment under L12 treating dummy as OS and declarer as NOS. In my judgement* there is a 20% chance of finding the unblock so North owes a beer but South does not receive it - oh dear I guess I'll just have to drink it myself. If NS appeal I will award a split score - 1/2 pint each to South/Director! * My judgement may be biased! Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 27 20:50:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:50:13 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl ([62.108.1.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA14146 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 20:50:07 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA26154 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:52:44 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980827125142.008fedf0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:51:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <199808262201.SAA02587@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:01 26-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: Patrick >> Finally we get to the hypothetical situation: >> >> You overcall 3D as a transfer pre-empt. Partner alerts it and gives the >> correct explanation when asked, but the auction nevertheless proceeds >> pass...pass... double. +++++++++ Sorry, i don't uinderstand the problem. Why cant partner pass your transfer, if he is loaded in that suit??? i think that is rather legal. Every player knows that this can happen sometine. Please explain why it is UI reagrds, anton ++++++++++++++++++ >> So we now have a situation where: >> >> a) The information that partner has got the system right is UI >> b) Both 3H and pass are possible actions if you didn't have that UI >> >> Should you be expected to 'ethically' bid 3H because it is the logical >> alternative not suggested by the UI, or should you always be entitled to >> bid as though partner has correctly remembered the system anyway? > >We have discussed this before but not recently, and I don't think the >dilemma has been so clearly expressed. _In theory_, I believe the >current laws require a 3H bid. Even the correct explanation is UI, and >this UI imposes the same restrictions as UI from hesitations or >improper remarks. _In practice_, I doubt the laws will be enforced in >a position as clear as this one, even in North America with our strict >definition of LA's. > >Many of us believe the laws should be changed to treat correct answers >and alerts, properly given, less harshly than improper forms of UI. >However, we will have to wait until at least 2007 for that to happen. >The 1975 Laws contained such a distinction, but for some reason it was >removed in 1987, and there was no change in 1997. > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 00:12:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:12:21 +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 AAA15611 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:12:04 +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 KAA02670 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:14:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03069; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:14:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:14:46 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808271414.KAA03069@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unusual UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Anton Witzen > Sorry, i don't uinderstand the problem. > Why cant partner pass your transfer, if he is loaded in that suit??? Oh, dear, is it really so unclear? Of course advancer can do whatever he wants. He has no UI. The problem is for the overcaller. He has heard advancer's correct explanation of the transfer overcall, but this is UI to him. Absent the explanation (e.g. behind screens), when advancer passes, some overcallers might believe that advancer had forgotten and might therefore correct back to their own suit. If enough overcallers would do so (or would "seriously consider" it in North America), correcting to overcaller's suit is a LA, and correcting is surely the LA not suggested by the UI. This makes correcting legally required. As I've said, I detest this result, but I don't see how the current L16A can be read any other way. My advice: if you play transfer overcalls, play them _a lot_, not just in unusual auctions. That way, there will be no question of partner forgetting, and pass will never be a LA. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 00:22:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:22:03 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f97.hotmail.com [207.82.250.216]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17019 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:21:57 +1000 Received: (qmail 16054 invoked by uid 0); 27 Aug 1998 14:24:07 -0000 Message-ID: <19980827142407.16053.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.122 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:24:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.122] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 07:24:07 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Probst wrote: >snip the club director test bit (btw I have passed that one and even >have a little card from ACBL to prove it. It says I'm certified :)) You do surprise me .... :))) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 01:35:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 01:35:25 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl ([62.108.1.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17310 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 01:35:05 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA16101 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:37:26 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980827173621.009077b0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 17:36:21 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <199808271414.KAA03069@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:14 27-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: Anton Witzen >> Sorry, i don't uinderstand the problem. >> Why cant partner pass your transfer, if he is loaded in that suit??? > >Oh, dear, is it really so unclear? Of course advancer can do whatever >he wants. He has no UI. > >The problem is for the overcaller. He has heard advancer's correct >explanation of the transfer overcall, but this is UI to him. ++ is that true??? Perhaps partners should mention on the card that a transfer bid is passable, and then all at the table know what can happen. But on the other hand, this is very logical for all but perhaps novices. Perhaps the pass should even be alerted. But i disagree that a correct explanation of the bidding is UI for partner. But perhaps you can convince me, at least it is a good question (while everybody seems to be in lille) btw i didnt see the D in the first place, but with or without a D in fourth seat i dont think the situation changes basically. regards, anton ++ Absent >the explanation (e.g. behind screens), when advancer passes, some >overcallers might believe that advancer had forgotten and might >therefore correct back to their own suit. If enough overcallers would >do so (or would "seriously consider" it in North America), correcting >to overcaller's suit is a LA, and correcting is surely the LA not >suggested by the UI. This makes correcting legally required. > >As I've said, I detest this result, but I don't see how the current >L16A can be read any other way. > >My advice: if you play transfer overcalls, play them _a lot_, not just >in unusual auctions. That way, there will be no question of partner >forgetting, and pass will never be a LA. > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 02:31:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:31:38 +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 CAA17671 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:31:28 +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 MAA10015 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA03200; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:34:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:34:14 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808271634.MAA03200@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unusual UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >The problem is for the overcaller. He has heard advancer's correct > >explanation of the transfer overcall, but this is UI to him. > From: Anton Witzen > ++ is that true??? L16A explicitly includes "reply to a question." There is no distinction as to whether the reply is a correct one or not. That is the origin of the problem. > Perhaps partners should mention on the card that a > transfer bid is passable, and then all at the table know what can happen. This doesn't help. The issue is whether, without hearing the explanation, overcaller might think advancer had forgotten. Once overcaller is certain that his transfer was understood correctly, the meaning of the pass is obvious. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 02:47:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:47:56 +1000 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17706 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:47:49 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA15157 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:45:46 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199808271645.LAA15157@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: ACBL exam To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:45:46 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I'm beginning to wonder if writing the sentence "I will consult the > law book whenever I am called to a table" 100 times would be better than > the current exam for some people. > > John > > -- > | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | > It would be better, yes. Since the exam concentrates almost exclusively on mechanical rulings [there are no judgement calls--no hesitation or UI questions, no failures to alert, etc.], telling people to read the lawbook would be just as good or better. Or, failing that, requiring that the test-taker write the Law Number and page number in the Lawbook behind every answer. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 02:57:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:57:09 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17727 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:57:01 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.57]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980827165908.FHHW21774@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:59:08 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Anton Witzen" Cc: Subject: Re: unusual UI Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:46:50 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdd1da$4a0a32e0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> 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 Anton, I think you got this one just right. I see no infraction. This is a non-discussion point for this forum, I think. Otherwise I too need this problem clarified. -----Original Message----- From: Anton Witzen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, August 27, 1998 6:27 AM Subject: Re: unusual UI >At 18:01 26-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >>> From: Patrick >>> Finally we get to the hypothetical situation: >>> >>> You overcall 3D as a transfer pre-empt. Partner alerts it and gives the >>> correct explanation when asked, but the auction nevertheless proceeds >>> pass...pass... double. >+++++++++ > >Sorry, i don't uinderstand the problem. >Why cant partner pass your transfer, if he is loaded in that suit??? >i think that is rather legal. >Every player knows that this can happen sometine. >Please explain why it is UI > >reagrds, >anton >++++++++++++++++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 02:57:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:57:21 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17733 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:57:11 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.57]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980827165919.FHJQ21774@514160629worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:59:19 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Steve Willner" Cc: Subject: Re: unusual UI Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 11:56:52 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdd1db$b06cb840$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve, this is taking a position that is looking for trouble. Anton has it just right. We all know that the alert procedure is for the benefit of the opposing side. How can that fact that partner has accurately descibed our agreement become UI? Are you trying to say that, with screens, if the tray comes back to me with a Pass by partner I am to assume that he has forgotten our agreement? No way. You are saying, I think, that if partner accurately descibes this as a transfer overcall, our agreement; then passes; I must pull. But if he wrongly describes the call as natural; and passes; I can not pull. This is not Bridge. Nor is it, I feel, what the Laws are intended to address. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, August 27, 1998 9:28 AM Subject: Re: unusual UI >> From: Anton Witzen >> Sorry, i don't uinderstand the problem. >> Why cant partner pass your transfer, if he is loaded in that suit??? > >Oh, dear, is it really so unclear? Of course advancer can do whatever >he wants. He has no UI. > >The problem is for the overcaller. He has heard advancer's correct >explanation of the transfer overcall, but this is UI to him. Absent >the explanation (e.g. behind screens), when advancer passes, some >overcallers might believe that advancer had forgotten and might >therefore correct back to their own suit. If enough overcallers would >do so (or would "seriously consider" it in North America), correcting >to overcaller's suit is a LA, and correcting is surely the LA not >suggested by the UI. This makes correcting legally required. > >As I've said, I detest this result, but I don't see how the current >L16A can be read any other way. > >My advice: if you play transfer overcalls, play them _a lot_, not just >in unusual auctions. That way, there will be no question of partner >forgetting, and pass will never be a LA. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 03:17:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:17:28 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f166.hotmail.com [207.82.251.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA17796 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:17:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 16765 invoked by uid 0); 27 Aug 1998 17:19:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19980827171926.16763.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.130.244 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:19:26 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.130.244] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Careless or irrational (the lighter side.) Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:19:26 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert says: >as west's club hits the table, declarer claims. A few seconds later >(but after a perceptible pause), he remarks to north, "and you owe >me a beer"** > >The director is bemused at being summoned to the table by dummy who >is contesting a claim by his partner! > >Of course the question is: would the failure to unblock the dA at >trick 12 be "careless" or "irrational"? [Ad hominem arguments >encouraged.] > Well, I can't say for ad hominem, but how about "house rule" arguments (since the beer card is, unfortunately, not yet in the FLB)? Up here in Waterloo, at least, the rule is that the D7 has to be *played* (which means going to T13), or claimed as part of the statement (usually either as "H, ruff S, C, D, , Beer!" or dump cards, "BEER ME!"). So up here, we'd say no (unless it's a newbie or "first beer of term" or some other heartstring argument). Of course (as we're speaking of rules not written down), I'd just assign each of them a penalty card "Talking",and when they called a PofO, argued it out rationally :-) (the other) Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 03:22:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:22:33 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA17816 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:22:23 +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 NAA24122 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:25:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808271725.NAA29988@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (john@probst.demon.co.uk) Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MadDog writes: > Not a difficult one but I thought it was interesting. > N E S W > 1NT P 1S Director! > In this instance the bid was not accepted, but suppose it is and West > passes? There is no UI here, so North can do what he wants, although N-S cannot have any conventional agreements here. > Axx playing 12-14 > KJx > xxx > AJxx > What should North do? IMO he can bid 2S which is the contract which he > would have been in if South's bid is wto, and South can correct to 4S if > he thought he was opening originally. I agree with this. To rule otherwise would allow West to create a trap; had he demanded a correction, South could have bid 2S if that was what he intended, or 4S barring North if he had a strong hand. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 03:37:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:37:05 +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 DAA17854 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:36:48 +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 NAA11531 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03291; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:39:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 13:39:32 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808271739.NAA03291@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unusual UI X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Richard F Beye" > We all know that the alert procedure is for the benefit of the > opposing side. Good grief, why is this so complicated? There was no substantial disagreement last time we discussed the question on BLML. > How can that fact that partner has accurately descibed our > agreement become UI? Because L16A says a "reply to a question" is UI. > Are you trying to say that, with screens, if the tray comes back to me with > a Pass by partner I am to assume that he has forgotten our agreement? No > way. With screens, there is no UI, so you can do whatever you want. Now suppose you use transfer overcalls only in rare auctions. You are playing with screens, the rare auction comes up, you use your transfer overcall, and the tray comes back with partner passing. Won't it at least cross your mind that maybe partner has forgotten? > You are saying, I think, that if partner accurately descibes this as a > transfer overcall, our agreement; then passes; I must pull. Only if, considering the circumstances and the regulations of your SO, pulling is a LA. Pull will probably not be a LA if your transfer overcalls come up three times a session, but it may well be one if they come up three times a year. That is especially likely here in North America with our strict definition of LA. As I hope I've made clear, I dislike this effect of the current laws, and I believe they ought to be changed. I also believe they will, in practice, seldom if ever be enforced in this manner. > But if he > wrongly describes the call as natural; and passes; I can not pull. This would seem a straightforward application of L16A unless (very unlikely) passing is not a LA. I would expect this to be enforced by any competent TD. This will be my last message on this subject unless someone raises a genuinely new point. If my previous messages haven't been clear, there's no reason to believe future ones will be any better. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 06:45:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 06:45:22 +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 GAA18873 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 06:45:15 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA04742; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:47:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma004476; Thu Aug 27 15:45:13 1998 Received: by har-pa1-11.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDD1D9.EC8528A0@har-pa1-11.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:44:14 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDD1D9.EC8528A0@har-pa1-11.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Steve Willner'" Subject: RE: unusual UI Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 16:37:31 -0400 Encoding: 28 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] > From: "Richard F Beye" > You are saying, I think, that if partner accurately descibes this as a > transfer overcall, our agreement; then passes; I must pull. Only if, considering the circumstances and the regulations of your SO, pulling is a LA. Pull will probably not be a LA if your transfer overcalls come up three times a session, but it may well be one if they come up three times a year. That is especially likely here in North America with our strict definition of LA. ####This is an absurdity. I have AI that our partnership agreement is so. The UI only tells me what I already know legitimately. To be forced to act as though partner has forgotten our agreement is foolish.#### As I hope I've made clear, I dislike this effect of the current laws, and I believe they ought to be changed. I also believe they will, in practice, seldom if ever be enforced in this manner ####At least we agree we dislike this. :-) If the current laws really say this (and I have some doubt that they do) they should indeed be changed. That they aren't being and won't be enforced like this, however, may mean that the vast majority of people interpet them to not have this meaning.#### Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 07:35:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 07:35:54 +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 HAA19098 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 07:35:48 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24591; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808272137.OAA24591@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:36:24 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: Herman De Wael wrote: > > > To apply to the example : Os get 4S-1, because 4S is considered a LA and > > 4H was suggested, but NOs stay at 4H, because 4S is not a likely outcome > > after all ? > > It can happen, but it's not common. It would require a legal > alternative that leads to the same final result. The case that started > this thread was an example. Don't understand this. 4H and 4S-1 aren't the "same final result." As I remember the illegal action in this case was not the hesitation, but the failure to bid the LA of 4S. In the absence of that infraction, the resultant assigned score for both sides is 4S-1. No matter how unlikely the 4S contract is (but remember, it has to be "logical"), the NOs get that result because it is the *only* result absent the infraction. Then you do have the "same final result," which is the usual outcome for such cases. > Here's another: in a competitive auction, > double, pass, and bid are LA's. There is UI suggesting double over the > other options but not pass or bid over each other. The OS doubles, and > doubler's partner pulls to a making contract. One partner's UI suggests double, and then the same partner pulls the double? Sounds like a contradiction, but okay. Maybe he was stricken by conscience. >We adjust the score because double was illegal. But only if the NOs were damaged by the double, which is obviously not so if the double was cancelled by another bid. I could dream up some situation where there was consequential damage (UI from the double, or from the pull?) but I don't think that's what Steve means. (The remainder, dealing with possible assigned scores, is snipped because it appears there was no cause for adjustment) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 07:39:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 07:39:53 +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 HAA19113 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 07:39:48 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA25104 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808272141.OAA25104@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 14:39:23 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, 28 July, 1st qualifying Vulnerability: none Dealer: East S- J843 H- Q92 D- T532 C- AT S- AQ62 S- KT5 H- KT5 H- AJ643 D- AK4 D- QJ C- 972 C- 843 S- 97 H- 87 D- 9876 C- KQJ65 West North East South (usual directions) - - P P 1C P 1H P 1NT P 2C P 2NT P 3NT All pass The Facts: 3NT made five, plus 460 for E/W. The E/W agreement was that 2NT showed both three hearts and four spades. West's 2NT bid was explained (upon request during the auction) as denying three hearts and denying four spades. The Director ruled that N/S's poor result was a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the table result to stand. (MLF: How's that? This must be a mistake in the write-up, or in the transcription of it. Surely the TD ruled "not a consequence," odd as that may seem.) The Director assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty against E/W for failing to notify the opponents that the explanation of the 2NT bid was believed to be erroneous (Law 75D2). (MLF: Funny, when I call the TD about MI, and s/he decides no harm was done, no PP is issued and the TD just walks away. If this is a new policy, that every MI deemed harmless is to result in a PP, I'm going to start insisting on one being assessed in the future. Can I appeal if the TD refuses?) The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North, South, and East attended the hearing. On the lead of the spade 3, West won the 10 in dummy and led a heart to the 10, losing to the queen. North then decided that since declarer was going to make 3NT, it was right to defend passively, continuing spades. North contended that with the correct information he would have led a diamond at trick one to which South would have contributed the discouraging 9 (upside down signals) and he could then have played the club ace and 10 after he won the heart queen to defeat the contract two tricks. E/W admitted that there was misinformation and that they accepted the procedural penalty. They thought, though, that North's stated defense was unlikely. The Committee Decision: It was the opinion of the Committee that the misinformation affected the opening lead and that North would have led a diamond if he had been given the correct information. On the diamond lead, it was very likely that West would have won in dummy and finessed South for the heart queen. When North won that, it was very unlikely that North would continue with the club ace and 10. A passive defense attempting to give nothing away was far more likely. Even though North would have a complete count on the hand, cashing the club ace is too fraught with danger to be a likely defense or even a probable one. (MLF: At first one might think the phrasing is reversed in this sentence, and it should be "a probable defense or even a likely one." However, in the strange dictionary of the ACBL ACs, "likely" means one chance in three and "probable" one chance in six. For the uninitiated, the intended meaning is (per L12C2): ....cashing the club ace is too fraught with danger to be the most favorable result that was likely for North-South, or the most unfavorable result that was even at all probable for East-West.) Although on the play of eight red tricks North would come under some pressure, the Committee thought it likely that N/S would defend well enough to win three tricks. The contract was changed to 3NT made four, plus 430 for E/W (Law 12C2). (MLF: Remember, "likely" means one chance in three!) Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Lowell Andrews, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Ellen Siebert (MLF: Why must the names of TDs be kept a secret? I doubt that this was a joint TD ruling!) As to the AC's decision, I don't think it's appropriate to express an opinion. Five experienced players studied the deal and arrived at that decision. If it was based on my understanding of their use of "likely" and "probable," okay. If not, hmmm. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 08:03:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:03:33 +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 IAA19188 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:03:28 +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 SAA21193 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 18:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03525; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 18:06:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 18:06:20 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808272206.SAA03525@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Here's another: in a competitive auction, > > double, pass, and bid are LA's. There is UI suggesting double > over the > > other options but not pass or bid over each other. The OS > doubles, and > > doubler's partner pulls to a making contract. > From: "Marvin L. French" > One partner's UI suggests double, and then the same partner pulls > the double? Sounds like a contradiction, but okay It's a pretty common situation, actually. Somebody thinks a long time over RHO's bid and finally and passes. His partner cannot tell whether he was thinking of a penalty double or of bidding on, so makes an illegal double of his own, saying "go ahead with whatever you were thinking of." Then the thinker bids, which is what he had in mind in the first place. (Of course some of the time bid or pass will be suggested over the other, so there is only one legal alternative in the passout seat, but it's not always so.) > >We adjust the score because double was illegal. > > But only if the NOs were damaged by the double, which is obviously > not so if the double was cancelled by another bid. No. If the illegal doubler had passed, the other side would have bought the contract. (If their contract goes down a lot, there is no damage, but grant me a little license here, OK?) So there is at least potential diamage, and we now bring in L12C2. The interesting point is that in rare cases the adjusted score may be the same as the table result for one or both sides. I won't repeat the argument. Here again, I thought the point was quite simple. Perhaps I condensed the argument too much, but there's no deep insight needed. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 08:27:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:27:53 +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 IAA19230 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:27:46 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA01484; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808272229.PAA01484@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:28:49 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > If > > ACBL TDs and ACs want to say that "likely" by itself means one chance > > in three (and "probable" one chance in six), then I can only say that > > they are using the English language in such a way as to render > > themselves incomprehensible. > > I agree, but this is nevertheless the ACBL-LC interpretation. "Likely" > means one chance in three. (I would have said one chance in two, but > they didn't ask me.) "At all probable" means one in six. I don't think this is the ACBL-LC interpretation at all. The LC defined "most favorable result that was likely" as one chance in three or better; they did not define "likely" as one chance in three. Big difference. They also defined "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" as one chance in six or better, they did not define "probable" as one chance in six. However, some NABC ACs employ "likely" and "probable" as illogical shorthand for the phrases used in L12C2, which is very confusing. See my BLML comments on Chicago Appeals Case #8. This has resulted in many TDs' and ACs' having the opinion that a result has to be "likely" or "probable" in order to be considered. That's just the opposite of the real meaning, which says that some unlikely (only one chance in three) or very improbable (only one chance in six) results rate consideration. > The effect > of this is that split scores should be relatively rare in North > America. When they do occur, it will usually be because "had the > irregularity not occurred" applies to the NOS and not the OS, not > because a result is between 1/6 and 1/3 chance. Maybe that's a > desirable outcome. They should not be more rare in NA, as the guidelines are reasonable for all jurisdictions. There should be a path of communication that permits the ACBL LC to ask the WBF LC to establish any needed guidelines for interpreting the Laws, since the WBF LC is solely responsible for interpreting the Laws. That would help to reduce undesirable regional differences in applying the Laws. > Of course all such probabilities are _guidelines_; nobody is expected > to perform (or is capable of performing!) an accurate calculation. I > doubt anybody can tell the difference between one in six and one in > ten, but at least we know "at all probable" doesn't mean one in a > hundred or one in a million. Likewise, the difference between 1/3 and > 1/2 doesn't matter very often, but we know that "likely" is quite a lot > bigger than 1/10. Fully agreed. Although we can nitpick the fractions given as guidelines, they do give some needed guidance for applying L12C2. I keep hearing TDs and ACs saying that they could not tell what result would be likely or probable in the absence of an infraction, so they dish out avg+/avg-. Not only are they misinterpreting L12C2 and the guidelines for L12C2, but they are implying that a solvable problem is unsolvable. It ain't that hard! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 08:30:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:30:50 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl ([62.108.1.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA19251 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:30:41 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA11552 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:33:17 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980828003212.008fcc40@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:32:12 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: <199808271739.NAA03291@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:39 27-08-98 -0400, you wrote: >> From: "Richard F Beye" >> We all know that the alert procedure is for the benefit of the >> opposing side. > >Good grief, why is this so complicated? There was no substantial >disagreement last time we discussed the question on BLML. > >> How can that fact that partner has accurately descibed our >> agreement become UI? > >Because L16A says a "reply to a question" is UI. ++++++ OK, last time then. Please read law 16A careful. It doesnt say what you state in your mail. and it is too long to type it over, but please reread the statement and then i hope the matter will clear up to you it concerns only with matter that comes up when a player gives extr. info ... by a question .... this sentence really has nothing to do with your question at all. Now you make at least clear what your problem is, i hope that if you read the law out loudly you will come to the same conclusion as we came. regards, anton ++++++++++++ > >> Are you trying to say that, with screens, if the tray comes back to me with >> a Pass by partner I am to assume that he has forgotten our agreement? No >> way. > >With screens, there is no UI, so you can do whatever you want. > >Now suppose you use transfer overcalls only in rare auctions. You are >playing with screens, the rare auction comes up, you use your transfer >overcall, and the tray comes back with partner passing. Won't it at >least cross your mind that maybe partner has forgotten? > >> You are saying, I think, that if partner accurately descibes this as a >> transfer overcall, our agreement; then passes; I must pull. > >Only if, considering the circumstances and the regulations of your SO, >pulling is a LA. Pull will probably not be a LA if your transfer >overcalls come up three times a session, but it may well be one if they >come up three times a year. That is especially likely here in North >America with our strict definition of LA. > >As I hope I've made clear, I dislike this effect of the current laws, >and I believe they ought to be changed. I also believe they will, in >practice, seldom if ever be enforced in this manner. > >> But if he >> wrongly describes the call as natural; and passes; I can not pull. > >This would seem a straightforward application of L16A unless (very >unlikely) passing is not a LA. I would expect this to be enforced >by any competent TD. > >This will be my last message on this subject unless someone raises >a genuinely new point. If my previous messages haven't been clear, >there's no reason to believe future ones will be any better. > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 09:17:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:17:51 +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 JAA19344 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:17:44 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zCBL6-0004R9-00; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:20:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:17:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Careless or irrational (the lighter side.) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980827135230.009061e0@emmy.otago.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19980827135230.009061e0@emmy.otago.ac.nz>, Michael Albert writes >Declarer is playing 3nt and has lost four tricks. At trick 12 west, a >defender is on lead in this position: > > -/-/2/A >-/-/-/K7 32/-/-/- > -/-/A7/- > >as west's club hits the table, declarer claims. A few seconds later (but >after a perceptible pause), he remarks to north, "and you owe me a beer"** > At Brighton I claimed a beer after claiming at Trick 3, but as part of the claim did state, "taking care to discard the SA on D7 at Trick 13 provided D's aren't 5-0" (which they weren't). The oppo, who knew the rules told pard to go to the bar and get them beers too for the earliest beer claim they'd ever seen. In the case in point I'd rule careless and deny the beer. (and fine the claimer a beer for a frivolous Director call - he knows he didn't claim it or he'd have played the hand out) -- 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 Aug 28 10:52:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:52:16 +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 KAA19519 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:52:12 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA02880 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:54:57 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980828105405.0092dc10@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:54:06 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: A BLML Directors test ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought I'd float: How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What about free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps have an offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still quite free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more than that) You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit for each question and/or the whole test. At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The technological side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so why not apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, and all are Net aware.... Comments ? 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 Fri Aug 28 12:25:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:25:36 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl ([62.108.1.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA19734 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:25:30 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA12857 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:28:07 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980828042702.008e0440@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:27:02 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980828105405.0092dc10@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:54 28-08-98 +1000, you wrote: > >Hi All > >Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought >I'd float: > >How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > >Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. > >Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a >description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What about >free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps have an >offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still quite >free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more than that) > >You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit for >each question and/or the whole test. > >At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The technological >side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any >show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > >Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so why not >apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, and >all are Net aware.... > >Comments ? > >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 > i LOVE the idea. I am here busy setting up trainging for our TD's in the district and would love to get more practising material. I wuld also like the discussions afterwards when we put in our results. Perhaps we can make it a world exam, like the fifth friday world tournament. it just means bridge on the internet is wholeheartedly involved in the community. thanks for the idea. anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 14:57:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA20002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:57:08 +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 OAA19997 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:57:03 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21142; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 21:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808280459.VAA21142@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L12C2 interpretation Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 21:57:19 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve (the inscrutable) wrote: > > > > Here's another: in a competitive auction, > > > double, pass, and bid are LA's. There is UI suggesting double > > > over the > > > other options but not pass or bid over each other. The OS > > > doubles, and > > > doubler's partner pulls to a making contract. > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > One partner's UI suggests double, and then the same partner pulls > > the double? Sounds like a contradiction, but okay. > > It's a pretty common situation, actually. Somebody thinks a long time > over RHO's bid and finally and passes. His partner cannot tell whether > he was thinking of a penalty double or of bidding on, so makes an > illegal double of his own, saying "go ahead with whatever you were > thinking of." Then the thinker bids, which is what he had in mind in > the first place. (Of course some of the time bid or pass will be > suggested over the other, so there is only one legal alternative in the > passout seat, but it's not always so.) We dullards think of "pulling" a double as taking out a penalty double, not as responding to a double that is a request to "do something." In the latter case, everything following the double is tainted by it, and is part of the infraction. On the other hand, pulling an illegal double that was meant for penalty erases the infraction, no harm done. You should have said the double was conventional. > > > >We adjust the score because double was illegal. > > > > But only if the NOs were damaged by the double, which is obviously > > not so if the double was cancelled by another bid. > > No. If the illegal doubler had passed, the other side would have > bought the contract. (If their contract goes down a lot, there is no > damage, but grant me a little license here, OK?) No license, you have to make such things clear to us dullards. So you are saying that the opponents could have made their undoubled contract or, if not, the penalty would have been a good score for them. And if the doubler bids instead of doubling, he possibly ends up with a better score than he would have obtained by passing (else no damage)? We have to know these facts! Okay, then it's simple. The NOS gets the most favorable result that was likely absent the infraction, which was an illegal double. That result could have come via a pass or a bid by the offender, so you assign the most favorable result that would likely arise out of those two options. For the OS you assign the least favorable result at all probable in this auction, infraction or not. That could be the score for doubling a contract that makes, if passing the double would not have been unreasonable. Yes, the assigned scores could be identical, or they could be different, and they could both match the actual table result. What else is new? > So there is at least > potential diamage, and we now bring in L12C2. The interesting point is > that in rare cases the adjusted score may be the same as the table > result for one or both sides. Fascinating! > > Here again, I thought the point was quite simple. Perhaps I > condensed the argument too much, but there's no deep insight > needed. > Just a little mind reading for us slower folks. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 15:02:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA20017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:02:30 +1000 Received: from mail.sb.net (root@mail.sb.net [207.51.243.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA20012 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:02:24 +1000 Received: from 207.205.159.32 (pool-207-205-159-32.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.32]) by mail.sb.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA16506 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 22:05:01 -0700 Message-ID: <35E4E72C.5B76@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:58:15 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? References: <3.0.32.19980828105405.0092dc10@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Much snipped off below] Wow! What a great idea! I'd be happy to contribute questions if needed. I could see this as a very powerful tool; I suspect we'd be able to put together a much stronger test with our resources than any other organization. --JRM Markus Buchhorn wrote: > > Hi All > > Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought > I'd float: > > How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > > Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. > > Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a > description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What about From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 16:26:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:26:09 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA20187 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:26:01 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA02477 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808280628.XAA02477@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: unusual UI Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:26:41 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > ++++++ > OK, last time then. Please read law 16A careful. It doesnt say what you > state in your mail. > and it is too long to type it over, but please reread the statement and > then i hope the matter will clear up to you > it concerns only with matter that comes up when a player gives extr. info > ... by a question .... > this sentence really has nothing to do with your question at all. > Now you make at least clear what your problem is, i hope that if you read > the law out loudly you will come to the same conclusion as we came. > regards, > anton > ++++++++++++ I'm with Anton on this one, although his reasoning may be different from mine. Start with L16:, which has some problems: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of the law." The heading for L16 is "UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION," which is not explicitly defined. We are left to assume that it consists of information from sources other than legal bids and plays, or mannerisms of opponents. We must also assume that the "legal calls and or plays" are those occurring at the table during the current deal, not something observed at another table! Everybody please note the "and or," which is usually seen in the form "and/or." This was really unnecessary, as the context makes it clear that plain "or" here would be conjunctive, not disjunctive. Also note that the lack of proper punctuation in the second sentence has it saying that legal calls or plays are "extraneous"! It should be "To base a call on other, extraneous, information..." But why the word "extraneous"? The sentence would be clear without it. My guess is that they liked its connotations (e.g., foreign, immaterial, not germane). Reading L16A carefully, it says that extraneous information that may suggest a call or play can be made available to a partner by the other's reply to a question. It also says that the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested by the extraneous information. My opinion is that accurate information provided to an opponent in accordance with regulations for such disclosure cannot in itself demonstrably suggest a call or play. Moreover, it may be "extraneous" in one sense, but not in the sense usually associated with that word. It is germane, intrinsic, an integral part, not extraneous, foreign, immaterial. However, if a player has previously taken action that indicated he was not aware of the information (i.e., he forgot a partnership agreement), then it is indeed extraneous information that might suggest a call or play. The same is true if the information provided is incorrect. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 16:37:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:37:31 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA20213 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:37:23 +1000 Received: from christian (c030.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.30]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA08615 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:39:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:37:56 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDD25F.27C6D4B0.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:37:55 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn [SMTP:markus@acsys.anu.edu.au] wrote: > Hi All > > Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I > thought > I'd float: > > How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > > Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, > anytime. > > Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a > description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What > about > free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps > have an > offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still > quite > free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more > than that) > > You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit > for > each question and/or the whole test. > > At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The > technological > side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any > show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > > Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so > why not > apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, > and > all are Net aware.... > > Comments ? > > Cheers, > Markus That is a great idea. This is a lot of help for smaller countries in the bridge community as Austria is. Thank you, Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 16:44:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:44:14 +1000 Received: from pegasus.com.au (peg.apc.org [192.131.13.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA20264 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:44:10 +1000 Received: from qb (t16.dialup.peg.apc.org [192.203.176.144]) by pegasus.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA26311; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:50:33 +1000 (GMT+1000) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:50:33 +1000 (GMT+1000) Message-Id: <199808280650.QAA26311@pegasus.com.au> X-Sender: soundconnex@pop.peg.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Markus Buchhorn From: Roger Penny & Jane Stapleton Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:54 28/08/98 +1000, you wrote: > >Hi All > >Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought >I'd float: > >How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > >Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. > I think that an international test, accepted by international and national Directors as being of an appropriate standard, would be a great idea. If successful completion of such a test could then come to be accepted by Director Accreditation bodies in the various jurisdictions as an alternative method for determining accreditation, that would be even better. This could be quite a practical proposition from the theoretical perspective but (and this is an ongoing issue for anybody involved in the training, assessment and accreditation of TDs at any level) how does one assess effectively a TD's capacity "on the floor"? In my view, this aspect of TD assessment is at least as important as assessment of a TD's theoretical knowledge and understanding. > >Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers .... > I have some difficulties with multiple choice answer assessment methods. Sure, they can test a TD's basic knowledge of the "letter" of the laws, for example, but I believe that assessment of TDs must verify what a Director will actually SAY to players when called to the table to give a ruling - because knowing the "letter" of the law is one thing but translating that into effective rulings that communicate clearly to players is something else entirely. For that reason, I believe that multiple choice should be used sparingly, if at all, and would argue for "What do you say to the players when called to the table ...?"-type questions and answers. The other issue here seems to be the fact that your suggestion presumably is only for a "Laws" assessment paper whereas the TD's role - at all levels - involves movements, scoring and management responsibilities. Would a "paper" be established to encompass those aspects of the Director's role as well? > >.... and a description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). > I agree that "model" answers would be appropriate to provide feedback to participants. I suggest, however, that there would need to be some sort of filter, presumably, to ensure that people don't access these before sitting for the assessment? I suggest that consideration could be given to the possibility of building a series of different questions on each key aspect of the Laws - revokes, OLOOT, 14/12s etc. - so that each person's assessment paper would then be different (through inserting optional questions 10, 13, 18, x, y in one paper and optional questions 2, 7, 15, z, g in another, and so on) from everyone else's to at least some extent: the principles being examined would be essentially the same, but the practical examples which TDs would be asked to rule on would be different. > >What about free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? > I assume that my response to this question is "Yes", in light of what I've written above! > >Perhaps have an offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still quite >free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more than that) > >You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit for >each question and/or the whole test. > >At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The technological >side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any >show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > >Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so why not >apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, and >all are Net aware.... > >Comments ? > An important starting point will be to try to achieve agreement on the COMPETENCIES expected of TDs at various levels, e.g. * for Club Duplicate sessions (single section, single session, with or without teams?), * multi-session events level (Club Championships and small [i.e. for which, read "manageable entry numbers"] Congresses - pairs and teams), * major Championship and Congress events with large entry numbers, then * National and International events. In other words, we should agree in advance on what TDs at various levels need to know and need to be able to demonstrate that they can do before giving any thought to developing a set of assessment questions, multiple choice or otherwise. In general, however, your idea has much to recommend it, Markus. Roger Penny, Chief TD of the Tasmanian Bridge Association, National Director (Level 1) for the Australian Bridge Federation and former President of the Australian Bridge Directors Association From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 16:45:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:45:20 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA20281 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:45:14 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA04385; Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808280647.XAA04385@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Markus Buchhorn" Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:45:35 -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 Markus Buchorn wrote: > > Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought > I'd float: > > How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > Great idea, but there should be tests for beginning, intermediate, and advanced students. Asking advanced questions immediately might discourage many of the TDs in these parts, and we wouldn't want any dropouts. There should be many tests, none of which are too long, to accommodate those with short attention spans. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 17:12:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:12:41 +1000 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA20336 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:12:36 +1000 Received: from JulieAtkinson (p56-max41.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.79.137.184]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA15642; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:15:18 +1200 Message-ID: <001501bdd253$4ed8ee00$b8894fd1@JulieAtkinson> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: , "Markus Buchhorn" Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:13:07 +1200 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: Markus Buchhorn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 1:06 PM Subject: A BLML Directors test ? > >Hi All > >Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought >I'd float: > >How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > >Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. > >Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a >description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What about >free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps have an >offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still quite >free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more than that) > >You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit for >each question and/or the whole test. > >At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The technological >side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any >show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > >Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so why not >apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, and >all are Net aware.... > >Comments ? > >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 What a wonderful idea. Trying to come up with a database of suitable questions is very difficult. The only major problems will come with different interpretations between NCBOs and differing regulations. Given there is so much mail in support, the next question is how to start? Since nearly all countries represented here have some form of exam process, perhaps the information merely needs collating and editing?? :)) I am an optimist at heart. Julie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 17:33:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:33:34 +1000 Received: from anduril.Austria.EU.net (anduril.Austria.EU.net [193.154.160.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA20382 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:33:15 +1000 Received: from christian (c015.dynamic.Vienna.AT.EU.net [193.154.192.15]) by anduril.Austria.EU.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA13624 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:35:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:33:51 +0200 Message-ID: <01BDD266.F7175300.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> From: Christian Bernscherer To: "Bridge Laws (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: unusual UI Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:33:50 +0200 Organization: parsec X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen [SMTP:a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl] wrote: > At 13:39 27-08-98 -0400, you wrote: > >> From: "Richard F Beye" > >> We all know that the alert procedure is for the benefit of the > >> opposing side. > > > >Good grief, why is this so complicated? There was no substantial > >disagreement last time we discussed the question on BLML. > > > >> How can that fact that partner has accurately descibed our > >> agreement become UI? > > > >Because L16A says a "reply to a question" is UI. > > > > > ++++++ > OK, last time then. Please read law 16A careful. It doesnt say what > you > state in your mail. > and it is too long to type it over, but please reread the statement > and > then i hope the matter will clear up to you > it concerns only with matter that comes up when a player gives extr. > info > ... by a question .... > this sentence really has nothing to do with your question at all. > Now you make at least clear what your problem is, i hope that if you > read > the law out loudly you will come to the same conclusion as we came. > regards, > anton > ++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > >> Are you trying to say that, with screens, if the tray comes back > >> to me with > >> a Pass by partner I am to assume that he has forgotten our > >> agreement? No > >> way. > > > >With screens, there is no UI, so you can do whatever you want. > > > >Now suppose you use transfer overcalls only in rare auctions. You > >are > >playing with screens, the rare auction comes up, you use your > >transfer > >overcall, and the tray comes back with partner passing. Won't it > >at > >least cross your mind that maybe partner has forgotten? > > > >> You are saying, I think, that if partner accurately descibes > >> this as a > >> transfer overcall, our agreement; then passes; I must pull. > > > >Only if, considering the circumstances and the regulations of your > >SO, > >pulling is a LA. Pull will probably not be a LA if your transfer > >overcalls come up three times a session, but it may well be one if > >they > >come up three times a year. That is especially likely here in > >North > >America with our strict definition of LA. > > > >As I hope I've made clear, I dislike this effect of the current > >laws, > >and I believe they ought to be changed. I also believe they will, > >in > >practice, seldom if ever be enforced in this manner. > > > >> But if he > >> wrongly describes the call as natural; and passes; I can not > >> pull. > > > >This would seem a straightforward application of L16A unless (very > >unlikely) passing is not a LA. I would expect this to be enforced > >by any competent TD. > > > >This will be my last message on this subject unless someone raises > >a genuinely new point. If my previous messages haven't been clear, > > > >there's no reason to believe future ones will be any better. > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) I think Anton is right. The player is forced by the Laws (L20F1) to explain his partner's call if asked for. Now he gives a correct explanation and gets penalised. If we start to decide cases in that way we will offer the players new options. Whenever one player passes partner's transfer bid ask to establish UI and then go to the TD for an adjusted score. Another point (as already stated in another reply) is that as a player you have to rely on your partner not forgetting the system. Of course alerts and explanations to an opponent's question make you feel more confident. Players are the most important participants in our game and therefore the rules should be applied in a way the players can understand. (see Laws 0 and 99). Best regards Christian +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Christian Bernscherer Vienna, Austria Mail: bernscherer@parsec.co.at From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 22:40:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 22:40:58 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA21057 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 22:40:51 +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 IAA15573 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980828084427.006cd8f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:44:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: AW: L12C2 interpretation In-Reply-To: <199808242053.PAA22078@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:53 PM 8/24/98 -0500, Grant wrote: >> It's just not that complicated. If "at all probable" refers to >> probabilities (which it certainly seems to), it all comes down to what I >> learned on my first day studying probability in college (on my way to a >> graduate degree in econometrics): >> >> Probabilities are, by definition, a priori. Once an event has actually >> occurred, its probability is, by definition, 1, and the probability of some >> alternative event occuring is 0, regardless of how unlikely the actual >> event was a priori. >> >> Thus neither the slam being set in Christian's example, nor the NOs >> allowing 2H to play in Marv's example, are "at all probable", because the >> slam *was* made, and the NOs *did* bid 2S. The probability that the slam, >> if bid, under identical circumstances to those which actually occurred, >> would make, is 1, and the probability that the NOs, confronted with the >> example auction to 2H, would bid 2S over it is 1. The alternative events >> (the slam being set, or 2H being allowed to play) have probability 0. > > There is a crucial distinction between what _is_ probable and what >_was_ probable. Exactly. But only if we're talking about events which actually took place. When the circumstances are hypothetical, such as "when the director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of the result actually obtained", they are the same. >> Whether they are "at all probable" a priori is a red herring; once the >> events at the table have taken place, we are no longer adjusting a priori. > > Why on earth should we think that? If the actual events at the >table define probabilities [of 1 and 0], then we cannot adjust _at all_. Of course we can, when we consider events that neither happened, nor could have happened but didn't, at the table, such as when we determine the outcome of a hypothetical contract that wasn't actually reached. This is what we do all the time. > When we ask "what _was_ probable", then we are quite clearly >asking for the probabilities as they were before the event took >place. If someone at the craps table rolls double 6's and says "What was >the probability of that?" he is certainly not going to take "100%, >obviously, since that is what in fact happened" as an answer to his >question. If I hold a borderline-opening hand and choose to open it, I >may still say "It really wasn't likely that I would open that hand--I >usually pass that kind". That's a semantic point; when someone asks "what was the probability of that?" we infer that he means a priori, because otherwise the answer is known. If there were no difference, you would be willing to offer the same 35 to 1 bet against his having rolled the 12 that you would have been willing to offer before he rolled. But the roll has changed the probability of your winning your bet from 35/36 to 0. > Or put it another way. You agree, apparently, that if we ask >"what were the probable outcomes _had the irregularity not occurred_?" asks >for the probabilities as they stood before the actual events took place, >right? [Otherwise we must say "there were no probable outcomes had the >irregularity not occurred, since the odds of the irregularity occurring >are 100%".] So if you agree that we can find probabilities in that case, >why should it be any more difficult to find them in the case where we ask >"what were the probable outcomes of this hand [_sans phrase_]?". Similarly, when someone asks "what were the probable outcomes had the irregularity not occurred?", we infer that he means "and the situation would have been different as a result". If we decide that an offender took an LA that was not permitted under L16A, but that any of the other LAs available would have led to the same contract, we don't (and shouldn't) adjust the result of that contract unless we believe that hypothetical circumstances (a different auction) would have affected the play. If we believe the actual play would have been the same, we don't adjust, even when the actual play would have been wildly improbable a priori. 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 Aug 28 23:03:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:03:07 +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 XAA21163 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:03:00 +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 JAA16130 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:12:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980828090638.006cc420@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:06:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #7 In-Reply-To: <199808251550.IAA09981@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:49 AM 8/25/98 -0700, mlfrench wrote: >Event: Life Master Pairs, 25 July, Second semi-final session >Board 17 >None vul. >Dealer North > > S- K9 > H- AQT754 > D- > C- Q5432 > >S- AQ74 S- JT62 >H- K6 H- J >D- K76 D- QJ8542 >C- T976 C- J8 > > S- 853 > H- 9832 > D- AT93 > C- AK > >West North East South (usual directions) > 1C 1H Dbl 2C > 2S 4H 4S Dbl (break in tempo) >Pass 5H All pass > > >The Facts: 5H made six, plus 680 for N/S. There was an agreed >30-second break in tempo before South doubled 4S. The Director >ruled that pass was a logical alternative for North but that E/W >were not damaged because the likely result in a 4S doubled contract >was down three, minus 800. The Director allowed the table result to >stand. I'm surprised it got even this far. It looks to me like South's hesitation clearly suggests that he was considering passing, but that the pass would have been forcing, and I don't see double as an LA for North opposite a forcing pass. As N-S, I'd have argued that, while pass was admittedly an LA for South, the contract would have been 5H even had South passed, so there could not have been damage. >The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. North, South and >West attended the hearing. West stated that he believed that >passing 4S doubled was a logical alternative for North. West also >believed that the following defense was most likely and would lead >to -500: heart ace lead, club to the ace, diamond ace cashed, >diamond ruffed, club. When South could not overruff the third round >of clubs, the position of the king would be exposed. > >North stated that he bid 5H because his defensive values were >doubtful and he had great playing strength. > >The Committee Decision: The Committee decided the actual result >that would occur without the break in tempo was so unclear that it >was impossible to assess whether damage to E/W had actually >occurred. Reasonable defense could lead to minus 800: Heart ace, >club to the king, diamond ace, diamond ruff, club to the ace, >diamond ruff. Imaginative defense could lead to minus 200 >(underleading the heart ace to get partner in to lead diamonds). > >The Committee decided that E/W had not been damaged because it was >most likely that the defense would lead to minus 800. Therefore, >for E/W the table result was allowed to stand. N/S were assessed a >procedural penalty (Law 90A) in matchpoints equal to the difference >between the score for plus 680 and plus 500. > >Committee: Jerry Gaer (chair), Karen Allison, Phil Brady, Lou >Reich, Mary Vickers >---------------------------------------------------------------- >The first sentence of the AC decision is a copout. Here you see >the mistaken notion that an AC must determine what would likely >have happened in the absence of the infraction. That is not >required by L12C2. You have an AC comprising supposedly >knowledgeable players. They should be able to guesstimate the >favorable/unfavorable probabilities in accordance with L12C2, >taking the middle opinion if there is no agreement, and if there >was damage, adjust accordingly. > >I won't comment on the committee's judgment about what would happen >to 4S doubled, except to say that the criteria of "most favorable >result that was likely" for E/W, and "most unfavorable result that >was at all probable" for N/S should have been explicitly applied. > >First the AC says that "reasonable defense" *could* lead to -800. I >guess "reasonable defense" means that there was not one chance in >six that the penalty for 4S doubled would have been less than -800. >But why the "could" in that sentence? > >In the next paragraph the AC says that it was "most likely" that >the defense *would* lead to -800. Which is it, "reasonable-could" >or "most likely-should"? If the former, then maybe a score for 4S >doubled should have been assigned for both sides. What score? I >don't know, perhaps -500 for E/W and +200 for N/S. The AC has to >make that decision. If the "reasonable-should" is right, the AC >decision looks okay. Agreed. Had N-S been the NOs, +800(*) would be clear. But +800 is a long way from "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" against 4SX. (*) The vulnerability seems to have changed somewhere between the board number and "The Facts". >Let's assume that the "could" was meant to be "should." > >And then there's the PP. Evidently the AC *was* able to come up >with a consensus about 4S doubled (+500), at least for N/S. So why >not assign that score? The PP makes no sense. It implies that E/W >were injured, but gives them no redress. Or is it in accordance >with a policy of "If the Laws don't punish, we will"? > >L16A says that a TD may assign an adjusted score if he considers >that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. There is no >provision for penalizing a violation of L16A if it does not result >in damage. If it's not deliberate, give a lecture or forget it. If >it seems to be deliberate or habitual, write a Player Memo and turn >it in to the Recorder. As the Scope of the Laws says, "The Laws are >designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as >redress for damage." PPs are not supposed to be used as a >punishment for irregularities when a TD or AC decide that the Laws >do not provide sufficient punishment. Agreed. There is nothing in the laws that permitted this AC to punish N-S for their infraction with a PP. Regrettably, the laws notwithstanding, the ACBL has decided that rulings like this are appropriate and is now officially encouraging them. The AC acted improperly, but the blame goes to the ACBL, not to that particular AC. 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 Aug 28 23:20:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:20:21 +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 XAA21213 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:20:14 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.146]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 3787700 ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:21:00 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980828092208.00806610@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:22:08 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980828105405.0092dc10@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Markus and All, >How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > >Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. I think this sounds like a great idea. >Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a >description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What about >free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps have an >offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still quite >free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more than that) Some comments on the format of the test. When considering the format, it is important to consider the objectives of the test and the resources to be expended in the construction of the test, grading of the test and addressing of appeals for incorrect grading. If the test is designed for self-assessment and education, none of this matters all that much, but if it's intended for certification, it has to be done carefully, and it has to be recognized that there are going to be people who, rightly or wrongly, have complaints about the format or grading of the test. [As an educator, designing, grading and responding to appeals about tests is an important part of my job.] Multiple choice: 1) It takes a lot of thought and effort to construct a multiple choice test that really tests ability to think about a problem, and it's obviously impossible to test the ability of a person to use his/her own words to deal with a problem at the table. 2) A challenging multiple choice question, especially one in which more than one answer may be correct (the format including, e.g., "a and b", "a and d", "all of the above"), is readily misinterpreted, even by people who all speak the same language. It takes experience with the question to see how others will interpret the question and tweaking of the questions to remove unintended ambiguities. 3) Once you've made it through 1 and 2, multiple choice questions are fast and easy to grade. 4) Appeals will relate not the grading, which is clearly objective, but to the construction of the test: the suitability of multiple choice (there are many people who believe they are just not good at multiple choice) and the extent to which certain questions may have been misleading. Essay: 1) It's pretty easy to write an essay question. No big problem here. The main place test-takers can be led astray is in not understanding the level of detail in which they are expected to reply. 2) Grading takes a long time and considerable skill. Someone has to read the answer and that person has to be prepared to make a subjective evaluation of the quality of the answer and convert it into a grade. That's not easy to do fairly, accurately and consistently, even if a given question is graded by the same person for every test-taker. It's nearly impossible when you have multiple graders. 3) Appeals will relate primarily to the grading, which is based primarily on subjective evaluation of the answers and is thus subject to dispute. Unless the graders are extraordinarily well-trained and conscientious, the appeals will often have merit. 4) Application of objective grading criteria to an essay exam often seriously compromises the ability of the question to test understanding and ability to construct a cogent answer, as opposed to parroting the key terms. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford CT P.S. on recent threads: Is it clear that the existence of unspecified suits in addition to a specified suit negates the applicability of 26A? I don't necessarily like the conclusion to which this draws me, but I don't think the language here is as unambiguous as it might be. Unless declarer has had less than 20 ml/kilo of beer already or both opponents have shown out of diamonds, it would be careless from the standpoint of the contract to eschew the lurker check and unblock the ace. >From the standpoint of beer, it would always be irrational to pitch the diamond seven, so we are left to weigh the relative priorities the declarer was giving to the contract and the beer. First claim establishes the priority, no beer for this declarer. Declarer should really work on his claim technique; a one-word claim of "beer" would have sufficed as a statement of his line of play. ;) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 23:23:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:23:20 +1000 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.1.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21230 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:23:13 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA20434 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:24:44 +0200 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:24:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Markus Buchhorn Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980828105405.0092dc10@acsys.anu.edu.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Markus Buchhorn wrote: > > Hi All > > Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought > I'd float: > > How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > > Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. Great idea. I know a couple of guys in the NBB TD exam committee and the next time I see one of them, I'll ask if we can use some of their problems. Problems plus answers are published in the Dutch TD newsletter after the test, so they cannot reuse them anyway. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Pager: +31.6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 28 23:45:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:45:23 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21359 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:45:16 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA17631 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:54:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980828094855.006d0bb0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:48:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! In-Reply-To: <199808252057.QAA00731@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:57 PM 8/25/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> L82C says that the defenders are "consider[ed]... as >> non-offending", so by L12C2 they are entitled to "the most favorable result >> that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". I am reading "the >> irregularity" to mean the irregularity about which the director gave the >> incorrect ruling. David seems to be reading "the irregularity" to mean the >> incorrect ruling itself. > >This is an interesting anomaly in the Laws. I think David's reading >makes more logical sense, even if it is not what the words seem to say >at first glance. If EW revoke, and the TD rules wrong, we don't >forgive the revoke. We just go back and assign the correct result as >best we can determine it. If there is doubt about the correct result, >we give the benefit of the doubt to both sides. But we are talking about correcting TD errors; obviously, we only correct for the error, not for other, correct rulings the TD might have made on the hand. If "the TD rules wrong" by ruling that E-W revoked when they didn't, then we certainly *do* forgive the (erroneously ruled) revoke. If the TD rules *correctly* that there was a revoke, then this was not an error; if he subsequently applies an incorrect penalty, then we can adjust only the penalty, because that's the only thing that was in error. >Let's try another example. Suppose NS bid 4S, and there are exactly >ten tricks on any rational line. South calls for a low trump from >dummy and accidentally drops the deuce from his hand. The TD rules as >fact that the deuce is accidentally dropped but (mistakenly) as law >that it must be played anyway. (No doubt North could have seen its >face!?) So now declarer makes only nine tricks. >(There was a real case like this at the Albuquerque Olympiad several >years ago. Declarer had a large bandage on his hand. I have no idea >what the floor TD or the TDiC could have been thinking, and the case >actually went to an AC!) > >On hearing the facts, the TDiC rules under L82C. Surely the correct >ruling for both sides is 4S=, even though EW thereby lose a trick they >"won" at the table. Perhaps I erred by using "at the table" somewhat less than literally. Yes, E-W were physically "at the table" when the ruling was made, but I'd say that they lose a trick that they won in the ruling rather than in the bidding and play, which is what I meant by my figurative use of "at the table". Steve clearly understands the distinction I was trying to get across, or he wouldn't have put "won" in quotes. I would argue (and I'm confident that Steve would agree) that had it been "at all probable" for E-W to have taken four tricks after a correct ruling, they should be awarded the score for 4S-1 even though we do *not* believe that this is what actually would have happened had the correct ruling been given. 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 Aug 29 00:09:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:09:26 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA21440 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:09:20 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA18518 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980828101259.006cce58@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:12:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L26 and 'specified suits' In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:30 PM 8/25/98 -0800, G. wrote: >A good friend of mine, who is preparing to take the club director's test, >stumped me with a series of questions relating to lead penalties after >conventiaonal insufficient bids. Most of the problems stem from >interpreting the phrase "related to a specific suit or suits" when the bid >has multiple possible meanings. Here are the situations he proposed: I'll take a shot at these, but don't mistake my guesses for knowledgable or authoritative opinions. I base my conclusions on reading "specific suit or suits" to mean "one or more specific suits or sets of alternative suits". To show what this means, I'll start with an easier case than any below. Suppose it goes 2NT-2C, and we determine that 2C was intended to show either major. Then, I believe, West can be required to either lead a major, or to not lead a major. By extension... >What suits can West be required to lead, and what suits can he be >forbidden to lead, after the following auctions: > >1a. The auction begins > >North East >2NT 2C* > >*=either a diamond one-suiter, or a major two-suiter > >2C is corrected to Pass, and neither East nor West makes a subsequent >bid. Declarer may call for a club, a diamond or a major (demand or forbid a diamond and/or a major). >1b. Same auction, but 2C=clubs plus a higher-ranking suit. Club or non-club (demand or forbid a club and/or a higher-ranking suit). >1c. Same auction, 2C-=lubs plus a higher-ranking suit, and 2C is corected >to 3C, but NS become declaring side. Club or non-club (but, technically, only by demanding or forbidding a higher-ranking suit; no real difference). >2. The auction begins > >South West North East > 1H Pass 2H 2H* > >*=spades and a minor. > >a) East corrects to pass, and neither E nor W makes a subsequent bid. Spade, heart or minor. >b) East corrects to spades, but NS become declaring side. Major or minor. >c) East corrects to clubs, but NS become dclaring side. Spade or non-spade. >d) East corrects to notrump (bizarre but possible) but NS become declaring >side. Spade, heart or minor. 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 Aug 29 00:16:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:16:39 +1000 Received: from bretweir.total.net (bretweir.total.net [205.236.175.106]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23742 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:16:33 +1000 Received: from total.net (ppp-annex-0151.que.accent.net [205.236.100.61]) by bretweir.total.net (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA19848 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <35E6BC4D.752CC808@total.net> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:18:54 -0400 From: "André Pion" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridgelist Subject: re:A BLML Directors test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe the questions could be pooled and ajusted yearly by BLML and the format left to National organizations. Format is very much linked to ways you were tought at primary and secondary schools. It is very cultural. In countries where learning by heart is prevalent, multiple choice is not a preferred format for a test. A. Pion From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 00:26:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:26:37 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23800 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:26:29 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA32688 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03968; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:29:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:29:24 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808281429.KAA03968@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From elandau@cais.com Fri Aug 28 09:48:54 1998 > I would argue (and I'm confident that Steve would agree) that had it been > "at all probable" for E-W to have taken four tricks after a correct ruling, > they should be awarded the score for 4S-1 even though we do *not* believe > that this is what actually would have happened had the correct ruling been > given. If you will change "at all probable" to "likely," then I'll agree. "Likely" (>1/3 in North America) is not quite the same as "would have happened" (>1/2), but it isn't terribly far away. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 01:00:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 01:00:13 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23941 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 00:59:59 +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 LAA20190 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980828110338.006cdce0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:03:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Assistance with a revoke please! In-Reply-To: <199808281429.KAA03968@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:29 AM 8/28/98 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From elandau@cais.com Fri Aug 28 09:48:54 1998 >> I would argue (and I'm confident that Steve would agree) that had it been >> "at all probable" for E-W to have taken four tricks after a correct ruling, >> they should be awarded the score for 4S-1 even though we do *not* believe >> that this is what actually would have happened had the correct ruling been >> given. > >If you will change "at all probable" to "likely," then I'll agree. >"Likely" (>1/3 in North America) is not quite the same as "would have >happened" (>1/2), but it isn't terribly far away. I will, and stand corrected: "likely", since E-W (as well as N-S) are NOs. 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 Aug 29 02:17:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:17:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA24389 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:17:06 +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 MAA07453; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04081; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:19:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:19:57 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808281619.MAA04081@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bills@cshore.com Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There used to be a laws test (aimed at players, not TD's) on the web pages of one of the Canadian (I think) units. A quick search doesn't find it. The test was a pretty reasonable one, although a couple of the answers were not quite perfect. In regard to Bill Segraves' very thoughtful comments, I don't think we can (easily) produce a formal test useful for certification. At least for starters, we ought to be aiming at "self-assessment and education," which is what BLML itself is for. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 02:38:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:38:12 +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 CAA24485 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:38:04 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09465 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:35:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199808281635.LAA09465@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:35:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The Director assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty > against E/W for failing to notify the opponents that the > explanation of the 2NT bid was believed to be erroneous (Law 75D2). > > (MLF: Funny, when I call the TD about MI, and s/he decides no harm > was done, no PP is issued and the TD just walks away. If this is a > new policy, that every MI deemed harmless is to result in a PP, I'm > going to start insisting on one being assessed in the future. Can I > appeal if the TD refuses?) > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > If the PP was issued not for the _MI_ but for the _failure to reveal that the explanation was mistaken before the opening lead_, then it seems reasonable [if the TD judged that this E/W were so experienced that they should have known their responsibilities]. I doubt if it will become a universal practice, of course. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 02:49:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:49:10 +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 CAA24521 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:49:04 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id RAA22128 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:51:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 28 Aug 98 17:49 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? 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: <001501bdd253$4ed8ee00$b8894fd1@JulieAtkinson> From: "Julie Atkinson" wrote: > > > >Hi All > > > >Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I > thought > >I'd float: > > > >How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > > > >Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. > > > >Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a > >description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What about > >free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps have > an > >offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still quite > >free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more > than > that) > > > >You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit > for > >each question and/or the whole test. > > > >At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The > technological > >side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any > >show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > > This depends to a great extent on what one is trying to achieve. The design parameters for a simple learning aid are very different to those for a full accreditation process. While the former would be consistent with downloading a simple app (or even an Excel spreadsheet) the latter might require facilities for: Multi-source feedback from players/supervisor in a test session Official marking of written responses Security mechanisms Ongoing administration etc I agree that the technology exists to meet this challenge (my company provides intranet based software for organisations to do just this for their own staff competency/skill assessment and development processes) but it is by no means trivial. Realistically I cannot see such an accreditation process being developed unless some ruling body is prepared to adopt the initiative and allocate a budget. (Although a usage fee could give the process the potential for commercial development the risks are probably too high without some form of official sanction ). Summary: The basic idea is excellent but don't doom it to probable failure by overcomplicating things. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 02:49:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:49:20 +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 CAA24527 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 02:49:12 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id RAA22158 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:51:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 28 Aug 98 17:49 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: unusual UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <01BDD266.F7175300.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> Christian Bernscherer wrote: > I think Anton is right. The player is forced by the Laws (L20F1) to > explain his partner's call if asked for. Now he gives a correct > explanation and gets penalised. I don't believe that either Steve or I think that this is what *should* happen, but we do think it is the way the law is currently written. The inclusion in L16 of the phrase ..a reply to question... clearly does not exclude accurate system descriptions (commonly accepted as UI whenever the bidder's hand does not match the system meaning). In this case it is UI to me that partner has not forgotten the system. A possibility I confess I would "seriously consider" if playing behind screens - although it is normally better to trust partner in such situations it is entirely possible that some people won't. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 03:16:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:16:36 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24638 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:16:23 +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 NAA24057 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 13:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980828132003.006ca358@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 13:20:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:49 PM 8/28/98 BST-1, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <01BDD266.F7175300.bernscherer@parsec.co.at> >Christian Bernscherer wrote: >> I think Anton is right. The player is forced by the Laws (L20F1) to >> explain his partner's call if asked for. Now he gives a correct >> explanation and gets penalised. > >I don't believe that either Steve or I think that this is what *should* >happen, but we do think it is the way the law is currently written. > >The inclusion in L16 of the phrase ..a reply to question... clearly does >not exclude accurate system descriptions (commonly accepted as UI >whenever the bidder's hand does not match the system meaning). In this >case it is UI to me that partner has not forgotten the system. A >possibility I confess I would "seriously consider" if playing behind >screens - although it is normally better to trust partner in such >situations it is entirely possible that some people won't. We should not make the mistake of equating "unauthorized information" with "information received from an unauthorized source". "Unauthorized information" is, by definition, "information which is not authorized". Information received from an authorized source is authorized information. When we have received identical information from both an authorized and an unauthorized source, we have received it from an authorized source, which makes it authorized information, which means that it is not unauthorized information, notwithstanding that it may have been redundantly received from an unauthorized source as well. Failing to comprehend this distinction leads to chaos. If I make an unalertable bid, and partner doesn't alert it, I have information from an unauthorized source (partner's failure to alert) that partner hasn't mistaken my bid for an alertable convention. If I have an LA available based solely on the possibility of partner's having mistakenly thought I made an alertable bid, must I take it? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 03:23:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:23:48 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24670 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:23:40 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19582; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808281725.KAA19582@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Cc: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #7 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:23:12 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > (*) The vulnerability seems to have changed somewhere between the board > number and "The Facts". > Sorry, everyone. It was Board 4, both vulnerable. I pasted the hand diagram from Case #6 and forgot to change the board number and vulnerability. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 03:47:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:47:47 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f84.hotmail.com [207.82.250.190]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA24778 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:47:40 +1000 Received: (qmail 11668 invoked by uid 0); 28 Aug 1998 17:49:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19980828174952.11667.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.97 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:49:50 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.97] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A BLML Directors test ? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:49:50 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > >Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. > >Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a >description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What >about >free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps >have an >offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still >quite >free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more >than that) > >You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit >for >each question and/or the whole test. > >At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The >technological >side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any >show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > >Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so >why not >apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, >and >all are Net aware.... > >Comments ? It is very difficult to put answers together when I do not have my own software! No wonder so many of you have trouble: I did not realise how good Turnpike is! While, Markus, your idea sounds good, and I will enthusiastically support it, my immediate reaction is that the differences in beliefs between countries are great enough that it will not work. But I would love to be proved wrong. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 03:54:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:54:10 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f231.hotmail.com [207.82.251.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA24799 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:54:05 +1000 Received: (qmail 11573 invoked by uid 0); 28 Aug 1998 17:56:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19980828175616.11572.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.97 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:56:16 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.97] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A BLML Directors test ? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:56:16 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >There used to be a laws test (aimed at players, not TD's) on the web >pages of one of the Canadian (I think) units. A quick search doesn't >find it. The test was a pretty reasonable one, although a couple of >the answers were not quite perfect. What do you mean, not quite perfect? Then why did I get them all right? Snarl! :) Go to my Bridgepage, find the link to Discussions about the Laws to Niels Wendell Pedersen's page, and there it is. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 04:09:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 04:09:11 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f17.hotmail.com [207.82.250.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA24871 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 04:09:02 +1000 Received: (qmail 25966 invoked by uid 0); 28 Aug 1998 18:11:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19980828181113.25965.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.183.129.162 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:11:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.183.129.162] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:11:12 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn [SMTP:markus@acsys.anu.edu.au] wrote: > Hi All > > Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I > thought > I'd float: > > How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > > Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, > anytime. > > Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a > description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What > about > free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps > have an > offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still > quite > free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more > than that) > > You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit > for > each question and/or the whole test. > > At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The > technological > side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any > show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > > Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so > why not > apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, > and > all are Net aware.... > > Comments ? > > Cheers, > Markus A lot of replies I've seen assume that the test will be "official" in some way - and therefore have to be a good judgement (for witnesses) of the objective worth of a TD. Though I believe that this is possible, I don't think it should be the job of BLML - nor do I think that "BLML approved" should be anything more than what it is now - proof that, in a specific case, a majority of a particular group of (admittedly very good) TDs from around the world believe X (and anyone who actually reads BLML will know that in most situations, our consensus is vague at best). Having said that - I think as a "Here's a sample test of your TD knowledge from a respected group of TDs" such a test would be an excellent idea (similar to Pavlicek's mini-tests). Noone but the director taking the exam would have to know how she did, and anyone interested enough to take the test would be interested enough to learn from it. And maybe the SOs will decide that what we think is a decent knowledge is interesting information for their own (more formal) evaluations. Also - we have a tool available to us for a "trial run" of any such test (assuming he gives permission) - Jeff Goldsmith's Bridge Movie software. The formatting is all there, the ability to give detailed explanations of results, automatic scoring. The only problem from my view is that only one question can be presented at one time - 100 questions would be a little slow. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 05:26:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 05:26:45 +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 FAA25098 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 05:26:39 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05835; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808281927.MAA05835@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grant C. Sterling" , "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:25:21 -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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com id MAA05835 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: (Commenting on my comments) > > The Director assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty > > against E/W for failing to notify the opponents that the > > explanation of the 2NT bid was believed to be erroneous (Law 75D2). > >=20 > > (MLF: Funny, when I call the TD about MI, and s/he decides no harm > > was done, no PP is issued and the TD just walks away. If this is a > > new policy, that every MI deemed harmless is to result in a PP, I'm > > going to start insisting on one being assessed in the future. Can I > > appeal if the TD refuses?) > >=20 The DIC tells me in a private e-mail that the decision was a joint one, and that the PP was assessed because MI caused damage. He assured me that the writeup's words: The Director ruled that N/S=92s poor result was a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the table result to stand" were correct. =20 > If the PP was issued not for the _MI_ but for the _failure to reveal > that the explanation was mistaken before the opening lead_, then it seems > reasonable [if the TD judged that this E/W were so experienced that they > should have known their responsibilities]. I doubt if it will become a > universal practice, of course. >=20 What's this?? The 2NT was explained as denying four spades or three hearts, and N-S perhaps "should have known their responsibilities" to find out that it *guaranteed* four spades and three hearts? You must be kidding! Anyway, the writeup (confirmed by the DIC) states that the TD decided that the poor result for N-S was a consequence of the MI. The AC agreed, but naturally ruled that L12C2 should be applied, and did so. So you think it reasonable that the MI did not harm N-S, so a PP could be imposed in lieu of L12C2? If harmless MI, harmless illegal use of UI, and harmless failures to follow Alert regs are going to be punished with PPs, then they all should be punished (obviously impossible), not just selected ones. The writeup makes no mention of the AC's action in regard to the PP. The TD used a PP to penalize the OS, but the AC correctly applied L12C2, yet evidently did not remove the PP. That's wrong, as discussed elsewhere. The DIC has now joined the BLML group, a welcome addition. If only we could get all ACBL TDs and AC members to join! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 05:35:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 05:35:42 +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 FAA25145 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 05:35:36 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06971; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808281937.MAA06971@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:35:58 -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: > While, Markus, your idea sounds good, and I will enthusiastically > support it, my immediate reaction is that the differences in beliefs > between countries are great enough that it will not work. But I would > love to be proved wrong. Maybe the idea will have the beneficial side effect of reducing the "differences in beliefs between countries," which ought not to exist if we are talking about interpretation of the Laws. In fact, the test designers should put this down as one of their goals. Regulations that supplement the Laws (but do not conflict with them) may be legitimately different, but I presume any testing would not deal with such matters. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 06:23:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:23:47 +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 GAA25319 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:23:41 +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 QAA24969; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808282026.QAA13200@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199808281927.MAA05835@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> If the PP was issued not for the _MI_ but for the _failure to reveal >> that the explanation was mistaken before the opening lead_, then it >> seems reasonable [if the TD judged that this E/W were so experienced >> that they should have known their responsibilities]. I doubt if it >> will become a universal practice, of course. > What's this?? The 2NT was explained as denying four spades or three > hearts, and N-S perhaps "should have known their responsibilities" > to find out that it *guaranteed* four spades and three hearts? You > must be kidding! The issue is that E-W should have known it was their responsibility to correct misinformation before the opening lead. For failing to do this properly, they could be given a procedural penalty. I think you are confisuing this with a situation in which there is MI but the non-offenders should have known the situation or protected themselves. > So you think it reasonable that the MI did not harm N-S, so a PP > could be imposed in lieu of L12C2? If harmless MI, harmless illegal > use of UI, and harmless failures to follow Alert regs are going to > be punished with PPs, then they all should be punished (obviously > impossible), not just selected ones. The difference here is that the infraction was not a matter of forgetting system, but of forgetting an obligation under the Laws. An experienced player should know his obligations under Law 75D2. Harmless illegal use of UI should also be penalized if the infraction is flagrant. Again, this is an obligation under Law 16. Forgetting system, incorrect alerts, and improper explanations should not normally be penalized by PP's, any more than forgetting the previous auction or the number of trumps out should be. -- 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 Aug 29 06:29:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:29:55 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA25365 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:29:50 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.199.155]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980828203200.KMLH24506@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 20:32:00 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Fw: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:30:10 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdd2c2$a705b760$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 As I have mentioned to Marvin in a private posting: he has mis-stated my posting. The committe write-up DID mis-state as earlier supposed. The poor result was NOT a consequence . . . 1)The PP was assessed for failure to disclose prior to the commencement of the defense. 2)The AC did not touch the PP 3)Unless the appeal form has changed in the last week the TDs name is on the first line of the form, top right. 4)I know of no TD who imposes PP in lieu of applying the Laws. 5)While I appreciate the several courtesies that have been extended to me, my early experience has not been a pleasant one. Mis-statements of this sort is exactly the reason that more TDs do not participate in this forum. -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: Grant C. Sterling ; Bridgelaws Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 2:38 PM Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Grant C. Sterling wrote: (Commenting on my comments) > > The Director assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty > > against E/W for failing to notify the opponents that the > > explanation of the 2NT bid was believed to be erroneous (Law 75D2). > > > > (MLF: Funny, when I call the TD about MI, and s/he decides no harm > > was done, no PP is issued and the TD just walks away. If this is a > > new policy, that every MI deemed harmless is to result in a PP, I'm > > going to start insisting on one being assessed in the future. Can I > > appeal if the TD refuses?) > > The DIC tells me in a private e-mail that the decision was a joint one, and that the PP was assessed because MI caused damage. He assured me that the writeup's words: The Director ruled that N/S’s poor result was a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the table result to stand" were correct. > If the PP was issued not for the _MI_ but for the _failure to reveal > that the explanation was mistaken before the opening lead_, then it seems > reasonable [if the TD judged that this E/W were so experienced that they > should have known their responsibilities]. I doubt if it will become a > universal practice, of course. > What's this?? The 2NT was explained as denying four spades or three hearts, and N-S perhaps "should have known their responsibilities" to find out that it *guaranteed* four spades and three hearts? You must be kidding! Anyway, the writeup (confirmed by the DIC) states that the TD decided that the poor result for N-S was a consequence of the MI. The AC agreed, but naturally ruled that L12C2 should be applied, and did so. So you think it reasonable that the MI did not harm N-S, so a PP could be imposed in lieu of L12C2? If harmless MI, harmless illegal use of UI, and harmless failures to follow Alert regs are going to be punished with PPs, then they all should be punished (obviously impossible), not just selected ones. The writeup makes no mention of the AC's action in regard to the PP. The TD used a PP to penalize the OS, but the AC correctly applied L12C2, yet evidently did not remove the PP. That's wrong, as discussed elsewhere. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 06:37:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:37:49 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA25424 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 06:37:43 +1000 Received: from 514160629worldnet.att.net ([12.66.198.200]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980828203953.KPQH24506@514160629worldnet.att.net> for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 20:39:53 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Fw: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:37:39 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdd2c3$b27e01a0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> 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: Richard F Beye To: mlfrench@writeme.com Date: Friday, August 28, 1998 10:00 AM Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 >Marvin, I was the DIC of the event. The ruling was actually discussed for >some time and was a joint decision of the staff. Would be happy to answer >any questions you have in private or through this forum. > > As a new subscriber to this forum I am still feeling my way through and >learning some of the short hand that is used. Also have no idea who most of >the contributors are, though I am guessing there are a majority of Europeans >participating. > >A couple of notes for you are inserted below. > > > >>Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, 28 July, 1st qualifying >>Vulnerability: none >>Dealer: East >> >> S- J843 >> H- Q92 >> D- T532 >> C- AT >> >>S- AQ62 S- KT5 >>H- KT5 H- AJ643 >>D- AK4 D- QJ >>C- 972 C- 843 >> >> S- 97 >> H- 87 >> D- 9876 >> C- KQJ65 >> >>West North East South (usual directions) >> - - P P >>1C P 1H P >>1NT P 2C P >>2NT P 3NT All pass >> >>The Facts: 3NT made five, plus 460 for E/W. The E/W agreement was >>that 2NT showed both three hearts and four spades. West's 2NT bid >>was explained (upon request during the auction) as denying three >>hearts and denying four spades. The Director ruled that N/S's poor >>result was a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the >>table result to stand. >> >>(MLF: How's that? This must be a mistake in the write-up, or in the >>transcription of it. Surely the TD ruled "not a consequence," odd >>as that may seem.) > > >Correct: "not a consequence" of the misinformation. Why odd? > >>The Director assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty >>against E/W for failing to notify the opponents that the >>explanation of the 2NT bid was believed to be erroneous (Law 75D2). >> >>(MLF: Funny, when I call the TD about MI, and s/he decides no harm >>was done, no PP is issued and the TD just walks away. If this is a >>new policy, that every MI deemed harmless is to result in a PP, I'm >>going to start insisting on one being assessed in the future. Can I >>appeal if the TD refuses?) > >The penalty applied: In a Nationally rated event players are expected to >know their agreements and the laws of our game. ADDITIONALLY - The penalty >was applied for the failure to disclose prior to the commencement of the >defense. Had a full explanation been given prior to the opening lead we(the >staff) could have determined what, if any, actions would have been taken by >the NO. Additionally, the NO would have had all of the information needed >to defend as they wished. > > >>The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North, South, and >>East attended the hearing. On the lead of the spade 3, West won the >>10 in dummy and led a heart to the 10, losing to the queen. North >>then decided that since declarer was going to make 3NT, it was >>right to defend passively, continuing spades. North contended that >>with the correct information he would have led a diamond at trick >>one to which South would have contributed the discouraging 9 >>(upside down signals) and he could then have played the club ace >>and 10 after he won the heart queen to defeat the contract two >>tricks. > >As is often the case with appeals, the line of play and defense changes as >the players move from the table to the AC. This is not the line offered to >me, through the floor director. This defense was actually discussed by the >staff, though I do not know if it was discussed with the defenders when the >ruling was made. It is my recollection, though not with certainty, that >North stated without a doubt that he would not have ever laid down the club >A. > > >>E/W admitted that there was misinformation and that they accepted >>the procedural penalty. They thought, though, that North's stated >>defense was unlikely. >> >>The Committee Decision: It was the opinion of the Committee that >>the misinformation affected the opening lead and that North would >>have led a diamond if he had been given the correct information. >> >>On the diamond lead, it was very likely that West would have won in >>dummy and finessed South for the heart queen. When North won that, >>it was very unlikely that North would continue with the club ace >>and 10. A passive defense attempting to give nothing away was far >>more likely. Even though North would have a complete count on the >>hand, cashing the club ace is too fraught with danger to be a >>likely defense or even a probable one. >> >>(MLF: At first one might think the phrasing is reversed in this >>sentence, and it should be "a probable defense or even a likely >>one." However, in the strange dictionary of the ACBL ACs, "likely" >>means one chance in three and "probable" one chance in six. For the >>uninitiated, the intended meaning is (per L12C2): >> >>....cashing the club ace is too fraught with danger to be the most >>favorable result that was likely for North-South, or the most >>unfavorable result that was even at all probable for East-West.) >> >>Although on the play of eight red tricks North would come under >>some pressure, the Committee thought it likely that N/S would >>defend well enough to win three tricks. The contract was changed to >>3NT made four, plus 430 for E/W (Law 12C2). > >Again, the diamond lead was not offered to the staff during discussions with >the NO.(My recollections) > >>(MLF: Remember, "likely" means one chance in three!) >> >>Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Lowell Andrews, Dick Budd, Jerry >>Gaer, Ellen Siebert >> >>(MLF: Why must the names of TDs be kept a secret? I doubt that this >>was a joint TD ruling!) > >Yep, it was. I am struggling to recall all of the discussions on this >particular ruling. If more comes to mind I will pass it on to you. > > I too agree that the TD name(s) should be included in the write-ups. >Unfortunately in the ACBL, unlike the WBF, neither the floor Director nor >the DIC of the event attends the committee hearings. While I do not >consider the appeal process adversarial, the 'exact' facts do sometimes >change as the players double-dummy the hands, discuss the auction, or >analyze possible results on their way to the AC. > > >>As to the AC's decision, I don't think it's appropriate to express >>an opinion. Five experienced players studied the deal and arrived >>at that decision. If it was based on my understanding of their use >>of "likely" and "probable," okay. If not, hmmm. > >Are you one of the moderators of this forum? Are there any ground rules >to be found, or is this a free-for-all? > >Rick Beye > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 07:08:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 07:08:29 +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 HAA25573 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 07:08:22 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA18117 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04353; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:11:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:11:21 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808282111.RAA04353@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Regulations that supplement the Laws (but do not conflict with > them) may be legitimately different, but I presume any testing > would not deal with such matters. Why not? The test taker could specify where he is, and the software would know which regulations apply. It might even be broadening to show different answers for different zones/SO's. I would not expect a large fraction of such questions, of course. Incidentally, David S. pointed out that the URL of the Canadian test is available from his bridge page. (I should have known it!) It is http://www.cbf.ca/TheLawsQuiz.html As for possible problems in the quiz: I believe the answer to Q.20 changed in 1997, and A.20 hasn't caught up. The explanation in A.18 refers to a nonexistent Laws section, but the answer to Q.18 (true/false) doesn't change. One could quibble with A.22 based on slightly imprecise question wording, but it's fine if the quiz is meant for players and not for laws-quibblers like us. Finally, answers 4 and 5 depend on ACBL regulations, not laws. The answers might be different elsewhere. Still an awfully good effort! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 08:06:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 08:06:23 +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 IAA25792 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 08:06:17 +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 SAA27094 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808282208.SAA15075@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199808282111.RAA04353@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > Incidentally, David S. pointed out that the URL of the Canadian test > is available from his bridge page. (I should have known it!) It is > http://www.cbf.ca/TheLawsQuiz.html > As for possible problems in the quiz: (Details still omitted to avoid spoiling; we may eventually send a consensus reply to the page maintainer). > I believe the answer to Q.20 changed in 1997, and A.20 hasn't caught > up. Law 7B confirms that the original answer is still correct. You may be thinking of Q.8; the relevant Law has changed, but the answer is still correct. > The explanation in A.18 refers to a nonexistent Laws section, but > the answer to Q.18 (true/false) doesn't change. I believe that section once existed; the last sentence should probably be deleted. > One could quibble with > A.22 based on slightly imprecise question wording, but it's fine if the > quiz is meant for players and not for laws-quibblers like us. Finally, > answers 4 and 5 depend on ACBL regulations, not laws. The true/false answer to Q.17 is correct, but the text of the answer is not. The second sentence, should give the penalty from Law 43B1, not Law 43B3 (neither one is cited); given this, it is probably not needed. The Law 43A1a reference at the end should apply to the first sentence, not the third. The third sentence should refer to Laws 42B3 and 43A1b. -- 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 Aug 29 09:10:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:10:57 +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 JAA26030 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:10:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA19895 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04444; Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:13:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:13:49 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199808282313.TAA04444@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk http://www.cbf.ca/TheLawsQuiz.html > From: David Grabiner > Law 7B confirms that the original answer is still correct. L7B changed in 1997 with "shall" being omitted. I think that changes the answer to Q.20. No? > You may be thinking of Q.8; the relevant Law has changed, but the answer > is still correct. I agree with this and have no problem with Q.8 or A.8. > > The explanation in A.18 refers to a nonexistent Laws section, but > > the answer to Q.18 (true/false) doesn't change. > > I believe that section once existed; the last sentence should probably > be deleted. I cannot find such a section in either the 1975 or 1987 Laws. It is certainly not under the number given, but I suppose it may be hiding elsewhere. > The true/false answer to Q.17 is correct, but the text of the answer is > not. The second sentence, should give the penalty from Law 43B1, not > Law 43B3 (neither one is cited); given this, it is probably not needed. > The Law 43A1a reference at the end should apply to the first sentence, > not the third. The third sentence should refer to Laws 42B3 and 43A1b. This is interesting; I confess I've never looked carefully at these sections before. What is correct practice if dummy is the first to call attention to a defender's irregularity and has not otherwise forfeited his rights? It looks to me as though there is a PP but otherwise the irregularity is adjudicated as usual. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 29 21:22:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:22:27 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f202.hotmail.com [207.82.251.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27117 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:22:21 +1000 Received: (qmail 28434 invoked by uid 0); 29 Aug 1998 11:24:32 -0000 Message-ID: <19980829112432.28433.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.98 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 04:24:32 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.98] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A BLML Directors test ? Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 04:24:32 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From mfrench1@san.rr.com >Maybe the idea will have the beneficial side effect of reducing the >"differences in beliefs between countries," which ought not to >exist if we are talking about interpretation of the Laws. In fact, >the test designers should put this down as one of their goals. > >Regulations that supplement the Laws (but do not conflict with >them) may be legitimately different, but I presume any testing >would not deal with such matters. That is part of the reason this test will be so difficult: you cannot get completely away from the differences. Suppose the bidding goes 1NT - 2C [Stayman] not alerted, and the opposition claim to be damaged. In England such a claim is ridiculous because *no-one* plays an unalertable 2C bid: in the ACBL you may have a case. OK, let's not worry, let us agree that there is a failure to alert [whatever the regulations] but no damage. Now what? Well, there are different situations as to whether to fine or not, but suppose we issue a PP as a fine - how much? The EBU have stated standard fines, but I do not think all other authorities have, so again this may differ. I still think this is a fair idea to produce a test basically for self-certification, but I think it is going to be quite difficult in practice, except for beginner TDs. Grattan Endicott points out that such a test might cause dismay amongst NBOs and Zonal organisations who will feel that testing TDs is their job. They are likely to be concerned because interpretations by BLML are unofficial. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 01:42:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 01:42:05 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29972 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 01:41:57 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-41-241.s241.tnt10.brd.erols.com [207.172.41.241]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA19505 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 11:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808291546.LAA19505@smtp2.erols.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: RE: A BLML Directors test ? Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 11:44:31 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <19980829112432.28433.qmail@hotmail.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 David > Stevenson > Sent: Saturday, August 29, 1998 7:25 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: A BLML Directors test ? > > [snip] > That is part of the reason this test will be so difficult: > you cannot > get completely away from the differences. > > Suppose the bidding goes 1NT - 2C [Stayman] not alerted, and the > opposition claim to be damaged. In England such a claim is > ridiculous > because *no-one* plays an unalertable 2C bid: in the ACBL you > may have a > case. OK, let's not worry, let us agree that there is a failure to > alert [whatever the regulations] but no damage. Now what? > Well, there > are different situations as to whether to fine or not, but suppose we > issue a PP as a fine - how much? The EBU have stated standard fines, > but I do not think all other authorities have, so again this > may differ. > > I still think this is a fair idea to produce a test basically for > self-certification, but I think it is going to be quite difficult in > practice, except for beginner TDs. > I have to agree here. I think that a test that we put together would be extremely valuable in measuring our own knowledge and ability to interpret bridge law and technical aspects of the game, such as scoring and movements. However, it's a big jump from there to using it as a certifying test for TDs. Regional differences in rules and interpretations are part of that. However, although a TD needs to know bridge law, it is only a part (and maybe not the most important part) of what a working TD has to be able to do. There are many intangibles in being a TD that just don't translate into a written test on the net. How well does the TD interact with others? How well does the TD perform under pressure? How well can the TD defuse a tense situation when people start getting seriously angry? How good is a TD at keeping a game moving? Particularly at the club level, a TD who can attract and keep players, even though he may be weak in bridge law, is far more valuable than a law expert that drives players away (which may be a reason that some Flight A types don't like to play in club games, but it's economic reality). I don't think academic knowledge, which is all that we would be able to test on the net, is sufficient for certification of anyone as a TD. It can be part of certification, but IMO any certification process must involve apprenticeship and evaluation of performance in real life situations at the table. All that being said, I *like* the idea of a BLML laws test, and think that in time it could become part of a certification process if regional differences could be worked out (not just in rules and interpretation, but in politics). But I don't think that any academic test should be sufficient to certify a TD, as the real test is how that TD performs with live players in a game situation. [snip] Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 02:45:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 02:45:13 +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 CAA00452 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 02:45:07 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA05589; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808291647.JAA05589@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Richard F Beye" , Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:44:58 -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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com id JAA05589 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Beye, DIC, wrote: >=20 > As I have mentioned to Marvin in a private posting: he has mis-stated my > posting. The committe write-up DID mis-state as earlier supposed. The > poor result was NOT a consequence . . . My sincere apologies. Referring to my statement that the writeup must have been in error in saying that "The Director ruled that N/S=92s poor result was a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the table result to stand," and it should have been NOT a consequence, Mr. Beye wrote: Correct: "not a consequence" of the misinformation... And I carelessly, unforgivably, misinterpreted this to mean that the writeup was correct, even though he plainly meant that *I* was correct, and the writeup had omitted the "not." My only excuse is that my brain refused to see what my eyes saw in his statement.=20 > 1)The PP was assessed for failure to disclose prior to the commencement of > the defense. Yes, understood. The TD ruled no damage. > 2)The AC did not touch the PP But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and should have removed the PP. > 3)Unless the appeal form has changed in the last week the TDs name is on the > first line of the form, top right. But there is no place for a signature, which is what I was looking for. In addition to having their names listed, the appellants must sign, the non-appellants must sign, and the Committee Chairman must sign. The TD should also have to sign. > 4)I know of no TD who imposes PP in lieu of applying the Laws. Right. They say "no damage" when damage was obvious, then impose a PP. > 5)While I appreciate the several courtesies that have been extended to me, > my early experience has not been a pleasant one.=20 What can I say after I say I'm sorry? > Mis-statements of this > sort is exactly the reason that more TDs do not participate in this forum. > Well, that solves the mystery. =20 Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) =20 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 02:59:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 02:59:54 +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 CAA00522 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 02:59:49 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA06667; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808291657.JAA06667@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Grabiner" , Cc: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:54:31 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > >> If the PP was issued not for the _MI_ but for the _failure to reveal > >> that the explanation was mistaken before the opening lead_, then it > >> seems reasonable [if the TD judged that this E/W were so experienced > >> that they should have known their responsibilities]. I doubt if it > >> will become a universal practice, of course. > > > What's this?? The 2NT was explained as denying four spades or three > > hearts, and N-S perhaps "should have known their responsibilities" > > to find out that it *guaranteed* four spades and three hearts? You > > must be kidding! I must keep apologizing, as I took Grant's remark as referring to N-S. I can't read!! > The issue is that E-W should have known it was their responsibility to > correct misinformation before the opening lead. For failing to do this > properly, they could be given a procedural penalty. > > I think you are confisuing this with a situation in which there is MI > but the non-offenders should have known the situation or protected > themselves. Right, I was confused all right. I'll be more careful in the future. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 03:42:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 03:42:03 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00673 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 03:41:56 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032nb8.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.184]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA20214 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829134115.007efe40@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 13:41:15 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199808291647.JAA05589@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:44 AM 8/29/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> 2)The AC did not touch the PP > >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and should >have removed the PP. Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 05:05:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 05:05:10 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00826 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 05:05:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA20258; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 14:07:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-25.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.89) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020243; Sat Aug 29 14:07:06 1998 Received: by har-pa3-25.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BDD35E.8FB60820@har-pa3-25.ix.NETCOM.com>; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 15:06:12 -0400 Message-ID: <01BDD35E.8FB60820@har-pa3-25.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Richard F Beye'" Subject: RE: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 14:59:27 -0400 Encoding: 25 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a member of BLML you have the oppotunity to become aware of and correct such misstatements, and we are grateful that you are willing to take the time to do so. This group is a two way street...we can better understand the facts of a case or the phraseology of a writeup thanks to you. Perhaps on occasion you (and other TD's/AC members) can gain by the post mortem discussions of such cases. And we can all benefit in gaining a better understanding of what the laws are intended to mean, how they are being applied in practice, and how they should be applied (or perhaps modified or clarified) in future. Anyone who seriously cares about bridge being conducted in a fair and orderly fashion...and this should certainly include any director or player of sufficient substance to sit on a committee...can only gain by participating in this group, and we all can only gain by that participation. Please don't allow a few initial misunderstandings deter you...stay with us an encourage others who care to join. ---------- From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] As I have mentioned to Marvin in a private posting: he has mis-stated my posting. (snip) While I appreciate the several courtesies that have been extended to me, my early experience has not been a pleasant one. Mis-statements of this sort is exactly the reason that more TDs do not participate in this forum. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 05:33:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 05:33:57 +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 FAA00905 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 05:33:52 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA25531 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808291936.MAA25531@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 12:34:56 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and should > >have removed the PP. > > Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? > Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall award an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In fact, I believe it's illegal. If the offense seems to be habitual, write a Player Memo and send it to the Recorder. Yes, if anyone is wondering, the footnotes in the Laws are an integral part of the Laws. At least that is what EK told me when I argued otherwise. While we're on Case #8, I've been thinking about the TD action and how the decision of no damage could have been arrived at. N-S apparently did not claim they would have found a club switch until they were before the AC, so I suppose (just a guess) the TD group considered that defense but concluded the switch would not be found. Therefore no damage. They may have overlooked the fact that the spade lead, which would be very unlikely had East's 2NT been explained correctly, cost a trick. The AC did not overlook it. This case is a good argument for having ACs, not a panel of TDs (as is under consideration), decide appeals. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 07:50:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 07:50:39 +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 HAA01183 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 07:50:33 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.33]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 4047300 ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 17:49:14 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829175520.008004e0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 17:55:20 -0400 To: From: Bill Segraves Subject: footnotes an integral part Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and should > >have removed the PP. > > Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? > Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall award an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In fact, I believe it's illegal. If the offense seems to be habitual, write a Player Memo and send it to the Recorder. Yes, if anyone is wondering, the footnotes in the Laws are an integral part of the Laws. At least that is what EK told me when I argued otherwise. While we're on Case #8, I've been thinking about the TD action and how the decision of no damage could have been arrived at. N-S apparently did not claim they would have found a club switch until they were before the AC, so I suppose (just a guess) the TD group considered that defense but concluded the switch would not be found. Therefore no damage. They may have overlooked the fact that the spade lead, which would be very unlikely had East's 2NT been explained correctly, cost a trick. The AC did not overlook it. This case is a good argument for having ACs, not a panel of TDs (as is under consideration), decide appeals. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 07:52:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 07:52:31 +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 HAA01202 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 07:52:18 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-188.access.net.il [192.116.204.188]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id AAA11703; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 00:54:29 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35E87949.D4AEF139@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 00:57:29 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Buchhorn CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? References: <3.0.32.19980828105405.0092dc10@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read already about 20 messages of this thread and still believe the main idea is genial . I don't think that BLML Test should be an official examination for National or International TD certificate or degree. Anyway - it should be the theoretical part of a "manyfold" examination...(as Hirsch pointed their are many tasks to be checked , for a full qualification of TDs ......). I think BLML should build a bulk of 300 (????) questions , with 3-4 possible answers for each . For all questions ,the difficulty level will be defined (3 or 4 levels only). Anyone will select a set of questions , defining the number of questions and their dif. level . It will help him/her to self evaluate the own knowledge ; nothing more . But the most important thing is to decide that some of us will be a "gang" !! (better or worse a committee) to decide which questions and answers will be in this bulk . I volunteer ......Hope Bill will join ! Dany Markus Buchhorn wrote: > > Hi All > > Watching some of the discussions going past I had an idea, which I thought > I'd float: > > How about a TD test developed by BLML members ? > > Give it a web interface so anybody can sit it from anywhere, anytime. > > Store a set of ~100 (?) questions, "multiple choice" answers, and a > description of why the right answer is (probably) right (!). What about > free text answers ? Should there be such a thing anyway ? Perhaps have an > offline scorer handle them if needed. (multi-choice can be still quite > free-form, not just an 'ABC or D' - the web forms support much more than that) > > You could allow local/country variations. You could set a time limit for > each question and/or the whole test. > > At least as a testbed it could provide some nice ideas. The technological > side has some interesting problems, but I haven't thought of any > show-stoppers yet. The hardest part is the content of test itself. > > Computer-based traing and testing is becoming very widespread, so why not > apply it to BridgeTD? We have a pre-eminent BridgeTD community here, and > all are Net aware.... > > Comments ? > > 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 Sun Aug 30 08:14:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:14:03 +1000 Received: from witch.xtra.co.nz (witch.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01264 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:13:58 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p58-m19-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.177.122]) by witch.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA01638 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 10:16:10 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <35E98AD5.310B@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 10:24:37 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Howell movements Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is not a question on laws but is a directors problem. Our club is running a tournament and we have only eleven tables. Because of the type of tournament a minimum 36 boards must be played. A three quarter howell for 11 tables playing three boards a table with the first movement being used to make up the boards (computer generated hands but we don't possess a dealer) gives us the correct number of boards when played in two sessions. Unfortunately we have a wide variation in player ability from some very good senior players to some very poor learners (I am happy that the learners are prepared to play and hopefully learn more so wouldn't discourage them). My question is - how do we seed and seat in the intial movement so as to acheive the best possible spread of people played, especially over two sessions. Is there a book which describes seeding and initial seating or is it all done manually as I have just done ie testing all the various initial combinations until one appears to suit. Information thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. Yours Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 09:06:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 09:06:49 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA01377 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 09:06:44 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032nb8.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.184]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA10633 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 18:37:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829190604.007ef400@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 19:06:04 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199808291936.MAA25531@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 8/29/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: > >> > >> >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and >should >> >have removed the PP. >> >> Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? >> >Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a >mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall award >an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be >handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In >fact, I believe it's illegal. If I understand things correctly, an assigned adjusted score is an attempt to restore equity. In this case to take into consideration what result might have occurred had there been no misinformation. Yes, this adjustement favors the non-offending side in that it awards them the most favorable result that was likely. But, it is still an attempt to restore equity. Besides the misinformation, there was another Laws violation, in this case the failure to disclose the misinformation at the end of the auction. This violation of the proprieties is going unpunished. That may be OK. But, I don't see where punishing the violation is precluded. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 11:05:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:05:00 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01594 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:04:50 +1000 Received: from default (ptp62.ac.net [205.138.54.164]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA26887 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 20:43:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: Fw: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <01bdd2c3$b27e01a0$LocalHost@514160629worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>>The Facts: 3NT made five, plus 460 for E/W. The E/W agreement was >>>that 2NT showed both three hearts and four spades. West's 2NT bid >>>was explained (upon request during the auction) as denying three >>>hearts and denying four spades. The Director ruled that N/S's poor >>>result was a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the >>>table result to stand. >>> >>>(MLF: How's that? This must be a mistake in the write-up, or in the >>>transcription of it. Surely the TD ruled "not a consequence," odd >>>as that may seem.) >> >> >>Correct: "not a consequence" of the misinformation. Why odd? >> >>>The Director assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty >>>against E/W for failing to notify the opponents that the >>>explanation of the 2NT bid was believed to be erroneous (Law 75D2). >>> >>>(MLF: Funny, when I call the TD about MI, and s/he decides no harm >>>was done, no PP is issued and the TD just walks away. If this is a >>>new policy, that every MI deemed harmless is to result in a PP, I'm >>>going to start insisting on one being assessed in the future. Can I >>>appeal if the TD refuses?) Thanks, guys. This one is completely my fault. What happened was this: we were editing the report and Rich Colker made a change - rearranging some words and inserting the "not". My fingers and brain did not catch it at the tournament but our proofreading did as we are finalizing the cases to go out to our expert panelists. The official sentence will read: .... N/S's poor result was not a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the table result to stand.... those little tiny words can jump up and bite you sometimes... Hopefully we will have our corrected cases on the web shortly. Everyone tries real hard and we do the best we can, but at the tournament sometimes these errors will happen... >> >>The penalty applied: In a Nationally rated event players are expected to >>know their agreements and the laws of our game. ADDITIONALLY - The penalty >>was applied for the failure to disclose prior to the commencement of the >>defense. Had a full explanation been given prior to the opening lead >we(the >>staff) could have determined what, if any, actions would have been taken >by >>the NO. Additionally, the NO would have had all of the information needed >>to defend as they wished. >> We have taken the position to not publish the names in the Red Ribbon Pairs. Even though it is technically a Nationally rated event, it really is a Flight B game. Even stating that, I agree with the PP. Disclosing should be within the capabilities of these players, and, it it wasn't, I bet it is now! >> >>As is often the case with appeals, the line of play and defense changes as >>the players move from the table to the AC. This is not the line offered >to >>me, through the floor director. My, you said that tactfully :-) This defense was actually discussed by the >>staff, though I do not know if it was discussed with the defenders when the >>ruling was made. It is my recollection, though not with certainty, that >>North stated without a doubt that he would not have ever laid down the club >>A. >> >> Yup, it was.. and the Committee Chairman actually spent some extra time conversing with one of the players because of his good attitude and willingness to be open to learning something. >>>(MLF: Why must the names of TDs be kept a secret? I doubt that this >>>was a joint TD ruling!) I think our Director's do a very diligent job discussing their rulings before they are made. Even though there is disagreement as to the correctness of all the rulings, I believe for the most part, the right attitudes are there. That means we are all only going to get better and better as time goes on. This attitude is necessary for without it we would have no chance. >> >>Yep, it was. I am struggling to recall all of the discussions on this >>particular ruling. If more comes to mind I will pass it on to you. >> >> I too agree that the TD name(s) should be included in the write-ups. >>Unfortunately in the ACBL, unlike the WBF, neither the floor Director nor >>the DIC of the event attends the committee hearings. Isn't that because there is only 24 hours in a day? :-) I must say, that when a Committee detect the facts are tangled, they do make an effort to contact the Floor Director, who is almost always found, ready and willing to assist. Yes, the argument is that because more than one Director consults, using the name is unfair. I think it could be made clear that our Director's use a team approach. However, there is ultimately one Director responsible and his name not only reflects who was responsible for the ruling, but also how good his 'team approach' was to the ruling. If the DIC has the authority to tell a floor director that the DIC ruling is the ruling, then I suppose the DIC's name should be used. >>While I do not consider the appeal process adversarial, I commend you for that statement.. that is the right attitude. Neither do National Appeals Committee members. They have a great deal of respect for the the 'exact' facts do sometimes >>change as the players double-dummy the hands, discuss the auction, or >>analyze possible results on their way to the AC. >> Amen to that! Linda Weinstein From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 11:26:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:26:28 +1000 Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01628 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 11:26:23 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.84]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 4087100 ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:27:10 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829213313.0080fda0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:33:13 -0400 To: From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: footnotes an integral part Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199808300025.RAA29810@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:23 PM 8/29/98 -0700, you wrote: >Hey Bill, did you omit some comments here? - Marv Hi Marv et al., I am at a loss to explain why the previous message, which was just a copy of Marv's post that I was saving, wound up on BLML. Whatever button I hit must have been a doozy. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 13:32:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:32:36 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA01829 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:32:31 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA23099; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 20:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808300334.UAA23099@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 20:32:31 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > >> > > >> >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and > >should > >> >have removed the PP. > >> > >> Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? > >> > >Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a > >mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall award > >an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be > >handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In > >fact, I believe it's illegal. > > If I understand things correctly, an assigned adjusted score is an attempt > to restore equity. In this case to take into consideration what result > might have occurred had there been no misinformation. Yes, this > adjustement favors the non-offending side in that it awards them the most > favorable result that was likely. But, it is still an attempt to restore > equity. Besides the misinformation, there was another Laws violation, in > this case the failure to disclose the misinformation at the end of the > auction. This violation of the proprieties is going unpunished. That may > be OK. But, I don't see where punishing the violation is precluded. I see it as one infraction: A misexplanation was not corrected in the prescribed fashion. Even if there are two irregularities within the one, I'm not aware of any principle that says an adjusted score is not sufficient redress for a compound irregularity. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 13:42:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:42:29 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA01848 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:42:23 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032nb8.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.184]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA28417 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 23:12:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980829234145.007fc300@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 23:41:45 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199808300334.UAA23099@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:32 PM 8/29/98 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >I see it as one infraction: A misexplanation was not corrected in >the prescribed fashion. Even if there are two irregularities within >the one, I'm not aware of any principle that says an adjusted score >is not sufficient redress for a compound irregularity. I see it as two infractions. Even so if you do not, there's a big difference between an assigned adjusted score being sufficient redress and a procedural penalty be illegal. You did claim that the PP was illegal in a prior post, didn't you? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 14:25:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:25:15 +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 OAA01896 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:25:10 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA29363; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808300427.VAA29363@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Cc: Subject: Re: Fw: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:24:34 -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 Hard-working and very capable Linda Weinstein writes: > Thanks, guys. This one is completely my fault. > > What happened was this: we were editing the report and Rich Colker made a > change - rearranging some words and inserting the "not". My fingers and > brain did not catch it at the tournament but our proofreading did as we are > finalizing the cases to go out to our expert panelists. > > The official sentence will read: > > .... N/S's poor result was not a consequence of the misinformation and > allowed the table result to stand.... > > those little tiny words can jump up and bite you sometimes... Don't I know it! However, this particular error is of little importance, as the TD ruling does not seem right with or without the "not." > > Hopefully we will have our corrected cases on the web shortly. Everyone > tries real hard and we do the best we can, but at the tournament sometimes > these errors will happen... > Everyone should understand that, and I'm sure they do. It's amazing how good a job you and Rich do with writeups that are, well, sometimes not very literary. To repeat a suggestion I made last year: It would not be difficult for someone to print out case files that are headed for the Daily Bulletin and put them in a box that any participant in the case can access. There were two errors (by the author of the writeup) in a St Louis case that involved me, but I had no chance to see them until the case was published in the Daily Bulletin, put on the ACBL web site, and also on the Federation Suisse de Bridge web site. Rich corrected the official file, no problem, but it was weeks before the web versions got corrected. One of the errors was that I failed to Alert an Alertable call, pretty embarrassing for me. > > We have taken the position to not publish the names in the Red Ribbon > Pairs. Even though it is technically a Nationally rated event, it really > is a Flight B game. Even stating that, I agree with the PP. Disclosing > should be within the capabilities of these players, and, it it wasn't, I > bet it is now! > However, Linda, there is a Law (L75D2) that covers this infraction, which calls for an adjusted score, as the AC properly decided. A PP is not appropriate. > > Yes, the argument is that because more than one Director consults, using > the name is unfair. I think it could be made clear that our Director's use > a team approach. However, there is ultimately one Director responsible and > his name not only reflects who was responsible for the ruling, but also how > good his 'team approach' was to the ruling. If the DIC has the authority > to tell a floor director that the DIC ruling is the ruling, then I suppose > the DIC's name should be used. The Appeals Form has a place for the (printed) name of the TD who fills it out. It also has a place for the (printed) names of the appellants, non-appellants, and Committee Chairman. However, those last three must in addition sign the form, while the TD does not sign. IMO someone should sign off the official TD ruling, joint or not. If the TD called to the table does not agree with a joint ruling, the DIC can sign it off. Whoever signs off on the ruling should have his/her name mentioned in the official writeup. We all want to know who is making these rulings, good and bad, just as we want to know who the AC members are. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 14:35:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:35:20 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA01914 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:35:15 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00379; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808300437.VAA00379@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:35:54 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >I see it as one infraction: A misexplanation was not corrected in > >the prescribed fashion. Even if there are two irregularities within > >the one, I'm not aware of any principle that says an adjusted score > >is not sufficient redress for a compound irregularity. > > I see it as two infractions. > > Even so if you do not, there's a big difference between an assigned > adjusted score being sufficient redress and a procedural penalty being > illegal. You did claim that the PP was illegal in a prior post, didn't you? > Well, not exactly. My words were: "I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In fact, I believe it's illegal." Just an IMO, Tim. Procedural penalties are definitely not illegal, but applying them inappropriately could be. I'll sure be glad when Grattan and Ton get back. We can ask them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 14:35:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:35:51 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA01928 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:35:46 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00428 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808300438.VAA00428@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:36:57 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >I see it as one infraction: A misexplanation was not corrected in > >the prescribed fashion. Even if there are two irregularities within > >the one, I'm not aware of any principle that says an adjusted score > >is not sufficient redress for a compound irregularity. > > I see it as two infractions. > > Even so if you do not, there's a big difference between an assigned > adjusted score being sufficient redress and a procedural penalty being > illegal. You did claim that the PP was illegal in a prior post, didn't you? > Well, not exactly. My words were: "I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In fact, I believe it's illegal." Just an IMO, Tim. Procedural penalties are definitely not illegal, but applying them inappropriately could be. I'll sure be glad when Grattan and Ton get back. We can ask them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 17:51:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA02138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:51:10 +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 RAA02133 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:51:04 +1000 Received: from client267b.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.26.123] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 0zD2J0-0000l9-00; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:53:46 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Howell movements Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 08:55:52 +0100 Message-ID: <01bdd3eb$9c4e62c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 12:37 AM Subject: Re: Howell movements I love this type of problem but will take more than the few minutes available at the moment to work out the fine detail. In principle I would not advocate seeding the field. I would arrange an all play all two session event which would involve an 11 table switched mitchell, or an 11 table hesitation mitchell (arrow switched 10 tables on last two rounds) for session 1, and a 5.5 table double howell for session 2. It should be possible to arrange for people to play the pair they missed in session 1 (by making up the boards) at the half table in the double Howell. Is there a chance that either you can get a kind soul to make up a set (just one) for session 2 or would deal,play and record be acceptable (ie no hand copies). I suspect someone will have a suitable movement to hand, but if not I will put my brain into gear afterr the bank holiday if that is soon enough for you! Cheers Anne -----Original Message----- From: B A Small To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 11:52 PM Subject: Howell movements >This is not a question on laws but is a directors problem. Our club is >running a tournament and we have only eleven tables. Because of the type >of tournament a minimum 36 boards must be played. A three quarter >howell >for 11 tables playing three boards a table with the first movement >being >used to make up the boards (computer generated hands but we don't >possess a dealer) gives us the correct number of boards when played in >two sessions. Unfortunately we have a wide variation in player ability >from some very good senior players to some very poor learners (I am >happy that the learners are prepared to play and hopefully learn more >so >wouldn't discourage them). My question is - how do we seed and seat in >the intial movement so as to acheive the best possible spread of people >played, especially over two sessions. Is there a book which describes >seeding and initial seating or is it all done manually as I have just >done ie testing all the various initial combinations until one appears >to suit. >Information thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated. > >Yours Bruce > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 19:47:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:47:36 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f265.hotmail.com [207.82.251.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA02266 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:47:31 +1000 Received: (qmail 14485 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Aug 1998 09:49:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19980830094945.14484.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.98 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 02:49:41 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.98] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 02:49:41 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >>Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and >should >> >have removed the PP. >> Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? >Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a >mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall award >an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be >handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In >fact, I believe it's illegal. If the offense seems to be habitual, >write a Player Memo and send it to the Recorder. It is certainly not illegal. L90 allows a TD [and thus AC] to give a PP for any offence that he sees fit, and merely gives examples. Thus when an AC decides to make an adjustment and apply [or confirm a PPf] it has in effect made decisions under two separate Laws and there is no legal reason why it should not. In fact, as a general case, there have been discussions here in the past as to whether PPfs are suitable when there are adjustments. the two sides can be simply summarised as Pro: If you are going to give a PPf then you should do so every time without considering whether there is damage. Con: Players are upset enough when they lose an adjustment and do not need a PPf as well. As for a Player Memo, that is only practicable under jurisdictions that apply such a scheme. It is thus part of the decision. However, it is a long-winded and ponderous approach to a problem where best might easily be a quick 10% of a top or 3 imps. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 30 20:02:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 20:02:13 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f231.hotmail.com [207.82.251.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA02311 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 20:02:08 +1000 Received: (qmail 11174 invoked by uid 65534); 30 Aug 1998 10:04:22 -0000 Message-ID: <19980830100422.11173.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.98 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 03:04:21 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.98] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 03:04:21 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >To repeat a suggestion I made last year: It would not be difficult >for someone to print out case files that are headed for the Daily >Bulletin and put them in a box that any participant in the case can >access. Since I am currently involved in writing appeals up in Lille I am sure that this would be very difficult if not impractical here. I do not have a specific time for writing nor for submission and the whole thing is a crazy runaround. If I had to make them generally available it would be very difficult. As with so many suggestions it is clearly a good idea if it is practical - but I do not think it is. [s] >The Appeals Form has a place for the (printed) name of the TD who >fills it out. It also has a place for the (printed) names of the >appellants, non-appellants, and Committee Chairman. However, those >last three must in addition sign the form, while the TD does not >sign. IMO someone should sign off the official TD ruling, joint or >not. If the TD called to the table does not agree with a joint >ruling, the DIC can sign it off. Whoever signs off on the ruling >should have his/her name mentioned in the official writeup. We all >want to know who is making these rulings, good and bad, just as we >want to know who the AC members are. I believe that it would help if relevant TDs were mentioned, namely the TD at the table and the TD who presents the case. In Lille these are [correctly in my view] the same if it is possible. I have been told the names should not be published because decisions are joint - but I believe they should be published, and the jointness of decisions explained in an article. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 01:14:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 01:14:28 +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 BAA05217 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 01:14:20 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-133.access.net.il [192.116.204.133]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA25230; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 18:16:37 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35E96D8E.C886BCC2@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 18:19:42 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mlfrench@writeme.com CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" References: <199808030704.AAA24833@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Marv and all (after I got up again.......) Marvin L. French wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > (snip) > > Maybe BLML should have a voting procedure to come up with a majority > opinion after a matter has been discussed back and forth ad nauseum, > after which we accept the outcome of the vote and get on with other > matters. Then we could say, "Well, BLML's official opinion is..." > Such majority opinions might be helpful to the lawmakers on their > next go-round. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) I agree that BLML should have "its own opinion" - the question is how to decide which one is the best and most accurate right BLML's opinion. I don't want to hurt anyone , but I wouldn't be happy if 200 chess player will decide that I am the best bridge player in the world !!!! I don't say that some of us are more or less competent , but no serious decision can be taken by 200 people (well ...in a parliament representing 60 millions can be 500-600 members.....) My suggestion is to elect - by all 250 people here - 7-9 members of the BLML law opinions' committee - they will read the members' messages and then decide what the "formal/official" BLML opinion is This committee should vote , if not common agreement ...... I believe that the WBFLC and National LC will be very sensitive to such formal opinions .. And what about the "Commentaries to the 97 laws " , which will be published by the WBF or EBF ......????(Grattan promised them....) Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 01:14:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 01:14:57 +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 BAA05224 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 01:14:50 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-133.access.net.il [192.116.204.133]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id SAA25271; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 18:16:48 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <35E96D9A.9147CBB5@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 18:19:54 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: Jesper Dybdal , mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "The Intention of the WBFLC" References: <01bdc9dd$1aeae900$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hope this message will arrive until Grattan will come back , fresh and happy from Lille WBFLC's meeting..... As I pointed in the former message , Grattan promised to write the Commentaries to 97 Laws , as he did some 8-9 years ago. I believe that the "BLML by almost all members agreed opinions" will appear in these commentaries and a lot of cases discussed here will appear as annexes ( at least 80 !!!) Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > " WBF Laws Committee > The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically > review the laws; and at least once each decade shall > make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire > laws structure." > [ extract from the Constitution of the > World Bridge Federation ] > > \x/ much removed \x/ > >Jesper wrote: > > > >> I agree with David S that the WBFLC is and should be a law-making > >> body, not a law-interpreting body. The laws seem to say fairly > >> clearly that the ultimate law interpretation belongs to the > >> national authority, and there is therefore in general no such > >> thing as a globally correct interpretation of a law that is not > >> completely clear and unambiguous. > > +++ The laws do *not* say that ultimate law interpretations belong > to the national authority. They give the ultimate resolution of > appeals to national authorities, applying the defined laws; the > ultimate responsibility for interpreting the law rests with WBFLC > under its terms of reference. (See quoted extract from > the Constitution of the WBF.) +++ > > and mlfrench: > > > >It seems to me that it is a very bad policy for national authorities, > >who didn't even author the Laws, to interpret the same words in a > >different manner than the WBFLC>>>(snip) > > +++ This should not happen, but the evidence is that WBFLC > minutes and clarifications have not always and everywhere gone > 'down the line'. The Committee will be making efforts to change > this state of affairs, and it is my duty as Secretary of the > Committee to put decisions and information into the public > domain. As I have already said elsewhere, there is a proper > sequence in doing this which ensures that ZOs and NBOs are > the first recipients and I am setting up the means for doing it. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 06:44:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:44:14 +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 GAA06194 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:44:08 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22623; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808302046.NAA22623@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:43:36 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >From: "Marvin L. French" > >>Tim Goodwin wrote: > > >> >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and > >should > >> >have removed the PP. > > >> Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? > > >Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a > >mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall award > >an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be > >handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In > >fact, I believe it's illegal. If the offense seems to be habitual, > >write a Player Memo and send it to the Recorder. > > It is certainly not illegal. L90 allows a TD [and thus AC] to give a > PP for any offence that he sees fit, and merely gives examples. Thus > when an AC decides to make an adjustment and apply [or confirm a PPf] it > has in effect made decisions under two separate Laws and there is no > legal reason why it should not. What's a PPf? It's not on my abbreviation list. > > In fact, as a general case, there have been discussions here in the > past as to whether PPfs are suitable when there are adjustments. the > two sides can be simply summarised as > > Pro: If you are going to give a PPf then you should do so every time > without considering whether there is damage. How can there be an adjustment if there's no damage? I guess you mean when an adjustment is made, or when it isn't made because TD or AC rules no damage. But catching all harmless infractions is obviously impossible. It's not fair to assess PPs merely because a TD was called, or because a case goes to AC. If an opponent gives me MI and I still get a top, am I supposed to call the TD so he/she can assess a PP? > > Con: Players are upset enough when they lose an adjustment and do not > need a PPf as well. Not a valid argument, IMO. There are much better ones. The Laws are not supposed to be used selectively to avoid hurt feelings. ACBL's argument: Give a PP whenever you can't penalize an infraction (no damage), and sometimes when you can. Just to teach them a lesson! > > As for a Player Memo, that is only practicable under jurisdictions > that apply such a scheme. It is thus part of the decision. Get a system for handling misbehaviors. Don't depend on the Laws for that. I keep quoting the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." When PPs are used to punish irregularities that do not fit the type of procedure violations listed in L90B, the Laws are being misused. The lawmakers went to a lot of trouble making up that list in order to illustrate the sort of procedure violations intended for L90. It would have been easy to include an Item 8.: "Infractions that did not cause damage but ought to be penalized anyway." Or 9.: "Infractions for which a Director or Appeals Committee feel that the penalties specified in the Laws are not sufficient punishment." Since they did not do that, I must assume the intent was that PPs should not be used for these purposes. > However, it > is a long-winded and ponderous approach to a problem where best might > easily be a quick 10% of a top or 3 imps. > If an infraction that doesn't do damage is inadvertent or due to ignorance, it should be ignored or handled with a lecture. If it seems to be deliberate or habitual, it should be documented in some fashion. The computer scoring program could easily be modified to record C&E offenses (appealable, of course). The scores go to the national authority, which could accumulate misbehavior data from all over and provide a monitor (e.g., a Recorder) with a list of those having excessive "dark points." In short, don't use the Laws to deal out C&E punishments in the form of matchpoint or IMP penalties. They aren't intended for that. If you can't punish by disqualification per L91, don't resort to the modification of perfectly legal scores. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 06:47:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:47:39 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA06211 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:47:33 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22993; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808302049.NAA22993@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 13:48:26 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >From: "Marvin L. French" > >>Tim Goodwin wrote: > > >> >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and > >should > >> >have removed the PP. > > >> Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? > > >Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a > >mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall award > >an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be > >handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In > >fact, I believe it's illegal. If the offense seems to be habitual, > >write a Player Memo and send it to the Recorder. > > It is certainly not illegal. L90 allows a TD [and thus AC] to give a > PP for any offence that he sees fit, and merely gives examples. Thus > when an AC decides to make an adjustment and apply [or confirm a PPf] it > has in effect made decisions under two separate Laws and there is no > legal reason why it should not. What's a PPf? It's not on my abbreviation list. The legal reason is that you are modifying a perfectly legal score. > > In fact, as a general case, there have been discussions here in the > past as to whether PPfs are suitable when there are adjustments. the > two sides can be simply summarised as > > Pro: If you are going to give a PPf then you should do so every time > without considering whether there is damage. How can there be an adjustment if there's no damage? I guess you mean when an adjustment is made, or when it isn't made because TD or AC rules no damage. But catching all harmless infractions is obviously impossible. It's not fair to assess PPs merely because a TD was called, or because a case goes to AC. If an opponent gives me MI and I still get a top, am I supposed to call the TD to assess a PP? > > Con: Players are upset enough when they lose an adjustment and do not > need a PPf as well. Not a valid argument, IMO. There are much better ones. The Laws are not supposed to be used selectively to avoid hurt feelings. ACBL's argument: Give a PP whenever you can't penalize an infraction (no damage), and sometimes when you can. Just to teach them a lesson! > > As for a Player Memo, that is only practicable under jurisdictions > that apply such a scheme. It is thus part of the decision. Get a system for handling misbehaviors. Don't depend on the Laws for that. I keep quoting the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." When PPs are used to punish irregularities that do not fit the type of procedure violations listed in L90B, the Laws are being misused. The lawmakers went to a lot of trouble making up that list in order to illustrate the sort of procedure violations intended for L90. It would have been easy to include an Item 8.: "Infractions that did not cause damage but ought to be penalized anyway." Or 9.: "Infractions for which a Director or Appeals Committee feel that the penalties specified in the Laws are not sufficient punishment." Since they did not do that, I must assume the intent was that PPs should not be used for these purposes. > However, it > is a long-winded and ponderous approach to a problem where best might > easily be a quick 10% of a top or 3 imps. > If an infraction that doesn't do damage is inadvertent or due to ignorance, it should be ignored or handled with a lecture. If it seems to be deliberate or habitual, it should be documented in some fashion. The computer scoring program could easily be modified to record C&E offenses (appealable, of course). The scores go to the national authority, which could accumulate misbehavior data from all over and provide a monitor (e.g., a Recorder) with a list of those having excessive "dark points." In short, don't use the Laws to deal out C&E punishments in the form of matchpoint or IMP penalties. They aren't intended for that. If you can't punish by disqualification per L91, don't resort to the modification of perfectly legal scores. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 07:03:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:03:50 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06245 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:03:45 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24623; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808302105.OAA24623@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:03:20 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > >From: "Marvin L. French" > > >To repeat a suggestion I made last year: It would not be difficult > >for someone to print out case files that are headed for the Daily > >Bulletin and put them in a box that any participant in the case can > >access. > > Since I am currently involved in writing appeals up in Lille I am sure > that this would be very difficult if not impractical here. I do not > have a specific time for writing nor for submission and the whole thing > is a crazy runaround. If I had to make them generally available it > would be very difficult. > > As with so many suggestions it is clearly a good idea if it is > practical - but I do not think it is. > It depends on the procedure that is in place. My "box" idea is for writeups that have been completed, edited, typed into the computer, and put in a file ready for printing in the Daily Bulletin of the tournament. A given case might not be completed for days after the AC meeting, and maybe not until days after the tournament is over. That's okay. But if the typed and proofed text is available on the hard disk, why not print it out so those who are involved and are interested can look it over? Some of those inevitable and embarassing errors might be avoided. Fairness would say that a loser in the AC process should have the right to approve the writeup, but I guess that's not feasible. Anyway, I'm sure no responsible AC chairman would slant a writeup to make the decision look as good as possible. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 07:51:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:51:42 +1000 Received: from arcadia.a2000.nl ([62.108.1.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06396 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:51:09 +1000 Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by arcadia.a2000.nl (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA16781 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:53:32 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980830235220.00907a20@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:52:20 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 In-Reply-To: <199808302046.NAA22623@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:43 30-08-98 -0700, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >From: "Marvin L. French" > >> >>Tim Goodwin wrote: >> >> >> >But they did apply L12C2, ruling that there was damage, and >> >should >> >> >have removed the PP. >> >> >> Why can't there be a PP when there is damage? >> >> >Read the Example 1 footnote to L75D2, which says that when a >> >mistaken explanation results in damage, "the Director shall >award >> >an adjusted score." That is how a violation of L75D2 is to be >> >handled, and I don't think it's right that a PP be tacked on. In >> >fact, I believe it's illegal. If the offense seems to be >habitual, >> >write a Player Memo and send it to the Recorder. >> >> It is certainly not illegal. L90 allows a TD [and thus AC] to >give a >> PP for any offence that he sees fit, and merely gives examples. >Thus >> when an AC decides to make an adjustment and apply [or confirm a >PPf] it >> has in effect made decisions under two separate Laws and there is >no >> legal reason why it should not. > ++++++ well, law 90 gives indeed PPF (should be procedural penalty fines i suppose) in a number of circumstances, but reading the article, i also think this type doesnt fit the resume of the article. And i also think tha a TD should be very careful not to give penalties to people he cant do with in normal procedural ways. 84E is very explicit i think. There only adjustments are mentioned, no PP(f)'s. If a TD wishes to handle with malicious people, he has 1 at his disposal (and no one can appeal these penalties). I think TD's too should abide the laws, like it or not. >What's a PPf? It's not on my abbreviation list. >> see above (i hope) >> In fact, as a general case, there have been discussions here in >the >> past as to whether PPfs are suitable when there are adjustments. >the >> two sides can be simply summarised as >> >> Pro: If you are going to give a PPf then you should do so every >time >> without considering whether there is damage. > >How can there be an adjustment if there's no damage? I guess you >mean when an adjustment is made, or when it isn't made because TD >or AC rules no damage. But catching all harmless infractions is >obviously impossible. It's not fair to assess PPs merely because a >TD was called, or because a case goes to AC. If an opponent gives >me MI and I still get a top, am I supposed to call the TD so he/she >can assess a PP? >> well, perhaps (it can be a silly remark of me) we sould keep in mind that the laws are in the firs place to equalize errors and they wish to compnsate for erraneous behaviour, they are specifically not intended for punishing (i cant find my english laws, so sorry for bad translation) >> Con: Players are upset enough when they lose an adjustment and do >not >> need a PPf as well. > >Not a valid argument, IMO. There are much better ones. The Laws are >not supposed to be used selectively to avoid hurt feelings. > why??? the laws arent invented for PP's >ACBL's argument: Give a PP whenever you can't penalize an >infraction (no damage), and sometimes when you can. Just to teach >them a lesson! >> sorry, if you want to give them a lesson, deal with DP please We arent here on earth to teach bridgeplayers lessons, we should abide the laws i think >> As for a Player Memo, that is only practicable under >jurisdictions >> that apply such a scheme. It is thus part of the decision. I also think that we should be more aware of the possibility of memo's (written archives of behaviour of players), proveded, we have access to a database in which these data are stored. > >Get a system for handling misbehaviors. Don't depend on the Laws >for that. I keep quoting the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are >primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather >as redress for damage." When PPs are used to punish irregularities >that do not fit the type of procedure violations listed in L90B, >the Laws are being misused. hear hear The lawmakers went to a lot of trouble >making up that list in order to illustrate the sort of procedure >violations intended for L90. It would have been easy to include an >Item 8.: "Infractions that did not cause damage but ought to be >penalized anyway." Or 9.: "Infractions for which a Director or >Appeals Committee feel that the penalties specified in the Laws are >not sufficient punishment." Since they did not do that, I must >assume the intent was that PPs should not be used for these >purposes. > >> However, it >> is a long-winded and ponderous approach to a problem where best >might >> easily be a quick 10% of a top or 3 imps. i stil think TD's should have better means to convince players than punishment >> >If an infraction that doesn't do damage is inadvertent or due to >ignorance, it should be ignored or handled with a lecture. sure If it >seems to be deliberate or habitual, it should be documented in some >fashion. and punished (and recorded too) The computer scoring program could easily be modified to >record C&E offenses (appealable, of course). The scores go to the >national authority, which could accumulate misbehavior data from >all over and provide a monitor (e.g., a Recorder) with a list of >those having excessive "dark points." > Then each TD should have access to this list i hope >In short, don't use the Laws to deal out C&E punishments in the >form of matchpoint or IMP penalties. They aren't intended for that. >If you can't punish by disqualification per L91, don't resort to >the modification of perfectly legal scores. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > > > anton > > > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 08:55:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 08:55:04 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA06461 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 08:54:58 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zDGPk-0006IG-00; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:57:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:56:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: psyche when partner is silenced MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mise en scene: The trials for the GB U25 squad so the standard is good The hand: Game all 3 The auction: Dlr East 986532 E S W N 3 2D (OOT) AKQ96 Multi (wk 2 either major) 95 AKQ2 (or some strong hands) KJ104 AQ7 Call cancelled KQ954 AJ1072 Law 29A 29C 31A N is silenced 83 10 1D 1H! 2D P J108764 2S P 3NT P - 4H P 5D P 86 6D End J7542 !1H psyche with partner silenced Lead 4C to the Q; East bans a spade return and claims with the words "making unless S can ruff the return" !!!!! L23: South could not have known AT THE TIME OF HIS INFRACTION etc Ruling: 6D down 1. Hand recorded to ensure that South doesn't do it again with this partner as UK regulations can treat it as an unlicensed convention. TD ascertained that this was the first occurrence of this action in this partnership, and indeed first occurrence for the player Further comments: TD is one of the 6 UK National Directors He consulted with me and I agreed with his ruling not knowing who was involved Perpetrator: My son Richard (creative; wild; ethical). "Having got to this position unintentionally it seemed a good shot and I can see nothing illegal with what I did" (This is not in contention) AC: ... so you're the appeals committee. What's your judgement? ... Can you apply 12A --> 12C2 ? -- 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 Aug 31 09:37:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:37:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA06603 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:37:17 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0zDH4i-00007k-00; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:40:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 00:38:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: <35E96D8E.C886BCC2@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <35E96D8E.C886BCC2@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici writes > >> Maybe BLML should have a voting procedure to come up with a majority >> opinion after a matter has been discussed back and forth ad nauseum, >> after which we accept the outcome of the vote and get on with other >> matters. Then we could say, "Well, BLML's official opinion is..." >> Such majority opinions might be helpful to the lawmakers on their >> next go-round. >> I can see no good reason why BLML should have an official opinion IMO BLML is a forum for discussion, not an advisory body to a Law Drafting Committee. To give it any Official status would not be in its best interests. It may well be that the Laws Drafting Committee takes note of our discussions, and that OTOH is useful feedback, but for BLML to become a "pressure group" with "lobbyists" etc. NO NO NO. I believe that we are essentially a group of Law Givers, not Law Makers, and that it is up to the Law Makers to change Laws which they find are being applied in such a way as to be contrary to their (the Law Makers) intention. In a separate thread I have raised a topic regarding psyching facing a silenced partner which the Law Makers might well wish to address, but I believe it wrong for us even to start to suggest how such action should be legislated, or even for us to have an official position thereon. -- 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 Aug 31 10:01:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:01:08 +1000 Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA06670 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:01:02 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032nb8.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.184]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA14926 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980830200016.0079b100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 20:00:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 PM 8/30/98 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Mise en scene: The trials for the GB U25 squad so the standard is good > >The hand: > >Game all 3 The auction: >Dlr East 986532 E S W N > 3 2D (OOT) > AKQ96 Multi (wk 2 either major) >95 AKQ2 (or some strong hands) >KJ104 AQ7 Call cancelled >KQ954 AJ1072 Law 29A 29C 31A N is silenced >83 10 1D 1H! 2D P > J108764 2S P 3NT P > - 4H P 5D P > 86 6D End > J7542 !1H psyche with partner silenced Is it just me or are auctions a lot easier to read when the positions are arranged W N E S or S W N E? This way west is to the left of east in the auction as well as the hand diagram. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 13:22:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:22:51 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA07114 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:22:44 +1000 Received: from default (ptp42.ac.net [205.138.54.121]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA16760 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808310325.XAA16760@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:29:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Weinstein Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" In-Reply-To: References: <35E96D8E.C886BCC2@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I STRONGLY!!! agree with this position... Why does it have to matter what happens with our discussions? We have them for ourselves.. nothing else is necessary... Linda At 12:38 AM 8/31/98 +0100, you wrote: >In article <35E96D8E.C886BCC2@internet-zahav.net>, Dany Haimovici > writes >> >>> Maybe BLML should have a voting procedure to come up with a majority >>> opinion after a matter has been discussed back and forth ad nauseum, >>> after which we accept the outcome of the vote and get on with other >>> matters. Then we could say, "Well, BLML's official opinion is..." >>> Such majority opinions might be helpful to the lawmakers on their >>> next go-round. >>> > >I can see no good reason why BLML should have an official opinion > >IMO BLML is a forum for discussion, not an advisory body to a Law >Drafting Committee. To give it any Official status would not be in its >best interests. It may well be that the Laws Drafting Committee takes >note of our discussions, and that OTOH is useful feedback, but for BLML >to become a "pressure group" with "lobbyists" etc. NO NO NO. > >I believe that we are essentially a group of Law Givers, not Law Makers, >and that it is up to the Law Makers to change Laws which they find are >being applied in such a way as to be contrary to their (the Law Makers) >intention. > >In a separate thread I have raised a topic regarding psyching facing a >silenced partner which the Law Makers might well wish to address, but I >believe it wrong for us even to start to suggest how such action should >be legislated, or even for us to have an official position thereon. >-- >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 Aug 31 14:05:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:05:06 +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 OAA07163 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:04:58 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093na9.san.rr.com [204.210.49.169]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA13343; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:07:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199808310407.VAA13343@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: "The intention of the WBFLC" Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:04:12 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici writes: > > > > >> Maybe BLML should have a voting procedure to come up with a majority > >> opinion after a matter has been discussed back and forth ad nauseum, > >> after which we accept the outcome of the vote and get on with other > >> matters. Then we could say, "Well, BLML's official opinion is..." > >> Such majority opinions might be helpful to the lawmakers on their > >> next go-round. > >> Dany, stick to the word "majority" instead of "official" and this idea will fly better. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 15:03:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:03:38 +1000 Received: from smtp4.nwnexus.com (smtp4.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA07324 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:03:32 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA30900; Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 22:06:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Tim Goodwin cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980830200016.0079b100@maine.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Tim Goodwin wrote: > Is it just me or are auctions a lot easier to read when the positions are > arranged W N E S or S W N E? This way west is to the left of east in the > auction as well as the hand diagram. Absolutely!! It is not just you. I have favored this approach for years. This should become a standard for the internet as well as bridge books, columns and everything else. I find it a little easier if West is the first column on the left, as West is the opponent on the left. If South is first, your eye jumps from left to right in reading, but the actual flow in real life is from right to left. Some may say the same thing happens when South is at the end, but reading three bids, one just knows it is South's turn next. The Bridge World and its Master Solvers' Club start with South, but The Bulletin starts with West. Either is really OK, compared with the one presented in the original post, especially if they are consistent. Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 18:59:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:59:00 +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 SAA07760 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:58:53 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id KAA27113 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:01:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 10:00 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: unusual UI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980828132003.006ca358@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > We should not make the mistake of equating "unauthorized information" > with > "information received from an unauthorized source". "Unauthorized > information" is, by definition, "information which is not authorized". > Information received from an authorized source is authorized > information. > When we have received identical information from both an authorized and > an > unauthorized source, we have received it from an authorized source, > which > makes it authorized information, which means that it is not unauthorized > information, notwithstanding that it may have been redundantly received > from an unauthorized source as well. > I completely agree with everything in the paragraph above. However, it does not seem germane to the case in question. There is no "authorised" source for the information that partner has remembered the system. > Failing to comprehend this distinction leads to chaos. If I make an > unalertable bid, and partner doesn't alert it, I have information from > an > unauthorized source (partner's failure to alert) that partner hasn't > mistaken my bid for an alertable convention. If I have an LA available > based solely on the possibility of partner's having mistakenly thought I > made an alertable bid, must I take it? That's the way I read the current law (I still don't like it). Assume that you have a slightly forgetful partner who usually plays transfers but you and he have agreed to play weakness take-outs. the Auction proceeds: 1NT - 2H (not alerted) 2S - ? This is an auction so unusual in ordinary no-convention bridge that I would always allow "waking up" if the 2H is alerted. Again in the absence of info on the alert/non-alert status I would seriously consider the possibility that pard had forgotten the system. I guess I would like to see a rider to L16 stating eg: "In a properly explained/alerted auction a potential bid which breaches partnership trust will not be considered an LA". Not proud of the wording here but I hope the philosophy is clear. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 19:36:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:36:33 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f111.hotmail.com [207.82.250.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA07797 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:36:27 +1000 Received: (qmail 19682 invoked by uid 65534); 31 Aug 1998 09:38:41 -0000 Message-ID: <19980831093841.19681.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.122 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 02:38:41 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.122] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case #8 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 02:38:41 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >In short, don't use the Laws to deal out C&E punishments in the >form of matchpoint or IMP penalties. They aren't intended for that. >If you can't punish by disqualification per L91, don't resort to >the modification of perfectly legal scores. The matters we are talking about are not designed for C&E methods. If someone commits a perfectly normal infraction then it is legal and normal to issue a PP, either a fine or a warning, and it is a good method. It is not a good method to rely on some cumbersome system that involves keeping interminable records. It is undesirable, and leads to a less sociable atmosphere in bridge generally. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 19:47:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:47:47 +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 TAA07813 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:47:41 +1000 Received: (qmail 2207 invoked by uid 65534); 31 Aug 1998 09:49:56 -0000 Message-ID: <19980831094956.2206.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 193.252.74.122 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 02:49:56 PDT X-Originating-IP: [193.252.74.122] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Psyche when partner is silenced Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 02:49:56 PDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Tim Goodwin >Is it just me or are auctions a lot easier to read when the >positions are arranged W N E S or S W N E? This way west is to the >left of east in the auction as well as the hand diagram. W N E S is considered standard in England. Perhaps we should tell John! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, England, UK david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Currently in Lille, France bluejak666@hotmail.com Use hotmail address until 2/8 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 19:57:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:57:14 +1000 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA07829 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:57:10 +1000 Received: from JulieAtkinson (p34-max32.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.212.239.226]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA20623; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:59:50 +1200 Message-ID: <000101bdd4c5$c658dc00$e2efd4cf@JulieAtkinson> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:25:22 +1200 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 I dont know the definition that is used in the UK for a psyche bid, however if partner wasnt barred and N opened 1H I doubt that I would define it as a psyche. It comfortably falls within the rule of 18 for an opening hand, and is only a K short of the values you would expect with far less distribution. That aside, I think that a psyche in this position should be illegal. I would like to see an addition to Law 73E "...(so long as the deception is not protected by.... experience).. "by adding not protected by partner being barred from the auction. The other Law that can be applied is Law 23. If a player commits an infraction that bars partner and then psyches, then I need to be persuaded that Law 23 wouldnt apply. I dont see how Law 12 can be applied in any form. The psyche is not a violation of law, therefore 12A doesnt apply. The oot has been covered by Law so 12C cant apply either. Indeed Law 72A5 would appear to allow it. -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 11:17 AM Subject: psyche when partner is silenced >Mise en scene: The trials for the GB U25 squad so the standard is good > >The hand: > >Game all 3 The auction: >Dlr East 986532 E S W N > 3 2D (OOT) > AKQ96 Multi (wk 2 either major) >95 AKQ2 (or some strong hands) >KJ104 AQ7 Call cancelled >KQ954 AJ1072 Law 29A 29C 31A N is silenced >83 10 1D 1H! 2D P > J108764 2S P 3NT P > - 4H P 5D P > 86 6D End > J7542 !1H psyche with partner silenced > >Lead 4C to the Q; East bans a spade return and claims with the words > "making unless S can ruff the return" !!!!! > >L23: South could not have known AT THE TIME OF HIS INFRACTION etc > >Ruling: 6D down 1. > >Hand recorded to ensure that South doesn't do it again with this partner >as UK regulations can treat it as an unlicensed convention. TD >ascertained that this was the first occurrence of this action in >this partnership, and indeed first occurrence for the player > >Further comments: TD is one of the 6 UK National Directors > He consulted with me and I agreed with his ruling > not knowing who was involved > >Perpetrator: My son Richard (creative; wild; ethical). > "Having got to this position unintentionally it > seemed a good shot and I can see nothing illegal > with what I did" (This is not in contention) > >AC: ... so you're the appeals committee. What's your judgement? > ... Can you apply 12A --> 12C2 ? >-- >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 Aug 31 21:37:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:37:51 +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 VAA07933 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:37:44 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.164]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.07/64) id 4447300 ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:35:13 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980831073917.00800410@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:39:17 -0400 To: Dany Haimovici From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: A BLML Directors test ? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <35E87949.D4AEF139@internet-zahav.net> References: <3.0.32.19980828105405.0092dc10@acsys.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >But the most important thing is to decide that some of us >will be a "gang" !! (better or worse a committee) to decide which >questions and answers will be in this bulk . >I volunteer ......Hope Bill will join ! One of the most important features of a multiple choice test is a set of plausible-sounding, but demonstrably wrong, answers. I will do my best to provide some. ;) Due to other commitments (including an internet bridge laws project in which I hope to enlist the assistance of BLML - more on that in a week or two), my participation may have to be somewhat limited, but I'll be happy to pitch in as needed. Despite my cautionary notes about designing a test suitable for any type of certification, I think having a test for self-assessment and educational purposes is a *great* idea. Fwiw, it seems to me that almost any thread from the last few years could essentially be converted into a question. For each, there's a question and a series of answers, some of them correct, some of them demonstrably incorrect. With a little culling and tweaking, we'd have a multiple choice question. This would give a good starting database, and new threads would provide a continuous source of new questions for long-term growth of the database. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 23:12:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:12:11 +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 XAA08039 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:12:02 +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 JAA28551 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980831091606.006df0c8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:16:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psyche when partner is silenced In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 PM 8/30/98 +0100, John wrote: >Mise en scene: The trials for the GB U25 squad so the standard is good > >The hand: > >Game all 3 The auction: >Dlr East 986532 E S W N > 3 2D (OOT) > AKQ96 Multi (wk 2 either major) >95 AKQ2 (or some strong hands) >KJ104 AQ7 Call cancelled >KQ954 AJ1072 Law 29A 29C 31A N is silenced >83 10 1D 1H! 2D P > J108764 2S P 3NT P > - 4H P 5D P > 86 6D End > J7542 !1H psyche with partner silenced > >Lead 4C to the Q; East bans a spade return and claims with the words > "making unless S can ruff the return" !!!!! > >L23: South could not have known AT THE TIME OF HIS INFRACTION etc Correct. >Ruling: 6D down 1. Correct. >Hand recorded to ensure that South doesn't do it again with this partner >as UK regulations can treat it as an unlicensed convention. TD >ascertained that this was the first occurrence of this action in >this partnership, and indeed first occurrence for the player The point here eludes me. Why would a bid with no explicitly associated conventional meaning made opposite a barred partner ever be "treat[ed]" as a convention? >Further comments: TD is one of the 6 UK National Directors > He consulted with me and I agreed with his ruling > not knowing who was involved > >Perpetrator: My son Richard (creative; wild; ethical). > "Having got to this position unintentionally it > seemed a good shot and I can see nothing illegal > with what I did" (This is not in contention) Richard is right, and it should not be in contention. >AC: ... so you're the appeals committee. What's your judgement? > ... Can you apply 12A --> 12C2 ? No adjustment. The TD's ruling was impeccable. Congratulations to South for his coup. Is the question whether the AC should keep E-W's deposit? 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 Aug 31 23:28:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:28:17 +1000 Received: from ws2.icl.co.uk (mailgate.icl.co.uk [194.176.223.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08059 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:28:04 +1000 Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws2.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA03663 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:30:33 GMT Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12518; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:30:04 +0100 Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id OAA19164; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:19:32 +0100 X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 31 Aug 98 14:18:32 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 31 Aug 98 14:04:30 +0100 X400-Received: by mta feldr1 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 31 Aug 98 14:18:41 +0100 X400-Received: by mta POL0103 in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 31 Aug 98 15:18:37 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 31 Aug 98 14:18:41 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 31 Aug 98 15:18:00 +0200 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 15:18:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G40021B7C63E00000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <19124.262643984@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: RE: Howell movements Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that the way suggested by Anne Jones is the best. First session - 11 table switched Mitchell (arrow switched for the last 3 or 2 rounds). Positions: 1-11 NS, 12-22 EW. Second session - double Howell arranged as follows: movement for pairs 1..11 >1EW >3EW >9NS >7EW >9EW>11EW >3NS >7NS>11NS >8EW >8NS > 1 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 movement for pairs 12..22 >1NS>10EW >4NS >6EW >4EW >2EW>10NS >6NS >2NS >5EW >5NS > 12 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 POSITIONING FOR FIRST ROUND OF HOWELL Tbl NS EW 1 12 1 2 15 18 3 6 11 4 21 19 5 13 14 6 16 20 7 5 9 8 2 3 9 10 8 10 17 22 11 4 7 Best regards, Janek Romanski ___________________________________________________________________ Tel:+48-22-6310566 Fax:+48-22-6320979 Mobile: +48 601403308 email: jan_f_romanski@x400.icl.co.uk X.400: G:Romanski S:Jan I:F O:ICL OU1:POL0103 P:ICL A:GOLD 400 C:PL From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 31 23:36:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:36:37 +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 XAA08097 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 23:36:31 +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 JAA29485 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980831094036.006db840@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:40:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: unusual UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:00 AM 8/31/98 BST-1, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980828132003.006ca358@pop.cais.com> >Eric Landau wrote: >> We should not make the mistake of equating "unauthorized information" >> with >> "information received from an unauthorized source". "Unauthorized >> information" is, by definition, "information which is not authorized". >> Information received from an authorized source is authorized >> information. >> When we have received identical information from both an authorized and >> an >> unauthorized source, we have received it from an authorized source, >> which >> makes it authorized information, which means that it is not unauthorized >> information, notwithstanding that it may have been redundantly received >> from an unauthorized source as well. >> >I completely agree with everything in the paragraph above. However, it >does not seem germane to the case in question. There is no "authorised" >source for the information that partner has remembered the system. There may be no external (authorized) source, but there must be an implicit one. Perhaps we need a new term, something like "authorized assumption". Some knowledge *must* be assumed to be authorized at any time absent some positive indication that the user of it wasn't aware of it. This would include one's hand, the conditions of the deal, the auction, the state of play, and, IMO, knowledge of one's bidding methods. >> Failing to comprehend this distinction leads to chaos. If I make an >> unalertable bid, and partner doesn't alert it, I have information from >> an >> unauthorized source (partner's failure to alert) that partner hasn't >> mistaken my bid for an alertable convention. If I have an LA available >> based solely on the possibility of partner's having mistakenly thought I >> made an alertable bid, must I take it? > >That's the way I read the current law (I still don't like it). Assume that >you have a slightly forgetful partner who usually plays transfers but you >and he have agreed to play weakness take-outs. the Auction proceeds: >1NT - 2H (not alerted) >2S - ? > >This is an auction so unusual in ordinary no-convention bridge that I >would always allow "waking up" if the 2H is alerted. Again in the absence >of info on the alert/non-alert status I would seriously consider the >possibility that pard had forgotten the system. I believe that is a mis-reading of the current law on the grounds that it leads to induction to absurdity (i.e. chaos). Why should forgetting one's system be different from forgetting one's hand, or forgetting who won the last trick? I pick up a new hand and fan it. I expose 12 cards containing 10 HCP. As I start to count the cards in the fan, a kibitzer says "you've got a card hidden there" -- clearly information coming from an unauthorized source. When the hidden card is revealed, it is an ace. Must I now bid the hand as though I hold 10 HCP rather than 14? I am distracted during a hand, and when my attention returns I look at my cards and look up. Partner, misreading my body language, says "it's not your turn" -- clearly an unauthorized remark. Must I now play out of turn? >I guess I would like to see a rider to L16 stating eg: >"In a properly explained/alerted auction a potential bid which breaches >partnership trust will not be considered an LA". Not proud of the wording >here but I hope the philosophy is clear. It wouldn't be the first time the laws have been altered to clarify a point that seemed clear to start with but managed to get misinterpreted along the line (cf. "demonstrably"). 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